'Freedom From Religion' Group Sues To Stop Inauguration Prayer

[babylonsister]

Freedom From Religion Foundation sues over prayer at inauguration

Samara Kalk Derby — 12/30/2008 5:52 am


The Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to stop prayer from being part of the Jan. 20 presidential inauguration.

The Madison-based foundation, its co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor and several of its members are among the 29 co-plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, Newdow vs. Roberts, filed Monday by attorney Michael Newdow in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit seeks to stop the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint said for most of the country's history, clergy has not led prayers at inaugurations.

Similarly, the lawsuit seeks to stop U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from using the religious phrase, "so help me God," in the presidential oath of office.

more...

http://www.madison.com/tct/news/stories/429922

[merh]

1. I like it.

I don't see why prayer is part of the national ceremony.

If he wants prayers, he can have them said at the private celebrations, the invite only ones that are paid for by his inauguration committee, with privately raised monies.

As for the "so help me god" - no biggie for me - he could pinkie swear and that would be alright too.

:hi:

[Cha]

84. It certainly does let them know

there are other points of view by Americans that don't include religion.

[Number23]

145. I kind of agree. I have no problem with there NOT being a prayer at the inaug

The way I think that it was meant to be...

[Raineyb]

162. I wish they'd started sooner

I like this idea. I don't really see why we need prayers at what ought to be a secular event for a secular government. It was one of the two problems I had with this whole invocation brouhaha.

[DavidDvorkin]

2. Good for them

Too bad it won't work. Too bad about the predictable outpouring of hatred and scorn and dismissal, some of which will show up on DU.

[Solon]

3. They have a valid case, especially with the "no religious test" clause and the First Amendment. n/t

[Chulanowa]

28. It's already purely optional

So i'm not sure how valid the case may be. A President-Elect can opt out of that part. There's no need for a bible, or the exact phrasing, blahblahblah.

Sounds to me like this group is trying to push their theological views on others, rather than the other way around.

[ellacott]

30. That's how I see it also

It's been done for years. It should be at the discretion of the PE. They have a prayer at the start of congress. They have a national chaplain for the military that is tax payer funded.

I don't want religion forced upon me but I'm secure enough in myself not to get offended by anyone else's expression of faith.

[onenote]

29. not even close to a valid case

the fact that Obama chooses to be sworn in on a bible -- not a legal requirement -- means that its not a religious test or otherwise violative of the First Amendment.

[GarbagemanLB]

4. I agree with the idea that there should be no prayer, but isn't this the same organization

that put up that stupid sign in Washington state?

[tbyg52]

14. A) no more "stupid" than church marquees, and B) it got a lot of new members. nt

[JuniperLea]

15. Why was it stupid? eom

[GarbagemanLB]

21. because it was needlessly provocative. I like that they put a sign up, but the last sentence

wasn't necessary and really only hurts the cause.

[JuniperLea]

23. Hurts the cause? Needlessly provocative?

To whom? And as I recall, "the cause" rallied a lot of support and new members when that sign was put up.

Refresh my memory... what was written that was "needlessly provocative?"

[GarbagemanLB]

25. 'Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.'

Way to reach out and provide a positive alternative to Christianity.

Angry atheists are almost as bad as right-wing nutjobs...and this is coming from an agnostic.

[JuniperLea]

26. Too bad you find the truth so hard to tolerate

Showing a way out of slavery is a good thing. Slavery = Negative... showing a way out would be positive.

I'm Agnostic, a recovering Fundy... and I'm mad as hell about having religion crammed down my throat. Not to mention crammed down my government.

[onenote]

36. were you mad enough about it to vote for someone other than Obama?

After all, he's made no bones about the fact that he's a religous person. Did you really support someone who's heart has been hardened and mind enslaved by superstition?

[JuniperLea]

52. Of course I voted for Obama!

You are seriously stretching in order to find something to come down on me with! And where in any post I've ever made here on DU did I say people shouldn't be religious? It's their choice, and some people actually walk the talk, instead of just talking the talk. There's no problem with that.

I have a problem with people forcing a myth on others and claiming it to be true. Not all beliefs are true. This one is a myth.

I also have a problem with people forcing THE TRUTH to be removed from public view.

[onenote]

56. so you voted for someone who believes in a myth that hardens hearts and enslaves minds

Why would you do that?

[JuniperLea]

59. It's his business

And as long as he doesn't mix religion with my government, I have no problem with him being a man of religion at all.

I have no problem with religion, and every American has the right to worship as they please. Those same Americans have a right to live free of religion too! It's only fair to ALL that religion be removed from all governmental proceedings. This isn't just about Atheists or Agnostics! What about Jews, Hindus, Buddhists? Is it fair to force a religion not of their own choice into THEIR government?

Prove Christianity is not a myth. What that sign stated is true. And here we have truth suffering because of the hurt feelings of people who believe in a myth. It doesn't make sense.

[rhett o rick]

143. Because we had no other choice. He wasn't my first choice. nm

[bread_and_roses]

200. And who is naive enough to believe what any politician in US says about their religion?

Since any one of them that did not avow his religiosity would never make it past Alderman, if that far? Obama may well be a genuinely religious person (though how anyone with a grain of even common sense, much less intelligence, can believe in a "God" in the 21st century is beyond me) however, even were he not he would not dare say so. Such is the state of our supposedly "secular" governance. So why would anyone put any credence in what any politican states out loud for the public?

I like this suit, though it hasn't a tinkers chance in hell. And I liked the billboard too. No reason the hell and brimstone crowd should have the sole right to inflict eyesores on the rest of us.

[GarbagemanLB]

42. It's a shitty statement to make, especially on the holidays. Again, angry atheists are almost

as bad as right-wing christians.

Some people use religion as comfort after traumatic life experiences. Who the fuck are you to say they are 'enslaved'?

[JuniperLea]

51. I'm one who has been there... enslaved...

It's much like Stockholm Syndrome. Yes, people use it as comfort instead of facing the reality. Exactly like people who turn to drugs to escape reality. Religion is the knot people tie at the end of their rope.

The truth will set you free, but first it will piss you off.

I'm not an unkind person. I'm a realist.

[cosmik debris]

69. Now see, there's the funny part.

"...especially on the holidays."

You seem to think that you can set aside 6 weeks or so every year to give christianity a moratorium from criticism.

Sorry, it is not my holiday and I don't feel like christians deserve ANY moratorium.

When you get your religion out of my government, then I'll give you your moratorium.

[Danger Mouse]

74. I don't want my fucking religion in your government, I couldn't care less about that.

I want to be able to practice my religion in peace without being insulted by smug jerks, that's all.

[cosmik debris]

79. And I want to be able to practice my government in peace

without being insulted by smug jerks too. But I'm not going to get my way either.

Deal with it.

[Danger Mouse]

80. Not all Christians are the same. Insult the worst elements among us if you feel you must...

because there's no question that they do a lot of harm to everybody.
However, it's unfair to lump all Christians together.

[cosmik debris]

83. Do you realize how silly it is for christians to complain

about being treated unfairly by atheists? Seriously?

If it bothers you that much, do what the atheists do--hide in the closet!

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

85. Oh, I understand that atheists are badly treated.

I have close friends that are atheists, and I grew up with fundies. So I've seen a bit of all sides of the issue.
As I have often said before...two wrongs don't make a right.

[cosmik debris]

88. LMAO! Some of my best friends are ...

If it bothers you to get the same treatment that atheists get from christians, do what atheists do--hide in the closet.

And when you get your house cleaned and get your religion to stop imposing itself on others, we'll talk.

So save you homilies for the simple minds. I'm not trying to create a right, I'm trying to create an equality. You don't seem to like equality do you?

[Danger Mouse]

92. Who said I had anything against equality and how do you know I'm not trying to clean house?

You make an awful lot of assumptions about me based on pretty much nothing.
And laugh it up, but some of my best friends ARE atheists.

[cosmik debris]

93. How do I know? That's simple

I know because you are complaining about being treated the same way atheist are frequently treated. You obviously don't like being demoted to a position of equality.

As for cleaning you own house, FAIL!

[Danger Mouse]

94. Yeah, I'm going to singlehandedly change the minds of all the asshole Chistians in the world.

:eyes: Aren't those expectations somewhat unrealistic?
And a position of equality is not telling somebody their beliefs are 'batshit crazy'. I would not find it equality to say that your lack of beliefs is batshit crazy...that would just be insulting you.
Insulting isn't equality, it's just insulting. You just want to treat people who have done you no harm like others have treated you in the past, and call it equality.
Hey, if that's how you justify being a dick, then run with it. Anyway, I'm sick of this discussion. You're not interested in discourse, just insults, so I'll leave you to it.

[cosmik debris]

96. Look back at my first post in this thread

I responded to a christian who was complaining because he was not getting enough preferential treatment.

Did you take my side and support equality?

No, you ignored that and complained that you were being abused too.

Sometimes it seems that there is nothing that will satisfy some christians.

[awoke_in_2003]

98. "there is nothing that will satisfy some christians"

Yeah, but I know how to satisfy some lions
:hide:

[Danger Mouse]

119. When did I ever say I didn't support equality?

I don't want religion in government, either.
I'd like to see more atheists in high office.

[cosmik debris]

123. When the poster claimed that christian did not get enough deference

You took the side of the poor abused christians.

You could have said christians don't get amnesty just because they declare a holiday. Atheists never get amnesty from the oppressive religiofascists. Why do christians deserve special treatment? Why are they dissatisfied with equal treatment?

But you didn't say that. You did not stand up for equal treatment. You stood up for the exemption of christians from criticism. It was obvious that equality for christians and atheists was far from the top of your priority list.

[Danger Mouse]

124. I didn't necessarily agree with his post...

I just didn't care for your tone.

[cosmik debris]

126. You passed up an opportunity to stand up for equality

And now you are making excuses for your behavior.

[verges]

87. I respect you're right to believe or not believe.

Why can't you accord me the same?

[cosmik debris]

90. I respect any belief that is not imposed on me.

When god is out of government, I will respect that belief.

But as long as god is being imposed on me, I feel no obligation to respect that belief.

I can respect your right to believe, but not your right to have your belief in my government.

You have the right to believe what ever you want, and I have the right to believe that your beliefs are bat-shit crazy.

[verges]

95. And you were doing fine.

Until that last sentence. Couldn't resist could you. Calling someone's beliefs "bat-shit crazy" is disrespectful.

It's Obama's inaugauration. It's his day. If he wants a couple religious words said, that should be okay. The same way a bride is allowed to wear a real ugly wedding dress. It's her wedding.

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor"--You see, it's not exactly a new concept.

[cosmik debris]

97. I'll respect your right to believe, but I won't respect your beliefs,

I don't respect fascism. I don't respect racism. And I don't respect theism. Some beliefs are just not respectable.

[verges]

112. But, you could have remained silent.

[cosmik debris]

114. And so could you.

And so could all the other christians.

But putting god on my money is legal and removing god from my money is a crime.

So don't expect me to shut up and sit down. That's not going to happen.

And like I said before, If you don't like being treated the way atheists are treated, do what atheists have to do--hide in the closet.

[verges]

117. And what have I specifically said to you

to merit the disrespect you have shown directly to me?

It's Obama's ceremony. We knew he was a Christian going in. If he want s an invocation and The Lincoln Bible. He can have it. And I think the courts will agree. Now, to be fair, if he didn't want these things, I still would not be upset. And if he belonged to another faith, I would not be averse to him incorporating the relevant symbols of his religion. Because it is HIS ceremony.

[cosmik debris]

120. My disrespect was directed at theism

If you are offended by that, go hide in the closet.

[verges]

154. You put it in a response to ME !! nt

[cosmik debris]

156. You seem to be telling me

That you respect my right to believe what I want as long as I keep my mouth shut.

That's not going to happen. I have just exactly the same right of self expression as the theists.

If you don't like having your beliefs criticized, YOU should be the one who keeps quiet.

I believe that theism is bat-shit crazy.

I have the right to believe that.

I have the right to say that.

You have the right to be offended.

And you have the right to say that you are offended.

But you DO NOT have the right to tell me to keep quiet.

Atheists have been stifled for centuries by people who didn't like to have their beliefs criticized. But this is no longer the dark ages. You cannot suppress dissenting opinions. Your religion may be sacred to you, but it is bullshit to me. Deal with it.

[verges]

158. Not at all.

Have I called you "crazy"? Have I said that you are flat-out wrong? Have I told you to shut up? No, I haven't. I have asked you to be polite and respect the beliefs of other's. You seem to feel that being an Atheist gives you the right to be rude and trash other people's beliefs. If I have been rude to you, it has only been in retalliation and defense. Although I really don't think I have been.

[cosmik debris]

161. I did not call you crazy.

I called the idea of theism crazy. If you choose to identify with an idea that I believe is crazy, you have that right. But you do not have the right to make me change my belief or to shut me up.

It is not being an atheist that give me my rights. It is the Constitution of the United States of America that gives me the right to free speech. If you find it rude, you are welcome not to participate in these conversations. But I am not obliged to make my speech conform to your standards. That's why they call it free speech.

And again, I am not going to respect the beliefs of others. I do not respect fascism. I do not respect racism. And I do not respect theism. Some beliefs are just not respectable.

[JuniperLea]

176. He can have all that in private too...

It's not just atheists and agnostics who are being shamed by this... it's also Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, etc.

It's not HIS ceremony. It is the swearing in of the President of the United States. That is NOT a private ceremony. It belongs to ALL Americans, and it's taking place on ground OWNED by ALL Americans.

[JuniperLea]

174. So now discussing one's opinions and beliefs is out of bounds?

:eyes:

[awoke_in_2003]

99. damn right it is disrepectful...

because talking snakes, living in a whale, walking on water, turning water into wine, and rising from the dead are far from crazy.

[verges]

115. I wouldn't

describe myself as a biblical literalist. As a matter of fact, until I've had to defend Christianity here on DU, I'm not entirely certain I would have described myself as Christian. I do believe in something higher. I also believe in the basic precept of Christianity to love one another. And to respect all.

The comment was rude. And yours wasn't much better. I find it amazing that intolerance runs so rampant on a Liberal, Democratic newsgroup. Because the blanket hatred that comes from many Atheists (not all) is just as bad as the putrid bile that comes from the fundies. Not all Christians are the same. Blame the sins on the man who commits the sins. Not God. Just because someone claims to work in His name, doesn't actually mean that he does.

Why would you want to paint Father Damien with the same brush as Jerry Falwell? Or Mother Theresa with Rick Warren? It defies logic. And, I should think, would be embarrassing to someone who claims to be a Liberal who believes in equality and justice.

[awoke_in_2003]

116. The comments generally only get rude...

when christians start complaining about how persecuted they are.

[verges]

118. I never said I was persecuted as a Christian.

I was being treated rudely as a human being. Because calling someone's personal beliefs "bat-shit crazy" to them is rude. What was said was purposefully inflammatory.

I might point out that he was responding to my statement that I respect his right to not believe.

[JuniperLea]

177. Something so far fetched? Well, how about Adam and Eve

An elaborate tale
So convincingly real
Things can seem so amazing
'til you get up close
And see they're no big deal
Like the stars in the sky
Or the one on the stage
Just a big ball of gas
And a regular guy
Fresh out of minimum wage

In a jackalope space
On a jackalope high
I'm staring you down
Creepy jackalope eye

Many things in this life
Are not what they appear
Yeah i look like a hare
But if you stop and you stare
I'm related to a deer

I got a jackalope face
I'm a jackalope guy
And i'm staring you down
Creepy jackalope eye

Is it so hard to imagine
Is it so hard to believe
Something so outrageous
Something so far fetched
Well how 'bout adam and eve?

I know you gotta have faith
I know the need to hope
But the truth is always in place
It's right in front of my face
The mighty jackalope
(yeah)

In a jackalope space
On a jackalope high
I'm staring you down
Creepy jackalope
And i'm staring down
Creepy jackalope
And i'm staring you down
Creepy jackalope eye
Freaky jackalope eye
Creepy jackalope eye
Creepy jackalope eye



Everything you ever REALLY need to know can be found in the rock and in the roll;)

[JuniperLea]

173. Who is on your list of bat-shit crazy people and their bat-shit crazy beliefs?

Tinfoil-hatters? Conspiracy theorists? Tarot card readers? Spiritualists? Satanists? Mediums? Phrenologists? Psychics?

[bread_and_roses]

201. The religious have a right to practice their beliefs but no right for the beliefs to be "respected"

I support unequivocally the right of the religious to believe and worship as they please, as long as said practices are limited to consenting adults and involve no human, child, or animal abuse, all of which are illegal in any other context. However, their "beliefs" have no more right of respect than any other "beliefs" that can summon absolutely no empirical evidence. In any other context we would indeed call such beliefs "bat-shit crazy" in the vernacular.

And this is the first time I've ever heard an inauguration compared to a wedding - maybe it's a common analogy, but sure strikes me as less than apt. The inauguration doesn't just "belong" to the President-Elect but to the people as well, wouldn't you say? Nor do we have any way to know "what Obama wants" since no politician could risk the consequences of declining to swear on a bible in our supposedly "secular" State. Since they can't risk doing anything but the conventional, we have no way to judge their sincerity.

[Goblinmonger]

131. Had there been no religious display

at the state capitol building, that "nasty" sign would not have been placed as a reply. Don't put it in the public sphere and I'll not say a word.

[JuniperLea]

172. It's especially funny when you consider the Pagan roots of Christmas...

Jesus wasn't born anywhere near December in Bethlehem. The Bible says there were shepherds in the fields tending their sheep... sheep are put up for winter long before December. And the evergreen tree has a couple of roots... look up Nimrod (grandson of Ham, son of Noah, and married his own mother, Semiramis). After Nimrod's death, Semiramis claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it and under it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree. Holly, mistletoe and the Yule log are all Pagan customs.

But the holidays are sacred, doncha know.

[Danger Mouse]

75. Don't waste your breath. There are some people on DU who love to insult Christians.

It's their joy in life.

[GarbagemanLB]

102. The irony is that I am not even a Christian. I am an agnostic who loathes the religious right.

...but some atheists are quickly proving to be equally smug, arrogant, aggressive, and insensitive as those on the far right.

[Goblinmonger]

132. Yes

it's what cosmik, I, and others live for.

[Pale Blue Dot]

139. Christians have remarkably thin skin,

considering they have the "truth" of an all-powerful God behind them.

[reflection]

170. delete. not worth it. n/t

[rhett o rick]

144. It is fine that some people use religion to comfort them. But I object when they try to use their

riches to influence policy. We give them tax breaks and they use the money to influence policy to push their dogmas. Keep your religion off my money and out of the pledge of allegiance. No tax breaks to the mega rich churches.

[Raineyb]

165. One quiet sign put up is no the equvalent of the constant barrage of the bible thumpers

Why is it acceptable to proclaim one's religious beliefs, including in ways that are simply obnoxious but the erecting of sign is so offensive to the faith that it needed to come down?

It seems to me that if one's faith is that easily tested one isn't very faithful at all.

And why is it that religious thought has to be respected but atheist thought does not?

Regards

[Kalyke]

44. But you think it's still OK to degrade others?

That's what fundies do - what people you used to "hang" with did.

And, by calling religion a myth, those people were effectively saying that Christians (or any other believers) are stupid.

That's very divisive.

I also didn't have a problem with their being allowed to stick up a sign.

Next year, maybe Christians could say that the atheist group is ignorant and going to hell. Wouldn't that be just as productive?

[JuniperLea]

50. Prove it's not a myth...

I know damn well how Christianity is used to belittle and hurt people. I lived that scene. And that is the reason I left, because it is far too judgmental.

I don't subscribe to any belief system. Therefore, I subscribe to no belief system that would preclude me from being judgmental.

I feel the way I feel because of the suffering I encountered at the hands of so-called Christians. Excuse the fuck out of me if I cut them no slack.

No one can prove it's not all a myth, yet telling the truth is somehow wrong. Amazing.

[Danger Mouse]

72. So it's okay for you to belittle and hurt Christians who have done nothing to you?

[JuniperLea]

180. Show me where I did that... eom

[Danger Mouse]

46. Wow, way to insult every Christian DU'er.

[JuniperLea]

47. Prove me wrong... eom

[Danger Mouse]

48. Prove you wrong? That Christianity is slavery?

You can't prove an opinion wrong.
And an opinion is all it is...an insulting and hurtful one, but an opinion.

[JuniperLea]

54. That it's a myth...

I can't help that people are still believing in a myth, despite all we've seen over the centuries. My question was, can you prove it's not a myth.

