NationStates Jolt Archive

Atheists want God stricken from inaugural oath
Wed Jan 14, 7:54 pm ET

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama wants to conclude his inaugural oath with the words "so help me God," but a group of atheists is asking a federal judge to stop him.

California atheist Michael Newdow sued Chief Justice John Roberts in federal court for an injunction barring the use of those words in the inaugural oath.

Newdow and other atheists and agnostics also want to stop the use of prayers during the inaugural celebration.

Newdow, who lost a Supreme Court battle to get the words "under God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance, has failed in similar challenges to the use of religious words and prayers at President George W. Bush's inaugurations.

Roberts' attorney Jeffrey P. Minear filed a document in Newdow's lawsuit saying that Obama wants the words "so help me God" included in his oath of office.

The Justice Department and attorneys general from all 50 states have filed motions at the federal court asking for the lawsuit to be thrown out.

The oath dictated by the Constitution is 35 words long and reads: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

The National Archives says that George Washington added the words "so help me God" when he took the oath at his 1789 inaugural, and most presidents have used it since. However, some have argued that the first eyewitness account of a president using those words came at President Chester Arthur's inauguration in 1881.

Named in Newdow's lawsuit are Roberts; Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.; and the two pastors invited to the event, the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.

U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton will hear arguments on Thursday.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

Argument could be made that it makes the whole promise that went before... conditional on faith?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

Actually, it has to be God or nothing. If the incoming President attempts to call on any other deity, the Vice-President has to smash him in the head with a small ceremonial mallet. *nod*

Surely Barack Obama will be saying 'so help me Allah' anyway?

Surely Barack Obama will be saying 'so help me Allah' anyway?

"So help me, Lenin"?

Argument could be made that it makes the whole promise that went before... conditional on faith?
How so? I mean, from the wording, it would seem that the president is asking for divine help. I mean, he could say, "So help me out here, y'all" or "Or else the First Lady is gonna smack me" or any number of other requests, but it doesn't seem to be making it conditional.

All jokes aside, I'm honestly not seeing the argument so please do elaborate.

Actually, it has to be God or nothing. If the incoming President attempts to call on any other deity, the Vice-President has to smash him in the head with a small ceremonial mallet. *nod*
So THAT'S what the VP is doing over there.

Surely Barack Obama will be saying 'so help me Allah' anyway?

While wearing a t-shirt that says Osama is my homie.

"So help me, Lenin"?

While wearing a t-shirt that says Osama is my homie.

Ah the dilemmas of a president, which ideology to salute at the inauguration.

How so? I mean, from the wording, it would seem that the president is asking for divine help. I mean, he could say, "So help me out here, y'all" or "Or else the First Lady is gonna smack me" or any number of other requests, but it doesn't seem to be making it conditional.

All jokes aside, I'm honestly not seeing the argument so please do elaborate. Because it is Optional. those fighting this don't want anyone to have the option of saying "so help me God."

So THAT'S what the VP is doing over there.I thought that's what the first lady does. after all, they have her holding a big, hard-cover book and she's right there standing next to him...

well people sue but that doesnt mean they will win.

im pretty sure that the voluntary nature of the "so help me god" part makes it OK constitutionally.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.
I take the same position you do in general, and I agree with you on this particular matter as well. The apparent point of this suit seems to be so these particular atheists can be pricks.

How so? I mean, from the wording, it would seem that the president is asking for divine help. I mean, he could say, "So help me out here, y'all" or "Or else the First Lady is gonna smack me" or any number of other requests, but it doesn't seem to be making it conditional.

All jokes aside, I'm honestly not seeing the argument so please do elaborate.


Well, as an Atheist... I'm not one of the Atheists fighting it.

That said - if I'm trying to work out the logic behind it, I'd say that the oath of office is not supposed to be beholden to any ideology (religious, or otherwise), and to say 'so help me god' at the end suggests that it is approached with not only an ideology, but a specific request to one particular manifestation.

To Christians, it makes it sound more like he 'means it', maybe - and they can take a little assurance from the idea that he's willing to be guided by a higher power. To non-Christians (especially Atheists), it could be seen as connecting the whole precedent oath with values that one might feel exclude them.

I thought that's what the first lady does. after all, they have her holding a big, hard-cover book and she's right there standing next to him...
No, I thought her job was to remind him about what would happen if he embarrasses her out there in front of everyone.

I take the same position you do in general, and I agree with you on this particular matter as well. The apparent point of this suit seems to be so these particular atheists can be pricks.
Then they seem to be accomplishing that very well.

Then they seem to be accomplishing that very well.
well, Christians and other relgious zelots can't hold the monopoly of being pricks. :D

Well, as an Atheist... I'm not one of the Atheists fighting it.
Understood. I was just hoping you could explain your comment.

That said - if I'm trying to work out the logic behind it, I'd say that the oath of office is not supposed to be beholden to any ideology (religious, or otherwise), and to say 'so help me god' at the end suggests that it is approached with not only an ideology, but a specific request to one particular manifestation.

To Christians, it makes it sound more like he 'means it', maybe - and they can take a little assurance from the idea that he's willing to be guided by a higher power. To non-Christians (especially Atheists), it could be seen as connecting the whole precedent oath with values that one might feel exclude them.
See, though, I'm not sure I can see that sort of connection. Being saying "So help me God" he is just asking for divine help. It would have nothing to do with how he would approach the proceeding oath. I mean, if the words were, "God willing" I could see it. But the wording here seems to be the same as I so swear, or I will do my best, etc..

I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money
I heard a guy (an academic, smart guy) suggest that the reason "In God We Trust" is on the money is less of a statement of ideology and more yet another way our government tries to have us all have faith in our currency.

Understood. I was just hoping you could explain your comment.


See, though, I'm not sure I can see that sort of connection. Being saying "So help me God" he is just asking for divine help. It would have nothing to do with how he would approach the proceeding oath. I mean, if the words were, "God willing" I could see it. But the wording here seems to be the same as I so swear, or I will do my best, etc..
To me, "so help me God" is more like he's promising us that he'll do his best with a really big motivator behind it, and not so much that he's asking God for anything. Kind of like when I threaten one of the many people in my life who I threaten regularly (because they're asking for it), and I say something like, "If you make that noise one more time, so help me, I'll wring your neck!" I'm not actually asking for help in the wringing of the neck.

To me, "so help me God" is more like he's promising us that he'll do his best with a really big motivator behind it, and not so much that he's asking God for anything. Kind of like when I threaten one of the many people in my life who I threaten regularly (because they're asking for it), and I say something like, "If you make that noise one more time, so help me, I'll wring your neck!" I'm not actually asking for help in the wringing of the neck.

When you take an oath on the bible, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth... so help me god... the 'so help me god' basically is the guarantor of the oath. Theoretically.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

FUCKING Newdow.

Giving Atheists a bad name sure as Pat Robertson does for Christians who think.

FUCKING Newdow.

Giving Atheists a bad name sure as Pat Robertson does for Christians who think.
Hey, everybody needs a Pat Robertson. Our reputations would get too shiny if there was nothing to tarnish them. :p

Hey, everybody needs a Pat Robertson. Our reputations would get too shiny if there was nothing to tarnish them. :p

That's a fine point, much as I hate to admit it (and not because you brought it up).

It's just that I'd like to think that the logic and reason espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins or Douglas Adams doesn't need help from a whiny bitch like Newdow.

There could be an argument to be made that affixing "so help me God" invalidates the oath, as prescribed in the constitution

Hmmm.... Mr Godwin would like to know if it is acceptable to say "So help me Hitler".

Maybe the protestors think God is just as oppressive to them as Hitler was to the Jews. A notion which the Bible seems to support.

There could be an argument to be made that affixing "so help me God" invalidates the oath, as prescribed in the constitution

I thought the constitution of the USA is considered to be toiletpaper by the US presidents ?

Oaths are a silly business in the first place. They should be done away with entirely.

I heard a guy (an academic, smart guy) suggest that the reason "In God We Trust" is on the money is less of a statement of ideology and more yet another way our government tries to have us all have faith in our currency.

Quite possibly ;)
Ironically, the most vocal protests when it was proposed to add the sentence to US currency were from Christians and Jews - who found the idea of Gods name appearing on something as mundane as money, which can be used for all kinds of sinful activities, repugnant.

In this case, I'd say that the Constitution argues in favor of allowing "So help me G-d". It's not in the official text - it's added by each President personally. To forbid it would trample on freedom of religion, specifically Barack Obama's freedom of religion.

I mean, really, is there anything sillier than a grown man or woman promising to do their best on behalf of their invisible friend? Ludicrous.

And if you remove the invisible friend part, then the whole thing is just nonsensical.

In this case, I'd say that the Constitution argues in favor of allowing "So help me G-d". It's not in the official text - it's added by each President personally. To forbid it would trample on freedom of religion, specifically Barack Obama's freedom of religion.

Agreed in theory.
Of course, if Obama would NOT say the words, the people would get mad. Which is rather saddening.


However, I just want him to use the word "banana" in his inaugural speech. Betson pays out nicely for that ;)

Surely Barack Obama will be saying 'so help me Allah' anyway?

I'd love if he says "so help me Lunatic Goofballs" :D And then subsequently get kicked in the groin by Biden :p

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money...
Why remove it from the money? After all, the full saying it hits at goes as "In God we trust, others must pay". It's pretty clever to have this hint on the currency.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

Amen to that.

I mean, really, is there anything sillier than a grown man or woman promising to do their best on behalf of their invisible friend? Ludicrous.

And if you remove the invisible friend part, then the whole thing is just nonsensical.

If you don't make an oath, the rest of us can't think of ways that you might have violated it.

Actually, it has to be God or nothing. If the incoming President attempts to call on any other deity, the Vice-President has to smash him in the head with a small ceremonial mallet. *nod*

Not to mention they'll have two religious figures on hand, one to fuck the new President in the ass, and the other to give him a reacharound.

How so? I mean, from the wording, it would seem that the president is asking for divine help. I mean, he could say, "So help me out here, y'all" or "Or else the First Lady is gonna smack me" or any number of other requests, but it doesn't seem to be making it conditional.

All jokes aside, I'm honestly not seeing the argument so please do elaborate.
.

It's how you read it I think. Off the top of my head 'so help me God' isn't a plea for God's assistance, but an invocation for God to oversee and bind the oath. Originally as a deterrent against breaking it.

Swearing by a particular deity seems to be showing religious partiality.

I would imagine that the same people who freaked about Rick Warren will freak if Obama says, "so help me God". And if he doesn't say it, the people who freaked about the gay bishop being present will freak.

I take the same position you do in general, and I agree with you on this particular matter as well. The apparent point of this suit seems to be so these particular atheists can be pricks.

This.

Going off on a tangent (somewhat), why not have presidents say "I swear udner pain of perjury that this country means more to me than anything else, including religion."? After all, we elect presidents, not popes!

"So help me, Lenin"?

"So help me, Monty Python"?

Hey, everybody needs a Pat Robertson. Our reputations would get too shiny if there was nothing to tarnish them. :p

Considering how unshiny our reputations are as it is, I think I'd rather do without him, thanks.

He can shove this suit straight up his arse. If Obama wants to say "So help me God" then let him. It's voluntary.

That's a fine point, much as I hate to admit it (and not because you brought it up).

It's just that I'd like to think that the logic and reason espoused by the likes of Richard Dawkins or Douglas Adams doesn't need help from a whiny bitch like Newdow.

Douglas Adams was an atheist?

Douglas Adams was an atheist?

Everyone is an Atheist, deep down.

Everyone is an Atheist, deep down.

No, see, it's just that I'd gotten the impression he was a Christian, what with all the God mentioning in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

No, see, it's just that I'd gotten the impression he was a Christian, what with all the God mentioning in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

I don't know... he does disprove God in the opening chapters of Hitchhikers...

He has some really funny quotes

There is a theory which states that if anybody ever discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory which states that this has already happened. - (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, almost all versions)

In the beginning the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. - (The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090115/ap_on_go_ot/obama_under_god

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge and In God We Trust from the money... but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.
The point is that no one has heard from Newdow since the Pledge business. He's lonely.

I don't know... he does disprove God in the opening chapters of Hitchhikers...

Which I thought was just satire of his own religion. I'm a dummy.

....Let him do what he wants...Its pointless crap like this that makes me not want to claim Atheism...Theyre almost as bad as Fundamentalists...:rolleyes:

Offtopic, the BBC of Finland(Yleisradio) will show live the inauguration. I might watch it.

Which I thought was just satire of his own religion. I'm a dummy.

Heh. :) I don't know. I'm pretty sure I read/heard him saying he was an Atheist, and I seem to recall he coined a fair few 'atheist-y' phrases.

Maybe he was in deep cover? :)

Offtopic, the BBC of Finland(Yleisradio) will show live the inauguration. I might watch it.

Oh Im definitely going to watch it...Im just disappointed I cant be there...If only they could be Inaugurated during a School Break, lol...Damned College...

Oh Im definitely going to watch it...Im just disappointed I cant be there...If only they could be Inaugurated during a School Break, lol...Damned College...

It's on at 18:30.

I take the same position you do in general, and I agree with you on this particular matter as well. The apparent point of this suit seems to be so these particular atheists can be pricks.

That's really how Newdow comes off in general. His suits seem to get sillier and sillier, and I think he hurts his cause more than helps it.


Well, as an Atheist... I'm not one of the Atheists fighting it.

That said - if I'm trying to work out the logic behind it, I'd say that the oath of office is not supposed to be beholden to any ideology (religious, or otherwise), and to say 'so help me god' at the end suggests that it is approached with not only an ideology, but a specific request to one particular manifestation.

To Christians, it makes it sound more like he 'means it', maybe - and they can take a little assurance from the idea that he's willing to be guided by a higher power. To non-Christians (especially Atheists), it could be seen as connecting the whole precedent oath with values that one might feel exclude them.

I don't think you have to be Christian to take it as "he really means it." I think you could put anything there that the particular person feels strongly about. He could swear on his mother's name or something like that, too.

It's kind of like swearing with your hand on the Bible or some other holy book. It only makes any sense if that book means something to you. (Although there were people who thought a Muslim legislator should be sworn in on a Bible instead of his own holy book. :rolleyes:)

It's how you read it I think. Off the top of my head 'so help me God' isn't a plea for God's assistance, but an invocation for God to oversee and bind the oath. Originally as a deterrent against breaking it.

Swearing by a particular deity seems to be showing religious partiality.

An individual is allowed to be partial to a particular religion, even if that person is the president.

As for Douglas Adams being an atheist:

Yes, I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.
-- Douglas Adams, from an interview with American Atheists; quoted from Warren Allen Smith, editor, Celebrities in Hell (2002); excerpted by Positive Atheism (2007)

I don't think you have to be Christian to take it as "he really means it." I think you could put anything there that the particular person feels strongly about. He could swear on his mother's name or something like that, too.

It's kind of like swearing with your hand on the Bible or some other holy book. It only makes any sense if that book means something to you. (Although there were people who thought a Muslim legislator should be sworn in on a Bible instead of his own holy book. :rolleyes:)
Personally, I'd swear in on a copy of the Constitution, and say something like that, "Or let the People remove me" or something like that. But that's just me.

