I Shouldn’t be Subjected to Yankee’s Fans, Either…

Today we see in the news that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is suing to keep Barack Obama from using the phrase “So Help Me God” during his official taking of the oath of office on January 20. Additionally the group is suing to keep Pastor Rick Warren from giving the invocation. According to the group, failure to eliminate these things is a violation of the separation of Church and State. Nut Jobs in America pushing themselves on the rest of us is what I say…

This lawsuit is being filed by Michael Newdow, who also sued to have the phrase banned from each of George W. Bush’s inaugurations. He failed in both suits. He led the fight to have “Under God” removed from the pledge of allegiance as well. I have about had it with people like this and their rationale for their actions. And keep in mind as you read that I am not a christian. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation lives under the belief that they should not have to be subjected to the beliefs of anyone who differs from them. Apparently their precious ears start to burn any time they hear the word “God” mentioned. And they should not have to be subjected to such blasphemy. 

This is where I think we have gone wrong in America. That this suit could even see the light of day is a testament to the madness that is political correctness in this country. Children going to school are not allowed to say a prayer to themselves before they begin eating their lunch. We cannot have a Christmas tree up in a school because not everyone is a Christian and it might hurt their feelings to see someone enjoying a season they don’t celebrate. Santa’s have been banned from Christmas parades. It is madness.

First of all, jackass, here is some reality for you. Somewhere between 80% and 85% of Americans are christians. And the fact that you think your 15% to 20% should have the ability to limit their right to practice their religion as they see fit is atrocious. It is amazing how it has become OK to ban all forms of religious activity around the dominant religion in this country, while simultaneously ensuring the rights of every other religion in the minority. Go ahead and tell a Muslim that they are not allowed to pray at school, see how quickly the ACLU jumps in there and reams you. 

Here is what the first amendment states- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Therefore there should be absolutely zero laws disallowing the practice of any religion. And here is the key, that includes the religion practiced by 80% of the country. The government is prohibited from establishing a state religion, not from having religion involved in their ceremonies. 

Newdow states that including these words in the oath of office and having an invocation by a christian pastor is subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else’s religious beliefs. He goes on to say that this is the government picking a winner between believers and non-believers. His goal is to eliminate all prayers or religious ceremonies from any governmental function. However, under his logic, wouldn’t eliminating these things pick a winner as well. Atheists and agnostics would be endorsed at that point. 

News Flash, idiot, the constitution does not in any part, give you the right to not be exposed to religious beliefs that are not your own. That is not a right bestowed upon you. If you don’t like it, don’t watch the inauguration. It is high time we start putting these wackos in their place. We have crossed the line when we start saying that the vast majority must change themselves to make the small minority happy. If Muslims don’t like a country that is 80% christian celebrating Christmas, tough shit. If atheist are hurt by hearing the word “god”, tough shit. 

The bottom line for me in this argument is that it is the decision of the incoming President what his inauguration should or should not include. He is a practicing christian. If Barack Obama wants a prayer and to say so help me god, then he can. It is him taking the oath. Atheists are not being asked to take it with him or to pledge their allegiance to a God they don’t believe in. If the next President is a Muslim, I defend his right to take the oath based on his religious beliefs. 

But beyond all of this, I am just plain tired of political correctness. If a town wants to have a parade with Santa, that is their choice. If you don’t like it, don’t go to the parade. When an atheist wins the White House, they can choose to not have religion in their inauguration ceremonies. It seems the only rights not protected in any situation are the rights of the majority and I am tired of that. Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu practitioners, Atheists, Wiccans, and Pagans can all practice their religion freely in this country. Groups like the ACLU make sure of that. Why aren’t christians given the same allowances?


  1. I personally believe that mythology has no place in government. NONE. (Yes I said mythology to prove a point. )

    But we elected him, he is religious, he can do as he pleases. If we want to insure no religion in government, only elect atheists.

    Just as I personally believe that mythology has no place in government, government has no place in religion. The last part is not just my belief, but that of our founding fathers. As long as it is Constitutionally protected, and I live in the U.S.A. I kinda have to agree. There are planes leaving the U.S.A. all the time and I am free to get on board. BUT I DON’T.

    So if Mr. Newdow wants to believe there is no god, he should let others believe there is.

  2. Government officials are US citizens as well. As such, legally forcing them to remove religion from their actions is a violation of their constitutionally protected rights. Newdow is actually suing to take away the first amendment rights of those who work in the government sector. This is a direct and heinous violation of the rights of any human by our constitution or libertarian or any host of other standards.

    Furthermore, a religion is a belief system. It may offend Newdow’s belief system use the term “God”, but it may equally offend another’s belief system to not use it. He is simply guilty of the very same thing he is claiming others are guilty of. The very idea that such hypocrisy is given a second thought by our media or court systems is disturbing.

  3. The separation of church and state is merely the concept of preventing a ‘state religion’.

    But as everything political, the power of violence always tries to misread motives and justifies itself to prevent all religions, except theirs – the religion of ‘no God’. (See Kent’s “Consistency Post”)

    No surprise here.

    But, my dark side says, the more moth-balls of political correctness in a politician’s mouth, the more comical the show! Gotta love politicians having to trip over political correctness~ 🙂

  4. I have no problem with people believing any bizarre myth they like as long as they don’t try to impose “laws” on the rest of us based upon those myths. Obama is just trying to quell the “Muslim” rumors.

    I consider many of the “separation of church and state” fights to be distractions from the real issues. Who cares if “under God” is in the national socialist “Pledge of Allegiance”? Would “Mein Kampf” be any different if “under God” were edited into the middle of it? And adding “In God We Trust” doesn’t make the government’s funny-money worth anything. Putting GOLD on the money would accomplish more towards that goal.

    I am an atheist, but references to “God” don’t bother me in any way. Only when people try to force me to act as though I believe the same myths they do does it bother me. Even without coercion, I get tired of some silly religious claims. But even then, I have no right to not be offended.

%d bloggers like this: