Skip to main content

Atheist Lawsuit regarding Presidential Inaugeration

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama's presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else's religious beliefs.

The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase "So help me God" to the presidential oath of office.


"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker told FOX News Radio.


"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, including those of us who are not believers," he continued.


Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides.


Quotes taken from here.

Don't be fooled by those who seek to lay the battle lines. The battle is NOT between "believers" and "those who don't believe" but those keeping with the original documents and their framers along with the history's long heritage which stands upon it and those who seek to remove all theist references from government and the public arena (something the original framers clearly did not intend... as demonstrated by both their works and their words)!

The USA is not a secular country, but a country that recognizes the "Almighty" and his providence.

"If the government were to invite me as a national atheist leader to get up and give an invocation that curses the name of God and that encourages people to stop believing and stop being so childish and divisive then that would be wrong because the government would be taking a pro-atheist position," he said.


PAY ATTENTION to this! Here is a blatant example of those who would CURSE the foundation and name of the "almighty" upon whom our nation's founders referenced and called upon!

Comments

  1. skeptimalDecember 31, 2008 at 6:48 AM

    To say that "cursing god" is a pro-atheist position is either a mis-statement or a sign that the Freedom From Religion Foundation has a loose cog. I suspect Barker was trying to make a point and chose inflammatory words that he would not stand by upon reflection.

    Neither is it accurate to parallel saying "so help me god" with pointing out the emptiness of religion. One is traditional liturgy (however misplaced), and the other is a position statement.

    This kind of thing is why I wouldn't join the FFRF.

    That being said, I look forward to the day that we have a president who simply affirms his oath rather than swearing to a god.

    ReplyDelete
  2. swordbearerDecember 31, 2008 at 3:46 PM

    1. On "Cursing God", the statement came from the article and in context ...it's probably what was said. I do not deny the part about the loose cog.

    2. The point of the lawsuit is to suggest it's unconstitutional for the oath to be taken before God... (that's a different question that whether it's sufficient for a president to take an oath, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  3. jazzycatJanuary 1, 2009 at 7:18 AM

    Skeptimal,
    You said..... That being said, I look forward to the day that we have a president who simply affirms his oath rather than swearing to a god.

    Hmmmm! Who or what would you affirm your oath to? Perhaps the cookie monster..........

    ReplyDelete
  4. skeptimalJanuary 1, 2009 at 4:36 PM

    Who or what would you affirm your oath to? Perhaps the cookie monster"

    How about the people of the United States? These, after all, are the people to whom the president is supposed to be accountable, cookie monsters and gods notwithstanding.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Eckhart Tolle Christianity (Understanding Eckhart Tolle - Comparison / Difference with Christianity)

I believe it important that both believers and unbelievers understand the difference between the teaching of Eckhart Tolle and Christianity. Here's a brief post to introduce you to a few of the significant differences. (Note, I've just been exposed to Tolle, but it doesn't seem to take long to discern the differences) Context (the problem)Taken from here .: Despite Oprah and Eckhart's reduction of Christianity to but one "way" amongst many other equally legitimate ways to God, and their calling Christ a "revolutionary" who has been misunderstood by the Church, and who simply came to manifest "Christ-consciousness", a quick search through the internet reveals that many Christians are following Oprah in attempting to fuse together the teachings of Eckhart, and the doctrines of the historical Christian church. Great website to gain quick summary of Eckhart's beliefs/teachings: Ripples on the Surface of Being Key Responses by Eckhart To...
71 comments
Read more

The Divine Eternal Covenant: A Systematic Theology of Redemption, Judgment, and Glory

Preamble: On the Need for Theological Clarity The relationship between divine sovereignty and human responsibility has long stood as one of Christianity's most contentious and misunderstood doctrinal territories. For centuries, theological traditions have wrestled with seemingly irreconcilable tensions: How can God be sovereign over salvation while humans remain genuinely responsible? Why does a good God permit evil and suffering? How can divine election coexist with meaningful human choice? What is the ultimate purpose behind the drama of fall and redemption? These questions have generated countless volumes of systematic theology, yet the proposed solutions often either compromise divine sovereignty to preserve human responsibility or sacrifice human accountability to maintain God's absolute control. The result has been a theological landscape marked by entrenched positions, artificial distinctions, and frameworks that frequently raise more questions than they resolve. My moti...
Post a Comment
Read more

Search This Blog