Pete: we’re not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, we’re trying to disentangle them from religion entirely. I’d be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious as I am that it is pