Minnesotans join suit to stop religious events at inauguration

This lawsuit will make some people go ballistic, but it’s legally right. This is a government event, and the prayers are unconstitutional, regardless of anyone’s opinion of Rick Warren.

What would be great, is to see Christians who support the separation of church and state on the suit. It’s important for believers to realize that neutrality for the government’s position on religion is in their own best interest as well.

If they were true atheists, they wouldn’t care. I don’t.

Good for them! And Christians ought to line up beside them, because biblically one should pray at home, in church, or by oneself, “in one’s closet” — but these political shows are nothing else by Taking the Name of Thy God in Vain. Breaking the 10 Commandments in this way is no way to start an administration.

So why do athiests even care?

I am not Muslim but you don’t me whining to the mall security if a Muslim is praying at the mall.

When they have the prayer at the inauguration, all you atheists have to do is wait a few minutes until the prayer is over. You don’t have to pray, you don’t have to leave, you don’t have to stay, you can sing a daggone song while everyone else is praying if you like, but as long as you live on this planet, someone around you is going to be praying. This government is not forcing no one to ascribe to a particular religion or any religion at all. We don’t have a Christian version of Sharia Law (which is the total opposite of separation of church and state)….We have In God we Trust on the money so what? It hurts your hand to spend it? To NOT acknowledge it may be an offense to Christians so either side is going to be offended anyways….That being said….

Freedom of religion is to be able to worship wherever, whoever, and however you want. Or to NOT have to worship anything at all, or even worship yourself. Thats your business, but file a more worthy lawsuit against a corrupt official or the credit bureaus for their unscrupulous business tactics than to FORCE YOUR LACK of Belief in a Supernatural Being ON ME. Once these things are made against the law, then Christians and people of faith will find themselves hunching in corners to worship away from people and faith centers will be in remote areas so the unfaithful won’t be “BOTHERED” to hear the cries of worship….

People who believe in God we must unite! They think we are forcing God down their throats when really they are trying to strong arm us into keeping our faith under wraps!

Separation of church and state means the state can’t dictate what religion you MUST be. Check the real history of how America came about. Freedom from forced religion, but not freedom from religion. Our country has always been known as a “Christian” nation and has not forced it citizens to become “Christian”. Look at how many atheists and non-christian religions live freely in America. However…don’t be offended by Christian religion around you. If you want NO religion or anti-Christian here then you might be happier actually living in another country. Our government was founded with a Christian religion present…not forced and not absent either. Steve’s comment above has truth to it. A true atheist at heart would not feel threatened or offended about something they would believe to be false. In fact, it should make them laugh. If you believe in Santa Claus, I will humor you and go along with it even though I don’t believe in Santa Claus. I know the truth, that’s what matters. My kids and I never feel threatened or offended being around friends of ours that do believe in Santa Claus. We respect their right. Sometimes, my kids will even play along with them! I live in a country that has Santa Claus all around at Christmas time. If I don’t like it..I should leave. It’s not forced on me. Now someone who is actually, anti-christian, would be offended and upset. But interestingly, most anti-christians claim to be atheists! I find this humorous! Steve can probably laugh during the prayer time if he believes it to be futile, but at least he can allow the rest of us to do it. Face it…one thing we should all agree on is that thankfully we still live in a country where some can pray and some can laugh. What’s scary is when I CAN’T pray and Steve CAN’T laugh at me because it’s against the law!!! The true Christian and atheist can live beside each other it’s the anti-christian that can’t live beside the Christian. There’s no room for bigotry in America. Come together with freedom for all and respect!

One point people are missing, is that our government is secular. Secular doesn’t mean “atheist.” Religious freedom does not apply to the acts of our government, but to individuals. No one is saying Barack Obama can not pray, but as part of an official government function, it is an endorsement of a religion, which is a violation of the separation of church and state.

To those that say an atheist shouldn’t care about separation of church and state: That is exactly the attitude that made my decision to become an ‘activist’ in the first place. Every sane person, religious or not, should care about the separation of church and state.

What I find so ironic, is that most of the fundagelicals DO care about separation of church and state, as in, they kept broadcasting as a slur that Obama was a Muslim, which implies that they do not wish to live in a Muslim state.

There is no shame in saying that religion should not control the government, it is the only rational position to take.

PS: Miss Florida:

We can’t sing a song while you’re praying, and you know that… (People have been almost mauled for not standing during the National Anthem, so I hardly think we would feel comfortable doing whatever we would please during a prayer!)

I have never disrupted a prayer or service in my life, and I’ve probably been to church for my work more than most religious people have on their own accord. Of course, that is because I am, at the time of a church service, not in my own ‘territory’: it’s someone elses place of worship, and I have no right to it in any way.

This ceremony is public, it is not private. Everyone has a right to it.

I don’t personally believe that a religious service at this ceremony impinges on my personal freedom in and of itself, but the general attitude of almost every religious person I have ever met is that atheists are evil people and it doesn’t matter what happens to us because we are not in the majority. When this attitude is fostered by being given a safe breeding ground, it leads to hate and violence, which IS a huge infringement on my personal freedom.

Say, floridablackgirl, I really don’t care whether you pray or not. I have a problem with the government ceremony which involves a public prayer.

And, whatever happened to Matthew 5:6-7? You need to think about “WWJD.”

It is “fredom of religion” NOT “freedom from religion”

If you don’t believe in any God, then you have proven how low your IQ is.

From the Washington Post Blog :

‘Idiots like Newdow should be shot.’

Posted by: askgees | December 30, 2008 4:10 PM | Report

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/inauguration-watch/2008/12/atheists_to_challenge_prayer_a.html?hpid=topnews

I can’t think of a more persuasive argument for the complete eradication of religion from government, science and education. How can Christians say things like this with a straight face?

August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.

john, “August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.”

You can believe in a god who would subject anyone to an eternity of agony and torment? If you love this god, you love him like an abused child loves the abuser: to get him to stop causing pain.

To resolve this freedom “of” or “from” issue, here is the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So neither phrase is used. If someone can make a case that the framers of the Constitution understood “freedom of religion” to prohibit having no religion, go ahead. Of course, has it not occurred to you that if you’re not free to have no religion, then you don’t have religious freedom?

“August Berkshire will burn in hell in agony and torment, forever separated from God who loves him.”

I tried and tried to think of a response to this, but frankly it says it all.

Saying prayers does not make an established religion.

These people just don’t have the IQ to admit that God, a God, any God exsist.

The inauguration is essentially the president’s promise that he will faithfully carry out the duties of the president and uphold the constitution… as such the promise should be meaningful and heart felt from the president himself. And this is why Obama and presidents in the past have invoked the name of God when swearing in.

Swearing to God and making a promise in the name of God is the highest promise a christian can give. To break the promise is to dishonor God himself and commit a grave offense in the eyes of the lord; as such the promise has a great level of meaning to christians since offending God is the worst thing they can do.

Essentially aside from the specific words in the constitution, the president can have the rest of the swearing in ceremony worded as he pleases… For Christians they swear on the bible and promise to God; for the jewish they swear upon their holy book and to God; for muslim’s they swear to Allah and on their book and so forth… as such a atheist would get to choose how they swear into the office in a fashion the best represents their heart felt feelings for this promise… Really in a sense, the president is practicing his religious freedom in choosing how to swear in.

Christian Fascism,
I’ve heard the same exact stuff coming from Atheists on what they think of the religious. The irony is that some atheist can get so up in arms about religion that they become as bad as the religious people they hate. Just as the religious have share of their intolerant and hateful members, atheists as well have their own share.

“Essentially aside from the specific words in the constitution, the president can have the rest of the swearing in ceremony worded as he pleases… For Christians they swear on the bible and promise to God; for the jewish they swear upon their holy book and to God; for muslim’s they swear to Allah and on their book and so forth… as such a atheist would get to choose how they swear into the office in a fashion the best represents their heart felt feelings for this promise… Really in a sense, the president is practicing his religious freedom in choosing how to swear in.”

Monte, of course Obama’s individual religious freedom means he can swear in as he sees fit (including the mandatory part, as you noted). He can even pray if he wants. It a question of this official ceremony, in which the whole country participates in theory, Christian and non-Christian. Why should there be a sectarian prayer? Even just saying “God” without saying “Jesus” or “Allah” specifically isn’t non-sectarian to those who believe in no gods or multiple gods. If non-religious people wanted an invocation stating that there is no god, then Christians would have a point that religion was being imposed on them. But this isn’t the case. No one is asking for such a statement. Just make no statement. That’s neutral.

Let private events have whatever prayers they want. Just keep it out of the government event. That seems like so little to ask.

If one group wants to have religion included in this I say fine then let all religions be involved. All and every group that calls itself a religion . They should have equal involvement from the well know to the most obscure from the Vatican to the pagan. Get Sarah Palin’s witch doctor there as well,just to be on the safe side. Or let’s just have a secular goverment.

Keeping in or leaving out “So help me God” should be a decision left up to the individual President him (or her)-self. The beliefs of others should not be an influence in either direction. Surely this is the fairest solution?