Atheists File another Inauguration Lawsuit against God

By: Jim Byrd

An assortment of atheists and atheist’s groups have filed yet another lawsuit to break the tradition of the inauguration prayer dating back to the swearing in of George Washington. This year they are targeting President-elect Obama’s inauguration. This is not the first time they have wasted the court’s resources. It was last tried in Bush’s 2005 inauguration by Michael Newdow. Newdow has tried relentlessly to have “Under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation told Fox News:

“We’re hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration. 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.”

Barker, who said government’s not picking sides on the issue of religion is “hard wired into our Constitution,” called the 29 members of the suit all atheists and agnostics who love their country and participating in the inauguration.

“Yet we are subjected to someone else’s religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders.”

The plaintiffs:


Unnamed Children were placed in bold type to further highlight their obtuseness.
The Defendants:


Those who were responsible for the lawsuit, these individual atheists and their organizations,The American Humanist Association; The Freedom From Religion Foundation ; Minnesota Atheists; Atheists For Human Rights; Atheists Alliance International; New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, coupled with the gay terroristic activities surrounding the passing of Proposition 8 in California, and Rick Jacobs, who chairs the California’s Courage Campaign and the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender), are the abject clearinghouse for America’s immortality and anti-America sentiment. These groups are nothing less than moral nazis and terrorists.

One of the most amazing aspects of these groups and individuals is their astonishing superficial knowledge of U.S. history and the Constitution. They are aggravatingly incapable of connecting the dots of historical and Constitutional absolutes and are, in the words of Thomas Jefferson…trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it… to give legitimacy to their caustic and bankrupt causes.

The radical liberals, gays, and atheists are howling and gnashing their teeth over Obama’s choosing Rev. Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration for myriad reasons. For Obama to have appeased a significant portion of his base, he would have had to chose a lesbian priest excommunicated from the church, who was married to a transgendered individual, who was able to evangelize the fact the Bible deemed heterosexuality a sin. And that God was an atheist and a woman, thus making it OK to pray. And when we die we all go to a secular nirvana, except Christians and Republicans, of course.

A reprobated scribe of the Daily Kos, Vinca Major, a well funded, yet intellectually and morally insolvent online publication of anti-American, immoral perpetuation, and wholesale ignorance of U.S. history and the Constitution, wrote the following:

“There has been lots of debate over whether President-elect Obama should have Rick Warren give an invocation at his inauguration. Whether or not this is a good time in our history to stop this practice, I question whether this practice should continue and whether it is in fact an American tradition. It only began in 1933. Does it comport with separation of church and state, and is this practice only becoming more offensive and divisive as non-Christian and non-religious citizens increase?”
The unabashed ignorance of this statement is breathtaking. Contrary to what the contumaciously radical left espouses, and their persistence of being the apologetic voice of everything that is antithetical to civility and morality, this country was not founded on secular ideology. It was never the intent of the Founders to form a secular nation. These misanthrope windbags lack the basic understanding of the religious fortitude the Founders possessed or how important religion was to this fledgling country. This country has a long standing history, well before, and after, the ratification of the Constitution and its Amendments, of being a nation guided by God. Ask any one of the founders. They will tell you if you read what they said. The first Day of Prayer was created by the Continental Congress in 1775. Not a day of silence–a Day of Prayer. These licentious opportunists of the left are completely void of a basal understanding of the establishment clause of the Second Amendment. Their entire ideological empire rests on a foundation of a few recent perverse Supreme Court rulings, and not on the original intent or spirit of the Constitution.
Consider this: The majority who migrated to this country did so to worship God the way the Bible stated, not the state; the Constitution was based on Natural Law, which is God’s Law of natural rights; the political leaders chose a Bible for the use of swearing in of all federal elected offices–not the “secular” Constitution; the First Amendment was not created to prevent the States from having state churches (many states had state churches after the ratification of the 1st Amendment and the Constitution would not have been ratified otherwise; at the time of our declaration of independence, 1776, nine of the thirteen colonies had state churches, and some continued after the ratification of the 1st Amendment; there was not one court case filed, or federal governmental intervention on state churches because, quite frankly, the federal government did not have the constitutional authority to do so.

