Atheist will attempt to boot "God" from inauguration

I agree , get the shit off US currency also ... all this religion is screwing up EVERYTHING

Saying that you will be true to your religion isn't the same thing as advocating it. The only freedom at stake here is Obama's.

Get off it - the most important things in America are money, the Chinese knock-offs people buy with it and God; in that order.
How is this guy gonna make dent so far down the ladder?

regardless of faith or lack of "so help me god" implies a bit of religious spice to what is supposed to be an indifferent political model. a little bit of "grease" to lube the wheels of justice, or a tradition passed down, it seems to me to be unnecessary.
nether atheist nor clergy can provide any reason my young mind can think of, that would signify an appropriate situation my "commander in chief" would ever call upon something or someone for help that is as abstract as a GOD.
i hope this story gains more popularity and the message it holds is not tainted by some media source this "website" included.

all i can say is good luck. why do i feel like people try to make things complicated just because they can? get over it.

what a waste of time.

the speech doesn't mean anything to anyone anyway. if it did, this'll only cause more problems.

i love how people would put so much emphasis on debunking a belief, that a powerless few words would turn into a controversy.

its not going to happen. Just wont. To many people out there want/need to hear it. And one of a politicians jobs is to play to what the majorities want to hear.

This seems like a worthy use of tax dollars.

Without a good Separation of Church and State we will have stupidity such as this.
The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 provided:

And each member, before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz:

I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.
And no further or other religious test shall ever hereafter be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.

Separation of Sate and Religion means ONE thing:

We will never be the United "INSERT RELIGION HERE" States of America.

That is it. That is all. Nothing else.
Period.
Quit perverting the intention of the phrase please.

It's Ok
It doesn't matter.

(Opinion)
Hearing "In God" "to God" "for God" "help me God" is like being a non smoker in a Truck stop/Waffle House.

i really don't understand all the comments about how this case is an example of atheists trying to "force their beliefs on others" and what not...
the point of this case is to take the whole concept of a personal "belief" out of a governmental ceremony.
it's not like the atheists are trying to insert a phrase stating that there is no god or anything...they are just trying to establish the separation of religion and state.
so why all the "atheists are no different from what they claim to be against" comments?

This is such a farce!
Here is what the constitution says the oath of office is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I don't see "So help me God" here at all. It's traditional period.

I mean, really..there aren't other more important things to be concerned about?

Frankly, I have to wonder about this guy's sanity.

Don't we have to live in the real world?

Religion exists period, but as an American I don't have the right to make you go to church or not to. And those who don't believe don't have the right to force their belief on those who do believe either.

Seperation of Church and State doesn't mean not mentioning GOD. Don't play dumb. Whats that? you aren't playing? It means, that the church can't be involved in Law Making, Law Enforcement, Tax Collecting etc. "THE CHURCH"- fools. It doesn't mean that the President can't mention GOD. This like stupidity on steroids.Did all of you skip 4th grade?

I thought Barack was a devout Christian? If so why would he not acknowledge GOD?

Michael Newdow is a patriot and true American hero. I applaud his effort to free our nation from ignorance and superstition.

Is he going to win? Not at all. But I think it's important to start taking steps like this so one day we can truly live in a society that separates religion and politics

FAR too much time on his hand to spread his belief system.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Interesting. Well, consider this:

Suppose I was raised in a culture where the human body, in its naked form, was considered a symbol of pride, and should be displayed prominently at all times. Suppose my culture thought it was offensive and distrustful to cover your body. Maybe we feel that it means you aren't comfortable and therefore "put off" by my people.

Would it be reasonable for me and my people, who comprise an extremely small portion of the American population, to protest and sue the government because the President swore in wearing clothes? Could it not be considered equally offensive to my people that he remain clothed, as it is to you atheists to hear him say the word "God"?

Majority rule, minority rights, correct? Well where does it end? You can't please everyone. Someone will always be pissed off and complaining in the shadows.

"One Nation under GOD" and will always be so! Go start an atheist colony somewhere and live there. See how that works for ya! Good Bye!

From the book of Paine, "But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only and hearsay to every other; and consequently, they are not obliged to believe it." Now my wife and I have strong belief in a Creator/Guider because of personal revelation but we do not force this belief on anyone else, it is within the Creator/Guider powers to reveal its presents to them too. But until such time they cannot be expected to believe hearsay. "He who denies to another this right, makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it."

