Will God be removed from the inauguration, too?
8 Comments Published by Ben DuPré January 7th, 2009 in First Amendment, History, Law, Politics, Religion
George Washington's Inaugural Oath
Record numbers are expected to turn out for the upcoming inauguration of Barack Obama as President, but if Michael Newdow has his way then God will not be allowed entry. America’s most litigious atheist and several like-minded organizations are trying to do to the Presidential inauguration what courts have done to much of the rest of the public square: strip any prayer or other recognition of God.
Is this the audacity of hopelessness? Change unbelievers can believe in?
Essentially, Newdow’s lawsuit, Newdow v. Roberts, seeks an injunction to stop (1) any inaugural invocation and (2) the utterance of “so help me God” at the end of the oath given by Chief Justice John Roberts. In the interest of freedom of religion, however, Newdow generously will allow Obama to add “so help me God” if he chooses; he just does not want CJ Roberts to prompt him with it. A federal court in D.C. has scheduled a hearing for January 15 to consider a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order.
Prof. Eugene Volokh provides a good explanation of why this suit should fail under current First Amendment jurisprudence here, including the fact that Newdow tried this 4 years ago and failed then.
George Washington is said to have started the tradition of extemporaneously adding “so help me God” to the end of the presidential oath. As for prayers by invited clergy, that practice has been in effect since before the United States were either united or states. Newdow’s complaint, however, claims the practice of invited clergy at presidential inaugurations has “only” been around since FDR (1937), so therefore it does not enjoy the luxury of as long a tradition.
Whether 230 years old or 2, recognitions of God in oaths and prayers are always constitutional. A prayer at the inauguration invokes the favor and blessings of God, but it coerces no one in their religious (or non-religious) beliefs or actions. Pledging “so help me God” reminds the oath-taker of the solemn duties he is undertaking, and to Whom he is ultimately responsible.
Newdow et al. make much of the supposed “intolerance” inaugural recognitions of God show toward atheists. And yet it is these militant atheists that are trying to entirely secularize, by force of judicial order, the inaugural ceremony. The only intolerance and coercion in this case is being sought by Newdow and his faithless followers.
Vokokh is probably right that this suit will fail, but American Christians should no longer dismiss such suits as crackpot longshots. With each passing presidential term, Establishment Clause cases plow the judiciary more and more into an increasingly fertile ground for attacks on even the most sacred of public religious traditions. The once-safe Pledge of Allegiance and National Motto, which even the Supreme Court used as examples of “proper” recognitions of God, are now the subject of lawsuits in the 9th Circuit (with Newdow as the plaintiff in both, of course). The 9th Circuit has been sitting on those cases for quite some time without resolution. Perhaps like Newdow they are simply waiting for the next anti-God Establishment Clause case to help strengthen the next audacious court ruling.
The outcomes of these cases are hardly inevitable, but too often we commit the sin of assumption, thinking that either (1) such a case is so ridiculous that surely, we say, no judge will buy it, or (2) the court cases are so stacked against acknowledgments of God that there is nothing we can do. Inaction results and then we act surprised when such a case goes the wrong way. For people of faith and believers in a sovereign God, either cop-out is a rather faithless course to take.
Radical secularists like Newdow will continue to pound away at public religious expression and hope for something to fall their way. They may not stop inaugural prayers in 2009, but they may do so in 2013. What recognitions of God, if any, will the courts be “allowing” by then? Only as many as we the people are finally willing to preserve, protect, and defend, so help us God.
I definitely feel that we should include “SO HELP ME GOD” in the pledge that Obama makes on Tuesday January 20, 2009 at the inaugration.
This country was founded on God as our leader and protector and is still today within God’s hands today for whatever happens.
May GOD help us as a nation and a people. When a few people can remove God from our public functions, schools, government, etc. I for one will stand up and shout to the world I love God and JESUS CHRIST.
I won’t be silent any longer. Our country and the world needs God.This nation was founded ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
Debra, I, as an American citizen who is not “born again” but was born RIGHT the first time, won’t be silent any longer either. This nation was NOT founded on the belief that we were “One Nation UNDER GOD,” the last two words of which were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s as a reactionary response to the Cold War threat the supposedly “godless” Soviets posed to our Nation.
If the Russkies were really as “godless” as (“I Like”) Ike thought, then how in the heck did the Russian-Orthodox Church, as well as all those old, bearded, homophobic, small-minded patriarchs and those millions and millions of Russian “believers” manage to survive 74 years of Communism? God only knows! :)
Hmm, so this website is dedicated to the “Foundation for Moral Law”? WHICH moral law are you talking about? God’s moral right to send ravenous bears to kill 42 little children at the drop of a hat for making fun of a bald, old man, by calling him “bald”? God’s ways are mysterious! Glory!
For 2 Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version) states that:
“And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them”
Debra,
To support my claim that America is NOT, and never has been, a “Christian” nation, all I have to do is cite the 1796 U.S. “Treaty of Tripoli,” Article 11 of which states, in part, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…” Please note that this treaty was unanimously (!) ratified by the U.S. Senate. My few cents worth. I could go on citing America’s first and second Presidents, and other notable personalities to support my “outrageous” claim, but will save that anti-Religious-Fundamentalist ammo for later.
Mr. DuPré wrote: “… A prayer at the inauguration invokes the favor and blessings of God, but it coerces no one in their religious (or non-religious) beliefs or actions. Pledging ‘so help me God’ reminds the oath-taker of the solemn duties he is undertaking, and to Whom he is ultimately responsible. …”
Dear Sir,
Firstly, the second sentence of this quotation cancels out the first one. Your reasoning is flawed, declaring as it does a logical impossibility. I, as an atheist, am ultimately responsible to my own conscience, secular law, the (secular) U.S. Constitution, and the (secular) Bill of Rights, not some invisible, wholly unproven “Whom” (“Higher Being”?) I don’t believe in, just as I don’t believe in, or hope for aid from the Tooth Fairy, leprechauns or Santa Claus. Coercing humanists or atheists to ask a non-existent non-entity for “help” when making an oath is absurd, manipulative, goes against their First Amendment rights, and, as Thomas Jefferson himself stated, is best left to “fools and hypocrites.”
“The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites.”
——-Thomas Jefferson, 1813
Dean, you show great bravery attacking the Christian god and christian followers. However, I cannot help but sense that your bravado conceals your cowardice. Fearing no retaliation from Christians you attack with ease , comparing the Christian god with the Tooth Fairy. Since you are a self-professed atheist show us how a really brave boy you are and direct your venom at another religion……..how about Islam and its followers…….I will be waiting for any excuse…..all the proof needed.
Mark, my prediction is that any and all religions are fair game and will be given “equal opportunity” status by Dean.
Nevertheless, per the subject on hand, ….. I think the true point is being missed here. By swearing in on an oath, you are simply upholding your own personal moral truth to the highest power of your own private consciousness. This is just to affirm your dedication to preserve the integrity of the position and to vow that you will not succumb to corruption. It is a traditional, ceremonial and honorary way to relay back to your electorate that you will promise to do a good job as their civil servant role and to maintain a certain level (of hopefully) professional high standards throughout your term of public office. After all, you have been entrusted by these citizens to represent their interests in a transparent manner and to be somewhat consistent in following the campaign platform that landed you in the position in the first place. Per the Constitution, there is no required “test” of creed that one must asseverate to in order participate in this process. However, it is not unreasonable to initiate our newly elected politicians with an oath of loyalty to the law of the land aka the Constitution.
So, if you are a Christian, be it the Bible; if you are a Moslem, then the Koran; if you are a humanist secularist then the Constitution would do; a Hindu, the Rig Veda perhaps; etc. It matters not, but the swearing in process should not be an excuse for a public religious exercise. A following public prayer session is legally questionable under “the Establishment Clause” and is certainly not vital whenever the affairs of the state are concerned. At this point, the process should be confined to a secular level.