Skip to comments.Atheists get day in court over effort to ban God from inauguration ceremony
Posted on 01/06/2009 6:07:34 PM PST by HokieMom
Atheists, humanists and others seeking to keep God and religion out of President-elect Barack Obamas inauguration ceremony will get their day in court.
A D.C. District Court judge announced late Monday afternoon that he will hold a hearing in a lawsuit that seeks to strip all religious elements from the Jan. 20 inaugural festivities.
Last week, Michael Newdow, a California lawyer, physician and well-known atheist, led 29 other plaintiffs and 11 organizations in filing a lawsuit to remove the phrase so help me God from the presidential oath of office and eliminate the opening and closing prayers from the inaugural ceremony.
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: Gods existence or non-existence.
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he found good cause to allow Newdows case to proceed, based on the plaintiffs court filings.
In 2001 and 2005, Newdow filed similar lawsuits but they never went to trial. He is also known for unsuccessfully suing to strike references to God from the nations Pledge of Allegiance.
Bob Ritter, a staff attorney for the American Humanist Association, who is joining Newdow in representing the numerous plaintiffs, said he was happily surprised to learn the judge would hear the case.
This is a very momentous lawsuit, Ritter said. It is one to protect the rights of all Americans, and were confident well prevail. I have had people call this frivolous, but that is not true at all. All of us respect the Constitution and this is a very serious endeavor for the whole country.
Every president since Abraham Lincoln has added the phrase so help me God to the end of the oath of office, and some say the practice dates back to George Washington.
Professor Susan Low Bloch, a constitutional law expert with Georgetown University Law Center, said the case will rest on standing whether there is an injury and there is a way in which the court, the law can remedy the injury.
Its a really hard question because historically we have had some reference to God in our public forum for a long time, Bloch said. When the Supreme Court opens, it says, God save this honorable court, we have God on some our coins, weve had God in other things since our earliest days and there has never been the strict separation of state that these plaintiffs would like.
Since this godless bass turd is not involved in the ceremonies, where is his “standing?” Isn’t that what it’s all about these days? “Standing?”
Standing is for leftists and their “right” to impose their beliefs on us. We peons have no right to know if our president is constitutionally able to hold office.
Bet the Judge is a fellow traveler.
every dog has its day
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
We never thought we would see a day when America elects a POTUS like Obama — Did we? They day is not far that these Godless types will win.
To me, al religions believe in a god. Therefore the reerence cannot be respecting a specific religion. BTW,, atheism requires belief in a god also, even if they deny it, they must believe in a higher power (faith)!
I hope this man wins his case! God bless him for taking these stpes.
We have a Godless man with no soul taking office. Let’s leave God out of it.
Nothing, and I mean nothing will get conservatives to do anything about it. Just look at the COLB issue, most don’t care.
“We never thought we would see a day when America elects a POTUS like Obama “
How is the election of Obama involved in the issue?
” Isnt that what its all about these days? Standing?”
Standing has been ‘what it’s all about’ for years.
Like since Marbury v. Madison IIRC.
I think it was in Wyoming, or Montana where atheists filed lawsuit to force State Troopers to pull up crosses placed by them to remember fallen Troopers who died in service along the highways. The crosses abridged "separation of church and state" or some such argument. They were just remembering and honoring their friends, but they had to pull up those roadside crosses because they "offended" some atheist.
If there are ‘humanists’........then there must be no ‘black folks’, right? Then.......the US must not have a B-L-A-C-K President? They’re color blind? Hehehehehe.
I suspect that Marxist Obama is, in reality, no more religious than is his BFF, Bill Ayers.
“...if he decides to just ignore the judge and say it anyway?”
He will increase in stature in the eyes of conservatives.
FLORIDA COURT SETS ATHEIST HOLY DAY
In Florida, an atheist created a case against the upcoming Easter and Passover holy days. He hired an attorney to bring a discrimination case against Christians, Jews & observances of their holy days. The argument was: it is unfair that atheists had no such recognized day(s).
The case was brought before a judge. After listening to the passionate presentation by the lawyer, the judge banged his gavel declaring, ‘Case dismissed.’
The lawyer immediately stood objecting to the ruling saying, ‘Your honor, how can you possibly dismiss this case? The Christians have Christmas, Easter & others. The Jews have Passover, Yom Kippur & Hanukkah. Yet my client & all other atheists have no such holidays.’
The judge leaned forward in his chair saying, ‘But you do. Your client, counsel, is woefully ignorant.’
The lawyer said, ‘Your Honor, w e are unaware of any special observance or holiday for atheists.’
The judge said, ‘The calendar says April 1st is ‘April Fools Day.’ Psalm 14:1 states ‘The fool says in his heart, there is no God.’ Thus, it is the opinion of this court, that if your client says there is no God, then he is a fool. Therefore, April 1st is his day. Court is adjourned.
Michael Newdow makes me wish this were an Aztec nation rather than a Christian nation. If you know what I mean and I think you do.
Poor radical atheists..they just believe soooooo very hard that God does not exist. But if He does not exist why go through all the trouble and effort to have Him removed? Santa Claus would be a much easier target dontchyaknow...
Unbelievable. Courts won’t address the legitimacy of the person elected to be POTUS, but will allow this hogwash to be dealt with. What upside down priorities.
In Montana they have crosses up for anyone who is killed in an auto accident.
He'd offer himself up for human sacrifice?
You mean he’d have a choice?
I guess not!