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!
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.
ReplyDeleteNeither 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.
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.
ReplyDelete2. 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.)
Skeptimal,
ReplyDeleteYou 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..........
Who or what would you affirm your oath to? Perhaps the cookie monster"
ReplyDeleteHow 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.