Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration

The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12 ... uguration/

These people need to get a life. Especially the Newdow fella.

Same lawsuit was filed prior to the last two inaugurals, and lost...and here's why it will lose again...

1. The words "So Help Me God" are not part of the oath... as it appears in the Constitution http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

The First Amendment, which this man is trying to use, says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress has not added the words to the oath...Each President has requested the SCJ to add the words...and since that First Amendment also prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech"...there is no court in this land that can order someone not to say something...it can only take action on the legality of words after they are spoken...

2. That same First Amendment that prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech" allows the President-elect to invite anyone he wants to speak at his Inaugural Ceremony...and the oath is the only part of the ceremony that is mandated. Congress has not made any law mandating the prayer, but the preacher has been invited to speak...

This is nothing but a publicity stunt that will go nowhere...

Col Hogan wrote:Same lawsuit was filed prior to the last two inaugurals, and lost...and here's why it will lose again...

1. The words "So Help Me God" are not part of the oath... as it appears in the Constitution http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/pihtml/pioaths.html

The First Amendment, which this man is trying to use, says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress has not added the words to the oath...Each President has requested the SCJ to add the words...and since that First Amendment also prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech"...there is no court in this land that can order someone not to say something...it can only take action on the legality of words after they are spoken...

2. That same First Amendment that prohibits "abridging the freedom of speech" allows the President-elect to invite anyone he wants to speak at his Inaugural Ceremony...and the oath is the only part of the ceremony that is mandated. Congress has not made any law mandating the prayer, but the preacher has been invited to speak...

This is nothing but a publicity stunt that will go nowhere...

There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again.

Dissent is a beautiful thing. Fvck God and fvck Jesus.


As if they really existed.

You obviously haven't consumed enough tonight...that's a pretty mellow response...

Happy New Year, Cap...

Col Hogan wrote:You obviously haven't consumed enough tonight...that's a pretty mellow response...

Happy New Year, Cap...

Just trying to be somewhat civil, Hoagie.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:You obviously haven't consumed enough tonight...that's a pretty mellow response...

Happy New Year, Cap...

Just trying to be somewhat civil, Hoagie.

And you succeeded...

Cap'n Cat wrote:Dissent is a beautiful thing. Fvck God and fvck Jesus.


As if they really existed.

Dissent is good. However the constitution works both ways. It doesn't protect you from hearing things you don't like, whether you're a Christian or an atheist.

HI54UNI wrote:Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration

The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12 ... uguration/

These people need to get a life. Especially the Newdow fella.

The phrase "under God" was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, they were added during the McCarthy witchunt.

These guys need to compromise and be pragmatic. Respect for other people and their beliefs would be a good start.

houndawg wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration

The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12 ... uguration/

These people need to get a life. Especially the Newdow fella.

The phrase "under God" was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, they were added during the McCarthy witchunt.

True, but that's not the current issue...

houndawg wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Atheist Group Files Lawsuit Against Prayer at Presidential Inauguration

The head of an atheist group told FOX News Radio on Tuesday that by allowing a prayer at President-elect Obama's inauguration, the government is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12 ... uguration/

These people need to get a life. Especially the Newdow fella.

The phrase "under God" was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance, they were added during the McCarthy witchunt.

Newdow already lost that fight.

HI54UNI wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Dissent is a beautiful thing. Fvck God and fvck Jesus.


As if they really existed.

Dissent is good. However the constitution works both ways. It doesn't protect you from hearing things you don't like, whether you're a Christian or an atheist.

HI54 for President!

So help me God!!!

Prior to the writing of the Constitution many state/colonies were dominated by specific religions and had laws benefiting those religions. For example, most Connecticut residents at the time were Congregationalists. In order to hold public office in Connecticut, you had to be a Congregationalist. Most, if not all states had similar laws. Also, a portion of the state taxes went to the primary state religion in some states.

I believe it was these laws that the Constitution meant to abolish. I don't think the Constitution was written to protect us from hearing religious views that are contrary to our own.

AZGrizFan wrote:

HI54UNI wrote: Dissent is good. However the constitution works both ways. It doesn't protect you from hearing things you don't like, whether you're a Christian or an atheist.

HI54 for President!

So help me God!!!

No one is disputing that.

What you and Z are missing is the whole an-instrument-of-the-government (Obama)-making- use-of-public-facilities-for-religious-promotion thing as Barker alludes to in the first post.

I'll walk by and shake my head and feel sorry for you if you're on a street corner spouting off Jesus sh*t. But, I don't have to tolerate it at a nationally broadcast, public funds-sponsored function such as a presidential inauguration. I'm very disappointed in Barack Obama with this.






Regret your sophomoric kneejerk, now, Z?

Might as well invite the chicken blood drinkers and the snake charmers too. None of them could be any more repulsive than that tick about to pop fat fvcker.

Just shout out BUSH IS GONE NOW!! And have everybody respond AMEN! And be done with the fairy tale belief BS.

Wedgebuster wrote:Might as well invite the chicken blood drinkers and the snake charmers too. None of them could be any more repulsive than that tick about to pop fat fvcker.

Just shout out BUSH IS GONE NOW!! And have everybody respond AMEN! And be done with the fairy tale belief BS.

Maybe the wrong place to ask this but... How long into the Obama admin. will it be Bush's fault? I mean, when will things be Obama's fault and not the previous admin.?

grizzaholic wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Might as well invite the chicken blood drinkers and the snake charmers too. None of them could be any more repulsive than that tick about to pop fat fvcker.

Just shout out BUSH IS GONE NOW!! And have everybody respond AMEN! And be done with the fairy tale belief BS.

Maybe the wrong place to ask this but... How long into the Obama admin. will it be Bush's fault? I mean, when will things be Obama's fault and not the previous admin.?

You're getting too far ahead here in the blame game!

The 23% that still think GWB is the greatest are still blaming Clinton for all of Bush's bunglings.

Wedgebuster wrote:

grizzaholic wrote: Maybe the wrong place to ask this but... How long into the Obama admin. will it be Bush's fault? I mean, when will things be Obama's fault and not the previous admin.?

You're getting too far ahead here in the blame game!

The 23% that still think GWB is the greatest are still blaming Clinton for all of Bush's bunglings.

So, if Obama only stays for 4 years, he will not get blamed until 2-3 years after he is outed?!

Obama is God.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Obama is God.

He is the one.

grizzaholic wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Might as well invite the chicken blood drinkers and the snake charmers too. None of them could be any more repulsive than that tick about to pop fat fvcker.

Just shout out BUSH IS GONE NOW!! And have everybody respond AMEN! And be done with the fairy tale belief BS.

Maybe the wrong place to ask this but... How long into the Obama admin. will it be Bush's fault? I mean, when will things be Obama's fault and not the previous admin.?

Bushs first 4 years were Clintons fault and Clintons first 4 years were Bushs fault etc:roll: