So Help Me God, Confused Atheists Fret Over the G-Word
Tweet
A lawsuit that atheist groups will file Tuesday demands that the words "so help me God" be excluded at the end of the president’s oath of office, though oddly they aren’t suing Obama for using those words during the Inauguration.
Among plantiffs is Michael Newdow, a California doctor, lawyer and atheist who is oxymormoically a minister of the Universal Life Church which states:
We are advocates of religious freedom.
The Universal Life Church wants you to pursue your spiritual beliefs without interference from any outside agency, including government or church authority.
Newdow has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over the two previous inaugurations. Joining him are 17 other individuals and 10 groups representing atheists who are suing:
Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr.
along with Pastor Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph Lowery. The suit says that references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution’s ban on the establishment of religion and:
There can be no purpose for placing ‘so help me God’ in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists.
The suit points out that "so help me God"–used in every Inauguration since FDR–is not is not part of the oath as specified in the Constitution, which is a pretty valid point. Unless person being sworn in has a personal belief in God and would like a little help, in which case that’s the exercise of free speech and freedom of religion.
In the suit, the atheists claim references to God will ruin their experience of watching the Inauguration IRL and on the teevee (oh noez!). Per CNN:
Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.
"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny."
Just plug your ears during that part, sheesh!
But there’s some cognitive dissonace in the lawsuit. The atheists aren’t suing Obama–who is technically responsible for choosing the speakers and will be uttering the G-word–because as an individual, he has the right to express his religious belief. Newdow said:
If he chooses to ask for God’s help, I’m not going to challenge him. I think it’s unwise.
So um, maybe I am confused, but shouldn’t Newdow, as an atheist, have said something along the lines of:
If the President wants to be superstitious, that’s his right
since basically Newdow admitted in the existence of a God who helps, and that interfering with God might be um…risky?And that seems to run counter to atheists’ beliefs/non-beliefs.
if you are saying that it is contradictory for an atheist to be a minister or belong to a church, that is just wrong as a matter of fact.
i know nothing about the Universal Life Church (it may be for real or a joke for all i know). but i do know a bit about UU congregations (having belonged to a few). at least half of the people who go to my local UU church are atheists or agnostic. and here’s the statement from the national website: