Camps are forming among the irreligious, based on Michael Newdow’s most recent attempt to break up the government-religious relationship — he’s suing President-elect Obama. Well, not directly, but effectively, through his lawsuit against the use of the term “So help me God” and inaugural prayer. Newdow and others claim that Obama and related officials should leave behind all semblance of religion when ascending the platform that will officially designate Obama as the next President of the United States.
Friendly Atheist is one prominent member of the camp that supports such a notion. He states:
There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.
Although Friendly Atheist believes that the lawsuit stands about the same chance as Newdow’s failed 2004 lawsuit of the same calibre, he thinks that the upside to such litigiousness is that it brings attention to the secular versus religious issue with regard to government.
On the other side of the aisle is Atheist Ethicist, arguing that because this is an issue of freedom of speech, it should not be fought with violence, but, instead, with speech. Violence, he says, because the court enforces its decisions with the force of the government (i.e., police), in the form of intimidation and sometimes actual force. The proper way to act in retaliation of the decision to meld the pulpit and the presidency is to condemn and criticize, but not prohibit the speech of others, particularly the president’s. Essentially, if we act through the courts to stifle the president’s ability to say a prayer or swear to God, then we make a mockery of our own arguments to protect our own right to not pray or swear to God.
Both arguments have valid points. It’s a good idea to bring to America’s attention that we haven’t always been a “Christian” nation, and that, as Friendly Atheist notes, our allusions to the biblical God were all fabricated and implemented fairly late in U.S. history. And it’s also proper for us to enforce the notion that government is supposed to be separate from religion, at least with regard to endorsement. On the other hand, it’s potentially risky to establish a precedent that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves or to others, regardless of their belief.
I’ll add something to this. Obama won’t be passing any laws during the inauguration. The First Amendment protects us from Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It’s got nothing to say about the president being sworn in by the Chief Justice, or about an invocation, or if the president-elect wants to wear a turban or a cross or a clown suit.
So, which argument is stronger? The one supporting the lawsuit or the one opposing it? Is there a limit to which rational people should go in pursuit of separation of church and state, and is this the limit?
Tags: Amendment, America, atheist, ban, Barack, Barack Obama, belief, biblical, Christ, church, Congress, Eden, establishment, First Amendment, freedom, Freedom of speech, god, Government, history, Invocation, Law, lawsuit, Newdow, Obama, police, prayer, president, Procrustes, rational, Religion, secular, theist, United States
Interesting questions. I'll have to give this some thought. You are right that both positions have some merit. Obviously, there should be no mention of gods in the oath. This bothers me more than the presence of generic clergy (but not Rick Warren). I don't know – my head's stuck on this Indiana library debacle right now. I'll have to give this one more thought.
Do you think that technicality really makes that much of a difference?
Also, should we start a class action lawsuit against nearly every court for having the words "In God We Trust" on courtroom walls? (especially behind judges)
It makes a difference because it removes the free speech issue.
As for a class action suit, I don't know. Let's see how Newdow's case goes.
While I feel that we should be more visible and outspoken as a group, I fear that the First Amendment argument is valid enough that perhaps a lawsuit IS NOT in order . Public commentary, however, has never been more necessary.
I agree with Darren on this one. I think a strong statement apposing the inaugural prayer is called for, but a lawsuit is going overboard.
Okay, I've thought about it a little more and now have a position. I believe that the lawsuit is a good idea and should proceed with one important caveat. It should be made extremely clear to all that Obama is perfectly free to add "so help me god" if he desires to do so. The crux of the complaint should be on Roberts prompting him with the phrase. That is, Obama should be free to add, but it should not be part of the official oath from Roberts.
I think a lawsuit is going a bit too far, for right now. It's generally best to pick your battles, and I think there are bigger fish to fry at the moment. No reason to give the other side fodder for considering atheists to be angry and petty, especially when there is an argument to be made for retaining freedom of speech (albeit in a grey area). I think the payoff is likely to be very small (or nonexistent) and not worth the effort.