Atheists Find "So Help Me God" in Inaugural Oath Offensive, File Lawsuit
Posted: Monday, January 05, 2009
by Alf Gordon
Some atheists and non-religious groups have taken offense yet again at the mention of God in a public forum. A lawsuit has been filed in Washington demanding that the phrase "so help me God" be removed from President-elect Obama's inaugural oath.
Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits in both 2001 and 2005, posted an advance copy of the lawsuit on the Internet. The American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota, Seattle, Florida are also named as plaintiffs in the suit.
The lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."
Newdow says that references to God during the ceremony violates the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion. He claims that he is unable to watch the inaugural ceremony with its current religious overtones because doing so would make him feel excluded and stigmatized.
"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit.
Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr. The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.
I heard Newdow express his opinions as a guest on the "Laura Ingraham" radio talk show today. Newdow refused multiple times to answer Ingram's pointed questions as to how his rights were being violated. He tried to compare the discrimination of blacks, pre-civil rights era, to what he was experiencing by being forced to listen to someone say "so help me God." Ingraham asked him to list the specific discriminatory acts he was subject to, such as losing employment/being denied employment; being denied housing; or being denied any civil liberties. Newdow dodged the questions by attacking Ingraham and claiming she was not listening to his side of the story. He never did respond directly to her questioning.
I find it amusing that Newdow feels "excluded and stigmatized" by the mention of God in the ceremonies. I wonder if he feels the same way when conducting financial business with money that says "In God We Trust" on it. I also wonder if his next lawsuit will be directed against Hollywood filmmakers, scriptwriters, and actors, for the numerous references to God in American television and films (as in the phrases, "God d***!" and "Jesus Christ!"). Or maybe he just doesn't watch television and films so he doesn't feel so traumatized.
I am guessing that Mr. Newdow and Company care less about the violation of civil rights and more about imposing their belief system on the rest of the country. (I find this an amusing concept, for if the legal system would ever make that happen, they would indeed be establishing a form of religion in our country, something that Newdow claims they should not be doing.) This is just another example of a small yet vocal minority trying to impose its will on the majority. In any event, I would not want to be a patient of Dr. Newdow's. I shudder to think how impaired his healing abilities might become if I accidentally took God's name in vain while under his care. And if I ever heard the man say, "Oh, my God" while he's doing surgery on me, I...I...well, I will just have to sue!
Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits in both 2001 and 2005, posted an advance copy of the lawsuit on the Internet. The American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota, Seattle, Florida are also named as plaintiffs in the suit.
Newdow says that references to God during the ceremony violates the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion. He claims that he is unable to watch the inaugural ceremony with its current religious overtones because doing so would make him feel excluded and stigmatized.
"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit.
Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr. The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.
I heard Newdow express his opinions as a guest on the "Laura Ingraham" radio talk show today. Newdow refused multiple times to answer Ingram's pointed questions as to how his rights were being violated. He tried to compare the discrimination of blacks, pre-civil rights era, to what he was experiencing by being forced to listen to someone say "so help me God." Ingraham asked him to list the specific discriminatory acts he was subject to, such as losing employment/being denied employment; being denied housing; or being denied any civil liberties. Newdow dodged the questions by attacking Ingraham and claiming she was not listening to his side of the story. He never did respond directly to her questioning.
I find it amusing that Newdow feels "excluded and stigmatized" by the mention of God in the ceremonies. I wonder if he feels the same way when conducting financial business with money that says "In God We Trust" on it. I also wonder if his next lawsuit will be directed against Hollywood filmmakers, scriptwriters, and actors, for the numerous references to God in American television and films (as in the phrases, "God d***!" and "Jesus Christ!"). Or maybe he just doesn't watch television and films so he doesn't feel so traumatized.
I am guessing that Mr. Newdow and Company care less about the violation of civil rights and more about imposing their belief system on the rest of the country. (I find this an amusing concept, for if the legal system would ever make that happen, they would indeed be establishing a form of religion in our country, something that Newdow claims they should not be doing.) This is just another example of a small yet vocal minority trying to impose its will on the majority. In any event, I would not want to be a patient of Dr. Newdow's. I shudder to think how impaired his healing abilities might become if I accidentally took God's name in vain while under his care. And if I ever heard the man say, "Oh, my God" while he's doing surgery on me, I...I...well, I will just have to sue!
