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 Obama’s 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: God’s existence or non-existence.”
U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton said he found “good cause” to allow Newdow’s case to proceed, based on the plaintiff’s 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 nation’s 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 we’re confident we’ll 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.”
“It’s 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, we’ve had ‘God’ in other things since our earliest days and there has never been the strict separation of state that these plaintiffs would like.”
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...
ping
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?
[evil grin]
I guess not!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.