Atheist Group Wants God Reference Removed From Obama Swearing In Ceremony
A popular Atheist group has filed suit in attempt to prevent Barack Obama from swearing to God during his presidential inauguration.
The lawsuit has been filed before the U.S. District Court in Columbia by the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
“So help me God” is the term in question here that the group wants taken out of the swearing in portion of Obama’s inauguration.
“The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians,” said co-president Dan Barker.
“We’re hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration,” Barker told FOX News Radio.
He added that Obama should have the right to hold a private religious ceremony if he feels the need is necessary, but not one so public.
According to Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, it is Obama’s decision if he wants prayer at his ceremony or not.
The current oath neither establishes state religion nor creates new laws. Solution for those wanting the situation re-examined? 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?
“So help me God,” does not have to be spoken by any Atheist and they are certainly welcome to plug their ears when it comes up. However, Atheists have no right to block anyone else from saying those words or maintaining those beliefs.
Swearing to God has no impact upon the belief system of the listener. It is totally dependant upon the belief system of the person doing the swearing.
As long as the incumbent president has pretensions to some religious belief, he should be made to swear to his God, in the hope that it makes his promise more binding.
On the other hand, if America ever elects an openly atheistic president, the phrase should be dropped, since for him it has no effect.
Naturally, I am assuming here that the politicians under consideration really do have the religious convictions that they profess. Otherwise, all this swearing is part of a meaningless facade.