[Danger Mouse]

71. You know that I can't prove it, and you insult me by calling my beliefs a myth.

[jgraz]

138. Why is it an insult?

Around here, we poke holes in beliefs all the time. We talk about the "myth" of Republican fiscal responsibility, the "myth" of corporate efficiency and the "myth" that Reagan won the Cold War. Is that intrinsically insulting to the people who hold those beliefs?

If arguing against those beliefs is *not* insulting, what is it about your particular beliefs that make them different?

[verges]

155. Because with those Myths there are facts to disprove them.

The "Myth" of religion is different because it is based on Faith. Not evidence. And why should you care what anyone believes? I agree that religion should stay out of Government. I also believe that it's Obama's Inaugauration, and if HE wants an invocation and Bible, he can have them. It's his day.

[Silent3]

169. Slap the word "faith" on a viewpoint, and it's off limits from hard criticism?

What if someone claims to have "faith" in a political leader, "faith" in an economic policy?

Since atheists don't have faith, they don't get a special area of their lives that's off limit from hard criticism like the faithful apparently do?

The whole point that many atheists like myself want to make is that "faith" isn't anything special. You've got the right to believe as you wish and proclaim what you believe, whether you rely on evidence or "faith". I have the right to believe that "faith" is often unwarranted, that "faith" in the religious sense leads to beliefs that are just as crazy as other craziness that doesn't get to take cover under the "faith" umbrella, and I also have the same right as you do to speak out.

What I have to say would be rendered toothless if I felt I had to tiptoe gingerly around religious sensibilities. I feel no more need to be oh-so-cautious about not offending the religious when I criticize religion than I feel the need to be delicate about criticizing Bush or Prop. 8 because doing so might insult people who voted for Bush or Prop. 8.

Basically what you're saying is even if I don't believe that faith is anything special, I have to play along with the game of acting like it is special, and treat it differently than I'd treat political beliefs, when I don't believe there is any important difference.

[jgraz]

171. Actually, quite opposite

I defy you to produce a single piece of evidence that "disproves" any of those myths. Tax cuts cause deficits? Not according to the supply-siders. The Soviets were already collapsing when Reagan took office? Don't tell that to the members of the Church of St. Ronnie the Redbuster. And corporations are inefficient? Silly lib -- don't you realize those Iraq contracts would have been MUCH worse if the government had handled them?

Contrast this with the evidence against the Christian belief system. Historians, archaeologists, logicians, scientists and even theologians have pointed out many, many problems with the Christ story as written in the Bible. In fact, some of the strongest evidence comes from the field of Comparative Mythology, where the older legends of Horus and Mithras (among many others) can be shown to have strong parallels with the story of Jesus.


And as far as the inauguration being Obama's day, you couldn't be more wrong. This is *our* day. We worked for it, we fought for it and we're paying for it. I bet Barack Obama would be the first person to agree with that statement.

[Danger Mouse]

160. Hmm...interesting point.

[Pale Blue Dot]

If you are sure of your beliefs,

if you're sure you're going to heaven, if you're sure you're worshiping the one true God, then why would you be so defensive? One would think you could just flick off the criticism like you were swatting a fly.

[JuniperLea]

192. Telling, isn't it? eom

[JuniperLea]

178. How many tinfoil hatters do you routinely insult because of their beliefs?

How many 9/11 conspiracty theorists do you insult? Tarot card readers? Spiritualists? Satanists? Mediums? Phrenologists? Psychics?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone, the rest of y'all need to STFU.

[jgraz]

191. Here's the difference

Not an insult
"You believe that? You're wrong and here's why..."


Insult
"You believe that? Then you're a fucking dumbass"

[JuniperLea]

196. That doesn't answer the question...

So here's another... or two... why give Christians any more slack than you would give a tinfoiler? How many people are railing against insults heaped upon Christians but do the same exact thing to conspiracy theorists.

[jgraz]

198. I *am* a tinfoil-hatter

I believe BushCo were directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. I believe they killed Paul Wellstone and Ken Lay and Mike Connell and that the so-called "credit crunch" was staged in order to loot the treasury.

Even so, I haven't been insulted half as much for those beliefs as I have for my views on gun-control (pro) or religion (anti). And *those* beliefs haven't garnered me one tenth the opprobrium as my views that Hillary Clinton should not be our nominee or my take on John Kerry's embarrassing and cowardly behavior in the 2004 race.

People get insulted all the time around here. The insults are not the issue. The issue is *perceiving* an insult simply because one's beliefs are questioned.

[verges]

82. You can't and shouldn't

be able to prove religion. It's called faith. Nor can you prove it's all wrong. You're hardened statements are equally ridiculous.

I've always thought "christians" who try to "prove" the existence of God kinda silly. They miss the point. It's about Faith. Believing there is something higher that cannot be proved. that this muck we live in isn't the be all of the Universe. If the existence of God IS proved, then religion loses much. People then believe because they must. God the Father becomes God the Dictator. Maybe that is what the fundies want, but not me. And I am a Christian.

Prsident-elect Obama is also a Christian. And if he wants an invocation and to be sworn on the Lincoln Bible (good symbolism that)it is okay with me. If he were any other relligious belief, and wanted to be sworn in on The Qu'ran The Bagavad Vita, The Tora or a DC comic if he chose, that would be okay too. It is to solemnise HIS Presidency. Not anyone else's. Yes, he is there to serve us. All of us (Christian and Atheist alike.), but it is HIS Presidency.


edited to rewrite last paragraph.

[awoke_in_2003]

100. So proving god exists...

is just as bad as eating from the Tree of Knowledge? Why is knowledge such an enemy to god and religion?

[verges]

105. Knowledge is good. So is choice.

I think we should strive to understand. And perhaps there are elements of the Truth in all the world's faiths. And conversely, misinterpretations in all faiths. But, as I said, if God is proved, he becomes a dictator; and we have no choice but to believe. I rather think he wants people to come to him of their own will. To choose.

And if we ever do meet God face to face in this incarnation... I don't think he'll be what ANYBODY is really expecting.

[awoke_in_2003]

110. If knowledge is so good...

why were adam and eve thrown out of the garden? Why does god demand you not try to prove his existance, but to have faith?

[verges]

121. I'm not a theologian.

Nor am I a biblical literalist. I don't subscribe to Adam and Eve beyond as an allegory perhaps. And believe it or not, I don't think most Christians do. I really only marginally would call myself a Christian. I've delved into my personal beliefs as far as I would like to on another post. Because they are MY PERSONAL beliefs.

[awoke_in_2003]

122. But Original Sin...

or man being born into sin is a principle tenet of your religion. What caused this sin? The bible can only be a possible things- 1. To act as the uneffable word of god, 2. a compilation of allegories and moral lessons to teach how one should lead their lives, or 3. a work of fiction. As you are a non-literalist, I am assuming you see it at #2. The only story the book of your religion comes up with on the origin of that sin is an allegory of the quest for knowledge

[JuniperLea]

179. That is precisely why so many are up in arms...

God gave everyone free will and wants people to come to him out of their OWN will, not out of something that is forced upon them. Had enforcement of his laws been the main intent, there would have been no need to leave the garden at all, no need to send souls to Earth, no need for the fight between good and evil, no need for the Devil.

Forcing something of ANY religious nature (prayer in government, etc.), changing laws because of religious beliefs (Prop 8; Abortion) is against God's plan... if you believe the myth, and you have every right to do so. And people have the right to believe in conspiracy theories, yet they are routinely told they are bat-shit crazy on DU. How is that any different? It's not.

God is strong enough to do what God wants to do. All the creeps who are trying to force their beliefs upon others are giving God a bad name.

[IndianaGreen]

130. Shove it!

Here is the US Constitution, my Crusader friend:

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

US Constitution, Article II, Section 1.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

Let's return to Constitutional principles and reject the Christan Taleban in all its permutations!

[Danger Mouse]

159. You're calling me a Crusader...why?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to out first atheist, Jewish, Muslim, etc...president...
Hopefully someday soon.

[verges]

78. And I am a non-fundie Christian...

And I get tired of having anyone's lack of religion shoved down mine with ridicule and scorn (as happens frequently here on DU!)

"Too bad you find the truth so hard to tolerate"--Frankly, that sounds like an intolerant fundie argument to me.

The Invocation and the Bible are optional. Obama wants them. It is no secret that his faith is important to him. Therefore he gets them.

[comrade snarky]

106. You know

Your argument about not wanting Atheism thrust at you might hold more water if we hadn't just shut the whole country down for a day to celebrate the birth of your god in human form. It's hard to be sympathetic about your having to listen to other peoples views.

Though I do agree we have jerks on both sides. :-)


<on edit: dang spellcheck changing my misspelled word to a completely different word!>

[verges]

125. Christmas has really become as much a secular holiday anyway.

And I'm pretty good with that. I tell folks to have a good Holiday. I like inclusion. It's roots go back to Yule, Saturnalia and several other solstice and harvest festivals. Christ is just an excuse to have a party (the birth probably wasn't in December anyway). I used to know an Atheist who celebrated Isaac Newton's Birthday instead. Anyone can find an adaptable Holiday during the latter half of December.

So, are you saying that you did absolutely no celebrating in the past two weeks? No office party? No enjoying the lights? No White-Chocolate covered Oreos? Did you volunteer to work Christmas Day (did you want to work?)?

And besides, you have 11 months celebrating non-belief. You can't turn one over to flashing lights and carols and cookies?

[comrade snarky]

133. I wasn't the one complaining was I?

I don't have a problem with Christmas. I celebrate the solstice, or as I say the short day. I like the Newton idea by the way. I could put falling apples on the Newton tree.

All I said was it's ironic that you are upset about having to hear what an atheist would have to say cause we sure are steeped in Christian imagery and culture right about now. As and atheist I deal with you folks all the time, usually with good humor. Or at least what I think is humor. Maybe you could extend the same courtesy. Or at least if it's that bad avert thy eyes! Get the behind me and all that.

Also, so according to you any day that isn't a specific religious holiday is a day when we all celebrate non-belief. Really? Really??? <tilted head like a confused golden retriever>

[verges]

157. Okay, so when is the Holiday of Non-Belief?

And how, exactly, is it celebrated? If there is one, I certainly shall defend your right to celebrate it (and perhaps join in the festivities myself, if they seem fun!). Maybe you need one. But, I would suggest (and it is mearly a suggestion) that it be done without disrespecting other religions. Or, if you must, please schedule it at some other time of year.

And I'm not upset about hearing what an Atheist has to say. As I've said repeatedly, anyone has the right to believe or not believe as they see fit. If anything, I'm upset about the "Oh so superior and dismissive tone" of their message. And I'm referring to three specific poster's. And you aren't one of them.

[comrade snarky]

182. And what I'm saying to you is

Tough.

Religion isn't a special category above reproach. There are a lot of creepy and dismissive posters on the theist side around here and many more out in the real world. As I said in my first post to you we have jerks on both sides and there's something in that bible about removing the plank from you eye before pointing out the sty in another's.

See, I didn't start out an atheist. :-P

What I've been trying to get through (and maybe not doing a very good job) is that this isn't one sided, some atheists can act like jerks, but sometimes it's hard not to given the jerky behavior we are faced with.

I'm asking for some help in calling out both sides when that jerky head rears.

[Raineyb]

166. It's more like 2 months of carols and flashing lights

And it's not 11 months of celebration of non belief, there is no celebration of non belief. Non belief isn't even respected in this country although the respect of belief is rammed down the throat of non believers regularly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't get my kicks out of needling the religious but to pretend that non-belief is respected much less celebrated in a country where politicians forget the separation of church and state is ridiculous.

Regards

[JuniperLea]

189. The truth is that organized religion has caused great harm

To millions of people over centuries. The imposing of religion and religious laws has laid waste to cultures and freedoms all over the world, and it has caused untold millions of deaths of innocent people.

How exactly has lack of religion been shoved down your throat? How exactly have you been forced to behave as if there were no religion?

[Drunken Irishman]

188. Yeah, unfortunately, that is YOUR opinion.

You're no better than the fundies who push their religion on everyone and say there is no other alternative.

:eyes:

[JuniperLea]

190. How am I forcing anyone to abandon their own religion?

Or how am I forcing anyone to participate in non-belief? All I'm saying is that it's against God's ways to force non-believers into adhering to his laws. If he'd wanted to enforce them, he wouldn't have given us all free will.

That sign had as much right to be there as any marquee in front of any church in America. And I've seen some pretty hateful things written on church marquees.

[Drunken Irishman]

193. I'm not going to complain about the sign.

I do dislike people who feel the need to inform me their way of thinking is the only way.

You suggested it was the truth. I don't even suggest my own faith is the truth.

What ticks me off is those atheists who believe it's ok to disparage Christianity and then rail against fundies for what they do. Well guess what, there isn't much difference here.

I guess I tire of Christians who denounce everything that is different than them and now you're seeing it from atheists. Why can't we just agree to disagree and be respectful about it? Telling Christians they are enslaved, though, is not going to win over anyone.

Just like telling atheists they're going to hell does not help the dialogue.

[JuniperLea]

195. Why ignore history?

I'm willing to let the whole argument, and history, go. I'm willing to forget how Christianity laid waste to dozens of cultures, how they enslaved American Indians and Mexicans to build their missions. I'll even let go of the fact that they raised me up in their church, allowed me to have my own music ministry, then smacked me down because "that rock and roll beat comes straight from the depths of hell" even though they taught me that God works in mysterious ways. And I'll forget how my pastor had an affair with a woman in the church, and how his wife tried to commit suicide. Silly humans. It's no wonder I'm now agnostic.

Won't you help me Mr. Jesus, won't you help me if you can. When you see this world we live in, do you still believe in Man? ~ Black Sabbath

But all that aside, I'll stop telling my views on the subject when others stop trying to force me to believe, to accept, and to honor their beliefs. To make laws, change laws, or to amend our Constitution based on a religious belief of ANY religion, is just wrong. No one is forcing Christians to have abortions or to marry gay people, yet they feel it's their duty to make sure everyone adheres to their beliefs in this regard. God gave us free will, and they think they are better or smarter than God so they are going to force his laws upon us all. Bullshit. The whole reason for us being here, according to THEIR Bible, is for us to come to God's ways on our own, of our own free will, or not come at all. They want to take away a lot of choices... God given or otherwise. And it's wrong, wrong, wrong!


