I Guess We Don't Need God's Help

You remember Michael Newdow, the spotlight seeking atheist who filed the lawsuit against the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He's now seeking the removal of "so help me God" from the oath to be read by Chief Justice Roberts. And he's asking for the invocation and benediction to be removed as well.

The lawsuit reads:“
...Defendants will have an invocation and benediction during the inauguration... Both of these activities are completely exclusionary, showing absolute disrespect to Plaintiffs and others of similar religious views, who explicitly reject the purely religious claims that will be endorsed, i.e., (a) there exists a God, and (b) the United States government should pay homage to that God.”

This isn't the first time Newdow is trying this. He tried previously (and unsuccessfully) to remove prayer from President George W. Bush’s swearing-in ceremony.

This clown Newdow will say anything to get a microphone stuck in his face. I'm pretty confident that the courts will continue striking down this nonsense - for now. But after four years of judges appointed by Obama is it hard to imagine a scenario where judges begin to uphold this idiocy?

HT Bench Memos


  1. I'll give Newdow a hearing just as soon as he points out precisely where in our Constitution this whole "separation of Church and State" thing is located. Letters written by Presidents hostile to organized religion don't count.

  2. That should be: obscure letters by Presidents (who were not at the Constitutional Convention but were in France) dug up my the courts 150 years later don't count.

  3. I thought "So help me God" isn't a part of the oath it's a completely optional phrase added by many presidents - is he trying to ban the president from exercising his right to free speech.

    Personally, I'd rather have a president who acknowledges the limits of his abilities and his need for grace than one who thinks he can do it all himself. If a president tacks on the Apostles creed to the end of the oath, then I might accuse him of abusing the platform.

  4. If I ever meet Newdow, I'll be hard pressed to not sock in the mouth, so help me God.

  5. The real problem here is that any court presumes to rule in this matter in any way, which means that by default this is entirely within the power of any federal judge. Scary.

    -- Mack

  6. Rob in Maine:

    Ahh, good point.

    Seriously, do people even read the actual text of the First Amendment?

    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.

    Nothing in there about separation of Church and State, nor about protecting pornography. Oh, and don't even get me started on the very first words: Congress shall make no law. Doesn't say anything about the states, now does it, and I don't think the 14th amendment magically makes it so.

  7. As much as I detest the general civic Jefferson worship, the irony is his letter was to reassure a church that the state wouldn't interfere with them, not the other way around. Nowadays, folks seem to think it's an appropriate wire to choke the words of the faithful in public.

  8. And if Jefferson's private views on Church and State hold sway, what about his observations on watering the Tree of Liberty?

  9. "...the spotlight seeking atheist..."

    That says it all.


Post a Comment