Suing to keep God out of Washington DC

[tinytim]

Atheist will attempt to boot God from inauguration

A well-known California atheist says he and 17 others, plus atheist and
humanist organizations, will file suit Tuesday in D.C.'s District Court to
strip all references to God and religion from President-elect Barack Obama's
January inauguration ceremony.

Michael Newdow, of Sacramento, Calif., says he wants to remove the phrase
"so help me God" from the oath of office, plus axe the invocation prayer
from Pastor Rick Warren, already under fire from the left for his opposition
to gay marriage.

According to Newdow, any reference to God or religion violates the
Constitution.



http://www.dcexaminer.com/local/36850834.html

Do you think they will be successful in keeping God away from Obama's Crowning event?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

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

And is it right for a man that many consider to be lost to ask for God's help?

 

[monk]

They'd have to put it in first.

"I do solemnly swear 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."

 

[Magnetic Poles]

They'd have to put it in first.

"I do solemnly swear 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."

Yep. An incoming president could just as easily add, "So help me Plastic Man". It would be just as much a part of the oath as SHMG.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

So help me Underdog. My favorite superhero. Humble and lovable, he was.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

So help me Underdog. My favorite superhero. Humble and lovable, he was.

:laugh: "There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!"

I am actually a bit partial to Mighty Mouse.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

The bible tells us to show his grace thru our daily lives. The bible also gives stern warning not to invoke his name without reverence. I'd rather not have it said by people who don't mean it.

 

[tinytim]

As the story spins, there is now a problem with RW praying "in Jesus' name"

 

[LeBuick]

As the story spins, there is now a problem with RW praying "in Jesus' name"

I saw both of these, I hope Rick doesn't bow down to remain non-controversial and I hope Obama says, "so help me God". It may not be in the oath but it is his right to say it.

I don't like people sacrificing their beliefs to be PC to those who will wine no matter what you do. The Atheist object to an invocation so using "Rick might say in the name of Jesus" is just a way to dare him to do it.

 

[LeBuick]

:laugh: "There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!"

I am actually a bit partial to Mighty Mouse.

When Polly's in trouble I am not slow, it's hip, hip, hip and away I go...

 

[Martin]

Do you think they will be successful in keeping God away from Obama's Crowning event?

==I don't know if they will be successful or not, however they will not keep God away from anything. The Word of God is clear that people seek to run from God in vain (Ps 139:7-12). As for the following comment:

"The draft of the lawsuit contends: "By placing 'so help me God' in its oaths and sponsoring prayers to God, government is lending its power to one side of perhaps the greatest religious controversy: God's existence or
non-existence."

If Mr. Newdow would bother to do his historical homework he would learn several things:

1. "So help me God" is not part of the oath, it is an addition to the oath.

2. "So help me God" was first done by President George Washington.

3. Since Washington oversaw the Constitutional Convention it is highly unlikely that he believed "So help me God" was/is unconstitutional.

4. None of the founders believed it was unconstitutional when Washington did it and, as far as I know, the rest who were elected followed his example.

5. Washington warned, in his farwell address, that anyone who attempted to undermine public religion and morality was not a patriot.

Therefore we can make the following historical conclusions.

1. Mr. Newdow is not a patriot.

2. Mr. Newdow does not know as much about the constitution as Washington and Washington clearly disagreed with Mr. Newdow's understanding of things.

3. Mr. Newdow is historically not in agreement with what Americans have done throughout our history.

It really is a crying shame that Mr. Newdow, and those like him, are not laughed off the stage for being the fools they are.

 

[just-want-peace]

It really is a crying shame that Mr. Newdow, and those like him, are not laughed off the stage for being the fools they are.

Emphasis mine

Quite literally!!!

Psa 14:1 ---- The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[Martin]

Psa 14:1 ---- The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

:thumbs: One has to wonder about people who are offended by a simple prayer.

 

[LeBuick]

:thumbs: One has to wonder about people who are offended by a simple prayer.

We should file a case saying they won't participate in prayer with us. Since they make an issue that we do pray, we should counter complain that they won't pray.

 

[Jim1999]

For atheists, they sure give God a lot of credit.

It seems I recall this kind of silly cropping up when a little Scotsman was chaplain to the senate some years ago. I think his name was Marshall. He prayed all the stronger.

Cheers,

Jim