Let's just ask God.
All of us will pray tonight. Praying that if HE wants his name in the Oath then he will bring world peace.

Oh wait, praying doesn't actually do anything...

We really need to get GOD off our money..

I doubt he'll win, but I support him 1,000% percent.

Well said, ruebezahl, the only problem is that in the States you MUST believe in God, that is the Christian God, more specifically the Abrahamic God. The ideal of Socialism and many philosophers guide and influence my thinking, although they do not dominate it.

I find it more than a little ironic that Jews, Christians and Muslims all follow the God of Abraham yet squabble amongst each other. Christians are especially ironic as they follow the (semetic) God of Abraham yet they tend toward being Northern/Western/Southern European.

I wear a Odinic pendant, not as I am a Pagan but to say "I do not follow a semetic religion, as I am not semetic" Why would I, as a Northern European by ancestry, follow anything associated with Abraham?

Every person has a believe system without it we would be machines that can be turned on an off at will by anyone. Even the Atheist, Christian, Communist, Muslim, Lovers, Killers, Capitalists etc. all are guided by a believe system (god) that is running their live, it is guiding their action good or bad. The president to be seemed to believe in the Christian God nobody should take away his believe. If he like to swear by his god he has the right to do so without the interference by somebody with an other god.

Isn't it "freedom of religion" not "freedom of not-religion"

Define God.

Define the size of the universe.

Same basic concept my dear ant friend.

Whether or not they mention God at the inauguration is irrelevant.

"It seems like atheists are being a little hypocritical. They don't want religious people to push their beliefs on them, yet they are trying to push their beliefs on religious people. See what I mean."

Johnny_Danger... the reason is that we live in an extreme Christian society/country, and the only way to fight an extreme is with an extreme. And if you do not agree with that, we can at least agree that extremism begets extremism.

There really isn't so much a need for Atheists in the overwhelming majority of the rest of the West, why is that? For instance I'm in Australia atm, Christians or religious people in general are the minority, tell someone you are Christian or Atheist here and the likely reaction will either be "so?", "and?", "ok..." or "good for you". Otherwise you'll just get a blank stare.

The bible says specifically (in both the Old Testament and New Testaments) not to swear an oath of any shape or form by God, His throne, His house, Heaven, or anyone in it.

This proves that Atheists and Christians alike can be bigots.

If he/she doesn't believe then he/she doesn't believe...whatever!
If someone fights this, or encourages to fight for something that has to do with this, they are just feeding the theory that there is one true theory; which is false. People shouldn't stoop so low as to voice an opinion against something if they feel it (supposedly) has no merit in the first place. Rationality is a virtue.

Amen

The issue itself is so much symbolic fluff. Nevertheless, symbols do have power. I look forward to the day that any reference to the supernatural will be treated as the non-sense it is.

The fact that some still believe in god is indicative of a wide spread intellectual deficit.

Prayers and reference to god should be done away with as soon as possible. Intelligent people must stop being polite and speak out against such superstitious rot.

According to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations." The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. The Treaty with Tripoli in November 4, 1796 clearly states, "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". If you don't like the ideas that The United States of American are founded on you need to move to a Theocracy and quit trying to screw up our Republic.

They're not forced to say it, last time I checked. The official oath has no "so help me God." I feel like the only rational atheist in America. It's not just the religious people who are crazy...I guess it's in the water.

Glenn Beck says these people are idiots:
http://www.glennbeck.com/content/articles/article/198/17429/

The US Constitution does not say that:

'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. No mention of a "separation of church and state". That came in an 1803 letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist minister to assure him that the United States would never declare a state religion.'

About damn time.

If they don't like it, then they need to leave the country seeing Christianity is the main religion in America. I know it is freedom of religion but majority rules and the majority is CHRISTIANITY. Deal with it Atheists. If we have to put up with you, then you have to put up with us.

Yeah let's take everything offense to some minority out of everything. Hopefully in 100 years every civilization will be exactly the same, and no one will have any concept of heritage!

There is more danger from the CFR and the Bilderberg group, But religion follows second as the most dangerous entity to mankind and the continued existence for mankind.

just stupid people who don't have anything better to do than cause problems..

shouldn't be the choice of the person being inaugurated, becuase if you were being put into office you would want to thank or support the religion you believe in

"Yes, God does exist. Like it or not. You can deny it, but you are limiting yourself."

I disagree with this. Think of all the things you might not believe in, like unicorns, the Loch Ness monster, dragons, gods from ancient civilizations. Why is it perfectly fine to dismiss fairies from everyday existence but not YOUR god? Why is it OK to consider Thor mythology but not YOUR god? Why is wanting proof and evidence before belief seen as a BAD thing?

i wonder . what is the intended meaning of "so help me god" concerning swearing an oath? is it.. god strike me dead if i fail to do my best for the citizens of our country or god please help me do this job as i likely can't deal with it alone ... and then suppose the person.. being sworn in is actually a closet non-believer .. such as is certainly the case at times concerning being sworn in as a witness in some jury trial . hand on the bible and the whole thing...(if not some closet non-believer former or future president).. you basically are forcing a non believer to lie.. right of the bat ? so much credit given to some sworn statement? it's kind of funny really.

Not to mettle in Fascist affairs, but "separation of church and state". What's with you people? Why promise to uphold a principle, when you have no intention of doing so? Might as well try and get that removed from the constitution.

Many Presidents have been swore into office while having their hand on the Bible and said at the end of their swearing in, “so help me, god.” However, in the only oath in the Constitution, the President is not required to be sworn in on the Bible or any other religious book or to say “so help me, god” by the Constitution.

"'I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.' " {United States Constitution, Article II, Section I}

Since they're saying they swear to defend the Constitution, how about having Presidents put their hand on the Constitution?

This came from
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20071023-0

I could not have said it any better my self, "Even though many people may think "So help me God" is part of the presidential oath, and in spite of the widespread notion to the contrary, there is no contemporary historical evidence showing that George Washington added anything to his presidential oath of office. This American legend made its debut in 1854, sixty-five years after the event, in the book, "The Republican Court; or, American Society in the Days of Washington," by Rufus W. Griswold. Griswold may have picked up this bit about George Washington saying "so help me God" from Washington Irving. However, neither of them ever disclose just how they came by their version of Washington's oath.

As far as can be determined, the first President who is known to have added those words to his presidential oath is Chester Alan Arthur. He appended "so help me God" to his oath when he was sworn into office on Sept. 22, 1881 after the death of President Garfield. Later on, several other Presidents during the first third of the 20th Century adopted this practice. The last President, who did not use those words, was Herbert Hoover. One may say that a President can choose to add these words to the presidential oath, but it is a clear violation of the Constitution, and surely not a good idea for a judicial official to prompt the President to succumb to a religious test of office. This, unfortunately, has been the unbroken practice since FDR's Inaugural Ceremony in 1933, and there is absolutely no early record that this practice started with George Washington."

they could actually win in this arguement

This guy may have a point. Good luck too him, but i hope things dont go too far. we need some religion. its the universal religion that is meant. sure the founders meant theirs, but they didnt imagine all these other ppl coming into play. we all need that uniting belief in there being consequences for our actions, a higher judge, and reward for good actions. thats the god/religion thats printed on our dollars, pledged in our schools, and what we take oath on.

“Equality is important to me,” Newdow told The Examiner. “We should show equal respects for all of our citizens, regardless of their race, gender or religion.”

Then respect the right of the oath taker to take an oath to whatever he wants.

Constitutionally, they should win with ease.

I can’t believe there are actually eighteen people who would waste their time and money to fight such a meaningless battle. This issue is especially infuriating when you consider the other, more pressing issues at hand. As the article described, Rick Warren (a bigot if I’ve ever seen one) gets to put his grubby little fingers on the Lincoln bible. For that reason alone I’m not watching the inauguration.

Then again as much as I would like to see Rick warren get the boot for being the scumbag that he is I would much rather see these individuals pursue a worthwhile campaign. How about gay marriage, has any of these organizations thought about that? Obama among others do not support gay marriage for one reason, marriage is a religion institution. However, last time I checked the city and state issued marriage licenses and not the church.

All in all this group decided stripping rights from Americans is more important than giving rights. For that reason I think they’re douches.