Atheists sue to stop use of 'so help me God' in inaugural oath

It is interesting how often you encounter a single atheist who speaks for all of them.

What is really interesting is how often you encounter people who suggest that a person is doing something when they are not in fact doing that thing. Before casting stones, it would be good to have some examples of atheists who claim to be politically disinterested. Then perhaps, we could get a better idea of who is speaking for whom.

It seems the Atheists in this case are slowly becoming like what some Atheists(possible including themselves) purport to be the most annoying feature of religious zealots; forcing people by any means possible in the loudest and most obnoxious fashion possible to "not believe"(believe) in what they do "not believe"(believe) in.

No-one is forcing a belief on anyone. They are suing to preserve an eroding Constitutional principle. The only belief they're forcing is that the rule of law is a good thing. And even there, it's not beliefs that are being forced.

"Atheists do not claim to be politically disinterested. What they claim is that political decisions should not be made on the basis of beliefs which derive from an authority which cannot be substantiated."

It is interesting how often you encounter a single atheist who speaks for all of them.

Is it the absolutist position of the atheist (in contrast to that of the agnostic, who admits of doubts) that produces this?

Why, the cynic in me is sometimes tempted to think atheists all have some kind of common scripture they have memorized...

The most influential atheist in Western history, as I recall, wasn't opposed to religion's role in political decision-making so much as he was hell bent on eradicating religion's supposedly opiating effect upon the masses.

I could careless if he swears to Alah, God, Marty Martian, or Sezwho2. Its just words and we all know words really dont hold power over ones actions. He will be president for the good or bad of it, no matter what his religious belief is. Some lawyers just sue to get the media attention. Period.

No, I don't think we can agree to that.

Why are the atheists so interested in this? So long as the oath is preformed and Obama bound to uphold his position can we agree that the wording of such an oath is irrelevant?

wuzzademcrat,

I have no love for fundamentalists but I have yet to meet a politically disinterested 'atheist.'

I have yet to meet a completely politically disinterested person. Atheists do not claim to be politically disinterested. What they claim is that political decisions should not be made on the basis of beliefs which derive from an authority which cannot be substantiated.

It seems the Atheists in this case are slowly becoming like what some Atheists(possible including themselves) purport to be the most annoying feature of religious zealots; forcing people by any means possible in the loudest and most obnoxious fashion possible to "not believe"(believe) in what they do "not believe"(believe) in.

I knew I should've become a Lawyer. They never run out of work to do. No matter how idiotic.

What a waste of time and effort by any group. Utter stupidity. Even atheists are becoming a bleedin pain in the buttocks.

Anyway I think it may be helpful to keep some reference to God, or the life force in the universe, for the practising Muslims and Christians and Jews to have something to agree on.

As long as by "God" you mean the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I'm in complete agreement.

Just to clarify things.

In my dictionary right here it says:

Atheist, a person who believes that God does not exist.

Agnostic: A person who is not sure whether or not God exists, and who believes that we cannot know whether God exists or not.

Anyway I think it may be helpful to keep some reference to God, or the life force in the universe, for the practising Muslims and Christians and Jews to have something to agree on. The Buddhists generally don't make trouble and go along easily with everyone else, so it's a win-win situation.

Atheism itself is a religion that believes there is no God.

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist is NOT someone who believes that there is no God. An atheist IS someone who does not believe that there is a God. Religion is based on belief, but atheism is based on lack of belief.

Atheism itself is a religion that believes there is no God. Therefore, they should be fined for crossing the lines of separation between church and state.

Nope, Atheism is NOT a religion. Saying that it is shows lack of understanding and a populist attempt to dismiss it as just another kooky church like Catholicism or Christadelphian. For me personally being an Atheist, Atheism is not having a belief in a god, religious or otherwise and that a person's ethics is determined by themselves, thier community and thier practical application. In other words, we are answerable only to ourselves and others (being people) not some overly judgemental, omnipotent, senior in the sky. Besides, passing final judgement to a 'god' is the ultimate cop out, the ultimate denial of individual responsibilty.

The arguments that Atheism 'lessens' humanity are silly - all Atheists say is look around in our world, in nature in human achievements - there is all the depth and satisfaction you could ever need. The discovery of new things through science and explorations reveals more stuff to discover.