The oath of office for the President of the United States, in Article 2 of the Constitution 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.” George Washington added the phrase “so help me God” at the end when sworn in, then leaned over and kissed the Bible. Washington then subsequently went to St. Paul’s Chapel, where the Senate chaplain read from the Book of Common Prayer. George Washington also wrote the following prayer for the United States on June 8, 1783 and it was sent to the state’s Governors:

Almighty God; We make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection; that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government; and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

And finally that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without a humble imitation of whose example in these things we can never hope to be a happy nation. Grant our supplication, we beseech Thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.”

John Adams, the second President of the United States, summarized the importance of religion and politics for this country by stating that, “Statesmen may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand.”

“Is there a possibility that the government of nations may fall into the hands of men who teach the most disconsolate of all creeds, that men are but fireflies, and that this is without a Father? If the only alternative is the government of atheists, why, “Give us again the gods of the Greeks.”

For this country to have been founded on secular ideology rather than guided by God, would indeed be a statistical improbability, especially considering the preceding intents of the first two presidents of this country, the intentions of the framers, the intent of the Congress who adopted the amendments, and the intents of the states who ratified the Constitution.

The First Congress of the United States, including many who helped author and ratify the Constitution, and who passed the Bill of Rights, had the task of creating an oath for members of the House. Their original creation:

That the form of the oath to be taken by the members of this Houses, as required by the third clause of the sixth article of the Constitution of Government of the United States, be as followeth, to wit: “I, A B a Representative of the United States in the Congress thereof, do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) in the presence of Almighty GOD, that I will support the Constitution of the United States. So help me GOD.”[Journal of the House of Representatives of the United States, 1789-1793, Monday, April 6, p. 7]

Two months later, the oath had been edited to its final form: I, A. B. do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States. The debate within Congress was whether to guide the country strictly by the Constitution, or by Divine Guidance. Also, James Madison, who is considered the Father of the Constitution, believed that the union of the State and Church could only harm the Church. At the time the establishment clause was meant to protect the church from the state, not the conversely twisted definition used today. Other factors had their role in the changing of the Congressional Oath. Consider that Jesus forbade His followers from swearing an oath. Regardless of the conjecture as to the reason, the overwhelming preponderance of Congress’ Christian faith, and allegiance to God, would indisputably rule out a secular motivation. Matthew 5:33-37:

Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34 But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne: 35 Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. 36 Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. 37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Also consider James 5:12:

Above all, my brothers, do not swear-not by heaven or by earth or by anything else. Let your “Yes” be yes, and your “No,” no, or you will be condemned.

Bible passages are acutely relevant to the argument, considering the Congress and the Founding Fathers were well versed in the Bible and ardently religious. The allowance for an affirmation, rather than swearing, was for the benefit of Quakers, who would not swear an oath, and other Christians who found it prudent to abstain from swearing an oath. For clarity, since Christians would swear an oath, what was the meaning of an oath at that time? Webster’s Dictionary, of 1828, defines an Oath as:

A solemn affirmation or declaration, made with an appeal to God for the truth of what is affirmed. The appeal to God in an oath, implies that the person imprecates his vengeance and renounces his favor if the declaration is false, or if the declaration is a promise, the person invokes the vengeance of God if he should fail to fulfill it. A false oath is called perjury.

Regardless of oath or affirmation, both were understood as an appeal to God at the time of Washington’s inauguration.

The dots are as easily connected as a primary school coloring book. Presented are just a fraction of the dots during the era of the founding of this country. Just the mere act of placing a hand on a Bible, rather than the Constitution is antithetical to secularism.

The interesting thing about history is that as time passes, every single act, person, event, has becomes a legend, and has been systematically raped, and shredded of its dignity by fanatical and historical agnostics for the sole purpose of propping up their self-serving, barren ideology. They are notorious for twisting and squeezing the facts to force history into the mold they believe history should have been, rather than what it was.

The question is: Will Barack Obama’s dénouement be, “so help me God.”

About The Author Jim Byrd:
Jim Byrd's website is A Skewed View.

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.