Thrill of it All

Inclination of direction, walk the turned and twisted rift
With the children of creation futuristic dreams we sift
Clutching violently we whisper with a liquefying cry
Any deadly final answers that are surely doomed to die
Won't you help me Mr. Jesus, won't you tell me if you can?
When you see this world we live in, do you still believe in Man?
If my songs become my freedom, and my freedom turns to gold
Then I'll ask the final question, if the answer could be sold
Well, that's my story and I'm sticking to it
'Cause I've got no reason to lie, yeah
Forget your problems that don't even exist
And I'll show you a way to get high, oh yeah
Oh yeah!
So come along, you know you matter to me
Remember freedom is not hard to find, yeah
Time to stop all your messing around
Don't you think that I know my own mind, oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Why can't you believe, it's not here to perceive
Do you always have to be told, yeah
For you have been taught that if your mind has been bought
Life's entire answer was sold, oh yeah
Oh yeah!



Again, everything you ever needed to know about life can be found in the rock and in the roll.

[girl gone mad]

66. What do you think is the difference between..

an atheist and an agnostic, and why do you consider yourself superior to atheists?

[JuniperLea]

68. Well said, ggm...

I wish he had answered. His post was rather ironic.

[verges]

86. An agnostic is one who has doubts about the truth of God.

An Atheist is firm in his belief in no god.

[comrade snarky]

111. Hi again, not really

There are atheists who have a firm belief in no god. They are often called large "A" Atheists.

Then there's a lot of folks like me who are more along the actual definition of the word a-theist meaning a lack of theism or a lack of belief in a deity. (there are a-melodics who lack the belief in a tune but that's a different bunch) Small "a" athiests like me are a little closer to agnostics but while the agnostic says "I don't know" I would say "I haven't seen any reason to believe so until I do, I wont".

It's a subtle distinction but then so is the difference between a Lutheran and a Methodist from where I stand. If you want to know more stop by the atheist folder and ask. We often spend a lot of time thinking about belief before coming to any conclusions so it can be hard to shut us up once we start blabbing about it.

[verges]

127. I'm actually fine with that.

Thank-you for the clarification.

[GarbagemanLB]

103. I admit that I don't know for sure what happens when I die. You, along with other religions, are

certain.

[girl gone mad]

135. I don't know a single atheist who is abslutely certain what happens at death.

But why would having doubts make you superior to those who believe that death is the end of the line or those who are certain that eternal life is impossible and there is no such place as heaven?

[GarbagemanLB]

140. I am simply saying that both atheists and other religions share that certainty.

I think that is arrogant.

Admittedly, I'd say the atheist viewpoint is much more logical than the Christian/Jewish/Muslim/etc. viewpoint, but the fact remains that no one can truly know what happens after death.

[Danger Mouse]

164. We can only truly be certain of what we are certain of. The rest is belief.

[jgraz]

16. No, this is the same organization that put up that *awesome* sign in WA

The intent of that sign was to protest against the attack on the 1st Amendment represented by placing religious displays on public property. I hope more people start doing this.

[unpossibles]

20. no. the sign was put up as a counter reaction to the stupid display.

close

[Raineyb]

163. I believe they put up a sign. I would not characterizae it as stupid. n/t

Regards

[brooklynite]

5. This is overkill...

I like a lot of FFRF's legal activities, but the only required portion of the Inauguration is the Oath of Office. Everything else is at the discretion of the event planners, and do not convey official sanction, anymore than a 21 gun salute convey's an approval of gun ownership rights or military force.

[tbyg52]

13. Yes, but you'd think there'd be thought given

to tradition (wherefore the prayers, but tradition can change) and the general principles of the country. In actual fact, he *can't* do absolutely whatever he wants.

[unblock]

18. the point is that government funds are used to promote religion

if the entire ceremony were privately funded, and the only government involvement consisted of, say, security and transportation for president-elect and the chief justice, then there would be no legal problem.

[onenote]

34. nope.

The fact that the inauguration is funded, at least in part, by the federal government, does not render the use of a bible in the swearing in ceremony or having an "invocation" delivered at the ceremony unconstitutional.

read the Supreme Court's opinion in Marsh v. Chambers.

[unblock]

49. i'm not saying that the supreme court always does what's right in such cases

the supreme court has upheld flagrantly religious promotion such as "in god we trust" on the currency, for instance.

they basically have stated that they will tolerate hugely popular transgressions if they can be rationalized as "minor" or "relatively harmless", even if intellectually wrong.

i would be VERY surprised if the supreme court (especially THIS one) curtailed things like religious invocations and bible-swearing for federally-funded inaugurations.

i would hope i would have more integrity were i on the court. sadly, i don't forsee being put to that particular test....

[JuniperLea]

24. The mere inclusion of prayer

Most certainly DOES convey official sanction, regardless of the discretion of the event planners... who should wise up.

[immoderate]

6. God makes everything OK.

If we pray for peace, then it's OK if we don't actually have peace.

The phrase "so help me god," takes the onus off. (And who wants to have an onus?) So can I help it if god didn't help me? :shrug:

When I hear people pray, I ask them how many times people have prayed for world peace. Nobody, to my knowledge, prays for war. So how does that work out?

Dan and Annie Laurie do good work. Newdow too. There are those that will say "get over it." To me this prayer stuff is the melamine in the baby formula.

--IMM

[JuniperLea]

58. "To me this prayer stuff is the melamine in the baby formula"

Spot on! I don't care what people do on their own time. And I have no problem at all with a new president with strong ties to a Christian belief system. I think it is poisonous to democracy to hold up one religion above all others, or the people who choose NOT to have religion in their lives.

Just don't get peanut butter on my chocolate!

See my sigline...

[JNelson6563]

202. "And who wants to have an onus?"

lol

Good post, well said on all points.

Julie

[treestar]

7. Now there's a cause we can all support

And Christians should support it too, if they had any brains. If the government stays completely out of religion, they are in no danger either.

[JuniperLea]

62. Exactly!

If the rest of us are going to be forced to adhere to Christian law or ideology, and it's accepted, then what will Christians think when Jews, Hindus, Muslims, etc., force their laws and ideologies upon everyone... including Christians?!?

[awoke_in_2003]

108. Another reason to keep christianity out of religion...

what happens when Islam become a sizable force in this country? Will they get political respect, too? Look at Britain, who already have legal sharia courts in their country. Population projector say in 20 years GB could have enough muslims to democratically elect sharia law into their government. Sound peachy to all you christians?

[bunnies]

8. Good.

In a sane society, they'd win.

[BeFree]

9. Yes they would. n/t

[Soylent Brice]

10. good. it has no place in gov't anyways.

the simplest solution to the entire problem.

the question i keep asking myself is "will i live long enough to see an athesit president?" probably not.

and that SUCKS.