In my experience, being religious has very little to do with someone being a good person. I know and love people who are religious and who are not. In every case, thier reliogious beliefs have nothing to do with my choice to associate with them.

As for this case, It really doesn't bother me about the whole 'god' in the oath, etc. As another poster says, whatever Obama feels cements his obligation to himself and to others (namely the people USA). It would be cool to see it done in Klingon, though.

Atheism itself is a religion that believes there is no God. Therefore, they should be fined for crossing the lines of separation between church and state.

Waste of time.

I see why Atheists are in a huff about "help me god", but agnostics should not have interest in this, for obvious reasons. Unless they take sides.

Groundless, as can be proven historically.

If Bush hadn't had God's help, imagine how badly he might have bollixed things up.

Well, I have to get a bit in here. Being atheist myself, well for the most part, I can say it really shouldn't matter. However, a few years back, a ten commandments plaque was argued that it should be removed from a court house and that push was by the liberals. We also have the holidays or Xmas issue, again, pushed by the left and here I left leaning posters supporting him. My, How times have changed.

If Obama wants to use god, God or what ever, let him do it. I don't mind money having god on it.

Personally, I wish we all get off this god stuff altogether.

For those who dont know anything outside of TV and the Movies, the US hasn't had anyone swear on a bible for court in the last 20 years or so. And back then the person had the choice to use the bible or any other religious book they wanted, and if they didnt have a religion they could just affirm their telling the truth.

I have heard Obama is going to use Lincoln's bible for the swearing in. He has made the choose of using a bible and we should honor that no matter if we believe in religion or not. Also in the article it shows that the 35 words for the swearing in do not include the words "so help me god" and that its up to the president elect to add those words.

I have no love for fundamentalists but I have yet to meet a politically disinterested 'atheist.'

Pointless. Like much of everything else in the United States, the activist is going after an empty, symbolic ritual when the battle to undermine America as a Christian nation was won a long, long time ago.

well he should name all the gods and no god in the end to be political correct.

I personally don't care if there's anything like this in any kind of oath, be it in the US or otherwise. However, in courts of law, putting your hand on the bible and swearing to tell the truth 'so help you god' should not be indicative of whether the person is actually telling the truth or not (I realize of course it's not, but for some people it seems to be a powerful enough statement that it is).

Anyway, this is as much a waste of time as a devout Christian, say, trying to sue people who 'misuse' the words 'god' or 'christ' when uttering surprise and or epithets.

And what does this guy do for a day job? Surely the US court system has more important things to do than pander to this gentleman's vanity.

Its easy to have a point of view, when you openly sit, on one side of the fence.

Doesnt the US preach state is seperate to church?

Obama can swear on whatever he wants, so long as I think he is sincere.

Since Obama is a believer, saying the oath without those words could have less meaning to him. I prefer that Obama take his oath seriously, because its between him, and his god, not between Newdow and whatever he believes is higher.

To illustrate, lets say that Newdow believed in Zeus and that he wanted Obama to swear to Zeus. Swearing to Zeus would mean nothing to Obama, and so would his oath.

Oh my God! That's a bit extreme!

Well, I think China will help Obama more than any god will, but we seem to want the old ace in the hole just in case. That is, at heart, the atheist's contention--that a world view that invokes error is more likely to act in error.

The US court system has more important things to do that pander to Newdow's vanity. But I don't think it has anything more important to do than to decide Constitutional issues--if there is one here.

Personally, I think that as long as he says the pledge without crossing his fingers behind his back, he should be allowed to add "so help me God". I think it's important to realize the addition as nonsense, however.

And what does this guy do for a day job? Surely the US court system has more important things to do than pander to this gentleman's vanity.

It does seem like a rather pointless suit.

What is telling, however, is this:

The Justice Department and attorneys general from all 50 states have filed motions at the federal court asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

Surely just one motion would do. Apparently there was not a single state that had the courage or the integrity not to join the bandwagon.

When the first atheists wins election he/she may do without the "in God we trust". Until then... < :-)

You're only hurting the good cause with this frivolity, Mike...