This Article has been viewed 675 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)I enjoyed your article and thank you for writing it. I have wondered when someone was going to sue over overtime paid on Christmas, or why Christmas is a paid day off, or why dead people are in Federal cemeteries under white crosses etc?I pray that someday the court will really stand up to people like this.Jeff, I have heard the first two points made before, but not the third. I'll have to remember that one. I find it ironic that this group expects the majority to be tolerant of their viewpoints, yet they find no need to be tolerant of anyone else's. Thanks for your comments.
hi alf,stupidity.next, my son told me today that his friend who works at a shop-rite told him that a woman came in to order a birthday cake. the name? adolf hitler-her son's name. that was bad enough, but she then asked to have Swatstickas drawn all around the cake. shop-rite refused. they are now being sued.i loved your example of using money with "In God we trust."i'm sure this lawyer has no problems at all accepting hard earned money.rediculous.thanks for bringing this to my attention, good article.best regards,sue thomOf course not, Sue. Depriving one's self of a livelihood simply because one disagreed with the sentiment engraved on the currency necessary to maintain that livelihood would be unthinkable. Besides, if he does not use that money, someone else certainly will, right?
Excellent writing, solid reasoning and a very enjoyable article. ThanksRev Michael BrescianiThanks, Rev. I am glad you enjoyed it.
While I think it is a bit over the top for atheists to claim to be deeply "offended" by this forced reference to God in the inaugural oaths, those bringing the lawsuit do have a perfectly valid point.Why should the president of a secular nation (in which there are people from various faiths and from no faith) be *required* to swear on a God they may or may not believe in? There is no need for mention of God to be present - the President's duty is to the people.The references to Hollywood and to using God in speech are not relevant - those bringing the lawsuit are not suggesting people should not be allowed to make reference to God if they wish, they are merely saying reference to God should not be required as part of the Presidential oaths.As a result, the suggestion that those filing this lawsuit are supporting any violation of civil rights is rendered nonsensical - all they are asking for is removal of a requirement to refer to God in order to become president. They aren't saying people shouldn't mention God, but only that no-one should be required to swear an Oath to God in order to take a particular public office.No freedoms are being impinged on at all, the president is merely freed from having trappings of theistic belief forced on them during their inauguration.While I think those filing this lawsuit are being somewhat over-sensitive, their point is valid.There is also a valid argument for removal of God from the currency - there is simply no need for theistic (or political) references to be there, just as there is no need for anti-theistic references to be there.Its just money, it doesn't need to have religious or anti-religious slogans on it.Although maybe in the current climate, perhaps "In bankers we trust not" might be popular if there was a vote on what to write on there! ;-)I think it also worth thinking about what kind of reaction religious people might give if the currency started being produced with "We don't trust in God" written on it, or "We evolved from single celled organisms" written on it.Ben, your argument reminds me of the ones presented about decorating for the holidays in public schools and government buildings. Christmas decorations with religious overtones are banned using the separation-of-church-and-state excuse; Halloween decorations with religious overtones are not. Government locales cannot display a Nativity scene, but can display a menorah. And now we have the complaint about Rick Warren praying at the inauguration. If a Muslim religious leader wanted to pray, would there be an uproar from these same individuals? I will hazard a guess that the answer would be no. Either ban ALL forms of religious reference, popular, archaic, or obscure, or allow all of them. Of course, this will never happen. Thank you for your comments. (Instead of bankers, however, I would recommend substituting "politicians".)
Alf another example of people just looking for trouble. If they don't believe in God to begin with it is meaningless to them. They are free to lie, cheat, swear, whatever. Yet if a person who does believe, that is truly believes in God, then it is important as a tool to insure the truth is at least hopefully attained. To professers, well no difference either. yes another example of todays politically correct society in a nation where the overwhelming majority profess to believe. I suspect the minority will rule once again.Lack of belief in God does not make you free to lie, cheat or swear (and belief in God certainly doesn't mean a person will never do those things).Atheists and believers alike are bound by moral commitments to the people around them - to the society in which they live, and all are stuck with the consequences of their actions (whether through adverse reactions from other individuals, or through legal sanctions imposed by the society).The President, as a President, should be there to serve the people, not God.The President as an individual should be free to pledge themselves as an individual to any God they wish, and serve that God to the best of their ability, but they should not be required to pledge themselves to any particular God in order to take on the role of President.This is not "minority rule", this is simply ensuring the President gets the same rights to freedom of religion (or lack thereof) as other people do.I will have to disagree with you on this one, Ben. If Obama were filing the lawsuit, I would say your statement has merit. However, it is an atheist who has nothing to do with the inauguration that is upset. And yes, he does want to impose his religious beliefs on the rest of us (not believing in a deity is just as religious an attitude as believing in one).Not believing in a deity is not as religious an attitude as believing in one because a lack of belief doesn't itself influence thought or behaviour whereas belief does (some atheists may have a religious "zeal" in their attitude however, but this will come from their ideology, such as rationalism or humanism, rather than their atheism itself).
Specifically, if those filing the lawsuit get their way, what belief are you saying is being imposed on people? The belief that "there is no God" certainly isn't, because there would still be no reference to such a belief in the inaugural oaths.
Lack of reference to God makes it neutral with respect to belief (rather than implicitly pro-theist as it currently is), it does not make it pro "there is no God".
Since the objection being raised is one of general principle it doesn't matter who files the suit, and in any case they can only win if the existing structure of law supports their case.Robert, our society has always rooted for the underdog. This may well be an extension of that. Your comment about the minority ruling may be overstated, but I believe it to be a matter of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. A few individuals complain and they are the ones who are heard. If the general public would voice their outrage as much as the few do, this would not be an issue.
Excellent points Alf. I frequently have had the same ideas and feelings when I hear or see reports of such people trying to "push" their non-belief on others.In what way would removing the God reference from the inauguration be pushing non-belief onto anyone?The president would still be free to believe or not believe as they wish, and would not have to make any statement which would be incompatible with any belief they may have, whereas as it stands now, a president without belief would be put in the bizarre situation of having to invoke an entity they don't believe in in order to complete their inauguration.Pushing non-belief would require the inauguration to include some kind of statement to the effect of "there is no God", and I don't think anyone is asking for that.Ben, I think the bottom line here is this: If Michael Newdow runs for President and wins, he is free to not use the phrase "so help me God" if he so chooses. If Barack Obama chooses not to use the phrase, he is also free to do so. But for someone who is not even involved in the process to convince the court system to make policy for the entire nation just because he does not like something is absurd. It would be like me filing suit demanding that every public school system stop celebrating Halloween because I do not like the pagan religious symbols used to depict it. No, I take that back. If I filed this lawsuit, I would be viewed as a backwater, redneck, uneducated Christian hick because I was trying to force my personal beliefs on the general public. When Newdow attempts to effect the same thing, he is praised as an intelligent free-thinking man whose ideas need to be heard.Are they free not to use it though? I get the impression that the oaths are required, although I could easily be wrong on this (haven't been able to confirm either way).
By filing a lawsuit he is merely testing whether the current oaths are actually compatible with existing law and principles. If schools were forcing children to participate in Pagan rituals, I suspect a lawsuit to prevent it would be successful as this would be violating their freedom of religion.
As I mentioned before, Neadow cannot possibly force his personal beliefs onto the general public with this....no reference to his belief that "there is no God" would be included even if he does get his way.
The current lawsuit could just as well have been filed by a Hindu (polytheist, rather than believing in one God), and there'd be no claims they were forcing their Hindu belief onto the population.
Lack of reference to theist belief is not imposing any alternative belief. There's already a lack of reference to lots of things people may or may not believe in (alien visitors, faeries, Elvis being alive, potatoes being edible, the moon being made of rock etc), but the lack of reference to these doesn't impose anything on us - we can make up our mind either way.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.