FFR RULES.

[tbyg52]

11. Wow. Just WOW!

Not just for good old ffrf, but for the responses here. I haven't been keeping statistics or anything, but I really think the general thoughts on issues such as this have changed on DU in the time I've been here.

[JuniperLea]

60. I'm seeing a lot of...

Not-so-liberal comments here. Interesting.

[tbyg52]

77. Yeah, I guess I posted *way* too soon - I see the piling on started after I left..... :(

[jgraz]

12. Another reason why Madison is the best place on earth

Go Annie!!!

[JuniperLea]

17. Good for them!

See my signline... I've been saying this since the Warren announcement.

[unpossibles]

19. K&R! nt

[Clio the Leo]

22. Yeah .... good luck with that. NT

[progressoid]

27. I like FFRF but

this isn't going to happen.

[AtomicKitten]

31. Well, there's a certain symmetry to that.

[Rebubula]

32. As a die-hard atheist...

..I am able to withstand the fact that other people believe things that I do not. I also understand that, for them, it is the single most important part of their life.

Therefore, I hate it when people get all pissy about stuff like this. Does it REALLY hurt anyone when another person says 'so help me god'?

There are real issues all over the place. Stop being so (irony\pun intended) god-damned thin skinned.

Atheists need to be better than those that would judge someone based on a 2000 year old novel.

[verges]

89. Wisely said (or rather typed).

But the local militant Atheists here would disagree.

[Raineyb]

167. This lawsuit is about a bit more than someone saying "so help me God"

It's about the state sanctioned prayers being performed at the secular ceremony of the swearing in of our President.

Way to belittle the situation though.

Regards

[comrade snarky]

184. If I want to see my president take the oath of office

I have to listen to a prayer from Rick Warren, a fundy asshole (not to bring that up again) who thinks people like me shouldn't be able to hold public office.

Want to swear on a bible? Fine. The prayer however is creepily close to government sanction of religion. I know the FFRF isn't going to win this one and that it may not be technically illegal but it rubs me the wrong way when to participate in a national function I have to be prayed at.

Even Jesus said the ones who pray on street corners for others to see already have their reward.

[Orsino]

33. Good.

They haven't a prayer (ahem) of succeeding, but they are in the right.

[onenote]

35. actually, legally they are not in the right.

You may not agree with the law, but there is little doubt as to what the law is on this point.

[Orsino]

37. I very carefully said "right" rather than legal.

Law allowing the promotion of religion in such a forum is wrong.

[onenote]

38. that begs the question of whether it "promotes religion" for Obama to use a bible to be sworn in

or for their to be an invocation.

The law doesn't allow the promotion of religion by the government. But the courts have ruled that paying a chaplin to deliver a daily prayer before a session of the legislature doesn't constitute the promotion of religion. I understand that you disagree with that view, but all that establishes is that what constitutes the promotion of religion is not a black and white issue.

[Orsino]

39. Yes, I disagree.

I want the promotion of religion kept out of my government.

[onenote]

40. me too

I just don't happen to regard Obama using a bible at his swearing in or the giving of an invocation as constituting the promotion of religion by the government.

[Orsino]

104. These things are more than the promotion of religion.

They're powerful traditions. But they're also government promotion of religion, without question.

[JuniperLea]

63. Yep... if we allow Christian beliefs...

We better allow Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and every other religion to join in or it's just not fair. Of course, none of that is fair to Atheists or Agnostics, but we've been labeled "God Haters"... amazing. I prefer the name Myth Busters.

[Puzzler]

41. Yeah... that would be the best way to resolve the whole Warren mess...

... no f**king prayers at all.

[WeDidIt]

43. Stupid complaint. Will be thrown out.

The choice of using "so help me God" is entirely up to the president-elect, and Obama has chosen to use that phrase.

The option of placing one's hand upon the Bible while taking the oath is entirely up to the president-elect, and Obama has chosen to use Lincoln's Bible.

The choice of having prayers at the inauguration ceremony is entirely up to the president-elect and Obama has chosen to have prayers.

In fact, refusing to allow these relgiious items and rituals in the inauguration ceremony would be a violation of Barack Obama's constituional rights.

[Starry Messenger]

45. I'm an atheist. I would love religion out of my government.

I wonder if the Masonic Founding Fathers would have kept "God" in the documents of our country if they had known that the country was going to use the word as an excuse to legislate hate.

[ecstatic]

53. OK, but where were they when Bush & Clinton were being "prayered" into office?

Why the sudden interest in switching things up for Obama? :shrug:

[ellacott]

67. Or Bush & Reagan& Carter

and all the others who did an invocation.

[Uzybone]

73. 1st black president you know

everything he does will be scrutinized 3x over and used to make political points. Obama is already used to it.

[marimour]

109. so true.

[Bill McBlueState]

55. good

Maybe this will teach kids that there's value in doing the right thing, even if what's right isn't going to be popular or successful.

[sampsonblk]

57. Another foolish move by God-haters

It won't work.

[JuniperLea]

61. You call them God-haters...

I call them Myth Busters.

[Pale Blue Dot]

136. Yes. I hate unicorns, the tooth fairy and elfs too.

I hate all imaginary things, especially the ones that seem to dictate policy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

64. Newdow is a goddamned idiot

He represents atheists about as well as Prick Warren represents Christians.

[Goblinmonger]

128. So what has Newdow done

that is even close to Warren?

[Sebastian Doyle]

134. Fundie atheists are as lame as any other fundies

And Newdow is the Jerry Fucking Falwell of Fundie Atheists.

And like any televangelist, he's really only in it for the money, as is any moron who tries to make a living from lawsuits.

[Pale Blue Dot]

137. You do realize that they wouldn't win any money from this lawsuit, right?

However, I'm sure your all-powerful God really appreciates you defending him like this.

[Sebastian Doyle]

151. Did I mention God?

This isn't about what I believe or don't believe. It's about some dumbass who wants to get famous by filing stupid lawsuits. Like the one about how "religiously oppressed" his kid was, when the fact was he hadn't seen the kid, let alone lived with her or financially supported her for years.

He's no role model for atheism, assuming atheists were looking for one.

[Goblinmonger]

141. So you have nothing

other than ad homs, right? Nothing specific you care to offer?

And how, exactly, does he make money off suing the government for consitutional violations? Are there some damages awarded that the media doesn't report about? How do you know he is it it "for the money"? Link?

[PassingFair]

204. He is a very mild person.

You don't like his politics.

[ColbertWatcher]

65. It's about freakin' time!

No offense to Lowery, but religion shouldn't be injected into state functions no matter how nice the people doing the injecting are.

I still think someone should lead a reading of the Preamble to the Constitution or deliver a speech about the Constitution itself. I don't think anyone could argue against the inspiration of that.

[Uzybone]

70. I agree with them and good luck to em,

but it'll end up being a waste of time.