An individual is allowed to be partial to a particular religion, even if that person is the president.

As for Douglas Adams being an atheist:

Yes, I think I use the term “radical” rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as “atheist,” some people will say, “Don’t you mean ‘agnostic’?” I have to reply that I really do mean atheist, I really do not believe that there is a god; in fact, I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one ... etc., etc. It’s easier to say that I am a radical atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it’s an opinion I hold seriously.
-- Douglas Adams, from an interview with American Atheists; quoted from Warren Allen Smith, editor, Celebrities in Hell (2002); excerpted by Positive Atheism (2007)

That works. :)

Judge ruled (http://www.startribune.com/politics/37665864.html) against this silly lawsuit: Obama can say whatever he likes (as long as he does say the required words), and can invite all the preachers he likes (he can invite singers, too, and even mimes if he should be so dastardly).

It's on at 18:30.

lol, that may be a problem, I go to school from 8AM to 9PM...I can probably catch the rerun afterwards though, Im sure they'll replay it...

Judge ruled against this silly lawsuit: Obama can say whatever he likes (as long as he does say the required words), and can invite all the preachers he likes (he can invite singers, too, and even mimes if he should be so dastardly).

I'm filing an injunction against that.

I'm filing an injunction against that.

But a mime is a terrible thing to waste!

...after all, which is more satisfying: an inauguration without mimes or an inauguration where a tree falls on the mimes halfway through?

But a mime is a terrible thing to waste!

...after all, which is more satisfying: an inauguration without mimes or an inauguration where a tree falls on the mimes halfway through?

You make a valid point my friend. Ergo, we must sabotage any trees that will have mimes next to them.

Here is a non-religious/atheist argument.

The president is an employee of the federal government. He's paid to read the lines in the Constitution...not add in his own. If you worked for Walmart and you said, "Come back soon, so help you god." I bet you would get fired.

Here is a non-religious/atheist argument.

The president is an employee of the federal government. He's paid to read the lines in the Constitution...not add in his own. If you worked for Walmart and you said, "Come back soon, so help you god." I bet you would get fired soon.

Yeah, But if Sam Walton said it would he be fired?

Yeah, But if Sam Walton said it would he be fired?

Are you implying that Obama 'owns' the government?

Are you implying that Obama 'owns' the government?

No just the "Head of Government" lol

Yeah, But if Sam Walton said it would he be fired?

After driving away the nonfanatical customers kills the profits, yes.

After driving away the nonfanatical customers kills the profits, yes.

Possibly, But then that wouldnt be for saying the term, just driving the Nonfanatical Customers away...

I dont think our Nonfanatical Citizens are going anywhere, lol...

In this case, I'd say that the Constitution argues in favor of allowing "So help me G-d". It's not in the official text - it's added by each President personally. To forbid it would trample on freedom of religion, specifically Barack Obama's freedom of religion.

The Constitution stipulates a legally mandated oath, swearing anything other then that oath, unaltered and in its entirety, is unconstitutional

The Constitution stipulates a legally mandated oath, swearing anything other then that oath, unaltered and in its entirety, is unconstitutional

Which Saying "So Help Me God" after you say it wouldnt do...You would still be saying the whole thing, Unaltered and in its Entirety...

However, banning people from saying it would be against the 1st Amendment...

Which Saying "So Help Me God" after you say it wouldnt do...You would still be saying the whole thing, Unaltered and in its Entirety...

However, banning people from saying it would be against the 1st Amendment...The 1st Amendment never specified its intention to alter the oath, nor does any person possess the freedom of speech or religion to alter a constitutionally mandated obligation.

Appending "so help me God", "I'm Rick James, bitch" or any other statement is an addition to the oath, and should invalidate it

Everyone knows that Presidents are chosen by God and rule with divine right. Why wouldn't be acknowledge that in their Oath of Office?

The 1st Amendment never specified its intention to alter the oath, nor does any person possess the freedom of speech or religion to alter a constitutionally mandated obligation.

Appending "so help me God", "I'm Rick James, bitch" or any other statement is an addition to the oath, and should invalidate it

The 1st Amendment did specify however Freedom of Speech as well as Freedom of Religion...


And it depends on your definition of Appending...If he says the whole oath, then after it is finished he, or anyone else for that matter, can say whatever he or she damn well pleases...

I mean, Im not religious but I dont believe in bending the Constitution to any group, including Atheists' will...

I'm filing an injunction against that.


Oh, come on! Zombie Marcel Marceau would be a great addition to the inauguration.

The 1st Amendment never specified its intention to alter the oath, nor does any person possess the freedom of speech or religion to alter a constitutionally mandated obligation.

Appending "so help me God", "I'm Rick James, bitch" or any other statement is an addition to the oath, and should invalidate it

In other words, every single President since George Washington has invalidated the oath.

In other words, every single President since George Washington has invalidated the oath.

As I said earlier: some documents are toiletpaper as far as US presidents are concerned.

In other words, every single President since George Washington has invalidated the oath.Not all of them. The ones between Washington and Lincoln have no supporting evidence (That I know of) saying that they added the phrase, and the only official report (That I know of) said that Washington only spoke the requisite phrase. It's also doubted that Lincoln said it during his first term, though some stories claim that he did.

(And Theodore Roosevelt didn't swear on a Bible, neither did John Quincy Adams.)

And some people think that some Christians go overboard.

lol, that may be a problem, i go to school from 8am to 9pm...i can probably catch the rerun afterwards though, im sure they'll replay it...

gmt+2.

Douglas Adams was an atheist?

No, see, it's just that I'd gotten the impression he was a Christian, what with all the God mentioning in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series.

Well, given that Richard Dawkins gave a eulogy at Adams' funeral and opens his book The God Delusion with praises sung to him, and Adams himself said:

Now, the invention of the scientific method is, I’m sure we’ll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked. If it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn’t withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn’t seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. What it means is, “Here is an idea or a notion that you’re not allowed to say anything bad about; you’re just not. Why not? — because you’re not!” If somebody votes for a party that you don’t agree with, you’re free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it. But on the other hand if somebody says “I mustn’t move a light switch on a Saturday,” you say, “I respect that.”

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking “Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?” But I wouldn’t have thought, “Maybe there’s somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics,” when I was making the other points. I just think, “Fine, we have different opinions.” But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody’s (I’m going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say “No, we don’t attack that; that’s an irrational belief but no, we respect it.”

Why should it be that it’s perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows — but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe... no, that’s holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we’ve just got used to doing so? There’s no other reason at all, it’s just one of those things that crept into being, and once that loop gets going it’s very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it’s very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you’re not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn’t be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn’t be. (http://www.biota.org/people/douglasadams/index.html)

Link (http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/2001-09time_to_stand_up.shtml)

Here is a non-religious/atheist argument.

The president is an employee of the federal government. He's paid to read the lines in the Constitution...not add in his own. If you worked for Walmart and you said, "Come back soon, so help you god." I bet you would get fired.

You've not seen many Wal-Mart shoppers or been to Arkansas, have you?

Uh... I'm confused here, given that "So help me God" isn't actually in the text and is left up to the in-coming president to decide if he (or she, eventually) wants to use it... What's the point of this suit again?

He's a fucking moron.


Ya know... I agree with the removal of Under God from the pledge

So do I.

and In God We Trust from the money...

But that is God!


but surely a man should be allowed to call upon whatever deity he follows if he wants to.

Yes, he should it is his right.

Surely Barack Obama will be saying 'so help me Allah' anyway?

While wearing a t-shirt that says Osama is my homie.

Both of these are win!