[Arugula Latte]

76. Hooray for them.

:applause:

[TheKentuckian]

81. No bigger opponent of theocracy than me but

there is no freedom from religion, the state is rightly prohibited from establishing religion and religious litmus tests but that is as far as it goes.

[usregimechange]

150. You can't have freedom of without freedom from

“At one time it was thought that this right merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” WALLACE v. JAFFREE, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

[TheKentuckian]

197. Right but that will not grant you freedom from religion in some overarching way

just freedom to not practice or whatever if you so choose.

Some believe that this means that they will have the ability to go through life without religion being an observable factor and that is nonsense. I stick by establishment and no litmus tests to be the end game of separation of church and state. A nativity scene at the fire house does not dictate religion, despite being clearly religious in nature. The dictation and requirement of a certain faith or any at all is the end of the line for this protection. Its not a magic shield to keep you from hearing about Jesus or Buddha.

[Deja Q]

91. What's their take on a certain H. Reid?

The same one who has brought in all sorts of people to pray on the Senate floor with him?

[Recursion]

101. "So help me God" is not part of the oath

When Washington took the oath, he added "so help me God" on his own. I don't have any problem with a President doing that. I don't think the chief Justice should say it, though.

[Dlicious]

107. Now THIS is the right tactic to take.......get prayer stopped at official government events

Stops that homophobe fascist from spewing all his mythology over America.

Official government functions are supposed to be FREE of religion. PERIOD

[Abq_Sarah]

146. Is the Congress

Forcing President Obama to swear an oath on the Bible? As long as it is voluntary and at the request of the person taking the oath, no rights are being violated. Contrary to the beliefs of some, you don't have a Constitutional right NOT to ever hear anyone utter the word "God".

[musicblind]

152. I am gay and a Christian and there is an All-Gay church in Winston

There are bad Christians just like there are bad people in all walks of life. There are also blazing progressive Christians like me who are anti-death penalty, pro-gay marriage, anti-prayer in schools, anti-gun, pro-evolution, and almost a borderline socialist.

I think it is funny that someone above said something to the effect of "how would you Christians like it if Islam..." and I don't think they have any idea how the Christians on DU would feel. Islam is just fine by me. If we had a Muslim president then I'd be fine with him using the Koran. My ex-boyfriend was a practicing Wiccan.

Please do not stereotype. We (liberal Christians) don't stereotype you. So don't do that to us.

And while no one can prove God exists... no one can prove he doesn't either. You can come up with clever sayings like "If God is all powerful then can he move a mountain he cannot lift" and all the other person has to do is respond with "Well, then maybe God isn't all powerful but that doesn't prove he does not exist. Or they could claim that God is all powerful and can therefore bend all rules of the universe including self limitation by choice only." and so on and so on and so on. Neither side can prove that there is or is not a God. Therefore, every religion, or lack of religion, should be respected.

<3

[awoke_in_2003]

113. whatever happened to that old time religion:

Matthew 6:5-7 (King James Version)

5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

7But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.

[IndianaGreen]

129. Praise be to all the gods, mythological and delusional!

"So help me GAWD" is not part of the oath of office, as specifically stated in the Constitution. Tradition has it that George Washington added the phrase at his first Inaugural.

[rhett o rick]

142. I am with this all the way. Religion has gotten out of hand in this country. No more tax breaks for

any religion that has more than a million dollars of assets.

[marimour]

147. ?

A million in assets could be the property church sits on in some cities (Boston NYC, LA). I know mine has that in the land and the community center they own. They do good works with that center and within the church to help the community. How would it be out of hand for them to get tax breaks for this?

[rhett o rick]

168. So what do you suggest? 2 million? There needs to be a specific limit.

My point is that the mega churches are being supported by MY TAX DOLLARS. They are using that money in some cases to do things that are counter to my beliefs and principles.

[comrade snarky]

185. How about

Churches get a tax break for the charitable work they do and pay taxes like any other club?

Seems fair to me, the once who actually help people will do ok. Why should I pay for fire protection of a church I don't go to, don't agree with and would despise me if I dared go through the doors?

[rhett o rick]

187. Fine by me. nm

[greyl]

148. That's a worthy battle, long time coming. nt

[donheld]

149. Best move yet

[davidpdx]

153. I think these people would have a little more creditability

if they were filing lawsuits for every presidential inauguration. I am a non-practicing Christian and don't care whether there is or isn't one.

[firedupdem]

175. They can get over it for now. Obama will be sworn in using the bible. n/t

[cbc5g]

181. I'm sure Obama wouldn't care either way...I bet he's atheist or agnostic anyways

Just like his mom. He "became" a Christian a long time ago because you can't really go anywhere in politics if you aren't Christian. Trinity church provided him an area where he could get ahead in politics in Chicago. He knows religion is a tool to shape peoples minds and get them behind you and that's exactly how he uses it, for political gain. There's nothing wrong with that IMO, he had to do what he had to do to gain power and change things.

[onenote]

183. I bet you're wrong

I bet that Obama cares deeply about being able to be sworn in using the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln used when he was sworn in.

[stillcool]

186. I don't know what Obama believes..

or what his mother did, but there are people in this world who are non-religious, yet very spiritual. I can't imagine how many 'religions' there have been since people first inhabited this earth, but I think there has always been something that people believed in, even if they didn't acknowledge it themselves. Faith that the sun will rise, that there are stars behind the clouds, all kinds of silly things. Attacking religious groups, or religious groups attacking other groups, isn't much different than attacking any other sect of society. "God" is a very useful tool when there is no lone 'evil-doer' to stir up the masses. Power, prestige, ego, and money make one hell of a 'preacher'.

[Deep13]

194. Okay a few points.

1. I agree that we don't need to have magic words said at the installation of a Constitutional officer.

2. I the goal is to gain mainstream acceptence of nonbelief as a legitimate point of view, this is not the way to go about it.

3. The 1st Amendment also protects the free exercise of religion. If citizen Obama wants this, I don't see that there is any legal basis for preventing it.

[jgraz]

199. Except he won't be acting as "Citizen Obama", he'll be acting as "President Obama"

No one is saying the president can't attend whatever religious services he wants. All we're saying is that he can't turn an official government event *into* a religious service.

[Deep13]

203. Well, he can't expect the govt. to pay for it.

And it can't be a substitute for the Constitutionally required procedure. Very little of the traditional inauguration process is actually required by the Constitution. Most of it, the speech, the drive down Penna. Ave., is at the discretion of the new president. The point is, these are not official actions. As long as the public is not footing the bill, I don't see a Constitutional violation here. Now personally, I think having a public oratory dedicated to irrationality, especially one delivered by a professional con artist, is really deplorable. I find it offensive. I think it marginalizes anyone who is not a Christian conservative and especially gay people. And it perpetuates the myth that there is a god who created the universe out of nothing without having to be created himself and that this god somehow cares about what primates do in bed together on this speck of dust. I prefer the pro-secular approach they use in France. Unfortunately, the American Constitution is neutral, not actively pro-secular. As long as it does not insinuate itself into the official actions of government, it is not unconstitutional.

[anonymous171]

205. lol reactionary anti-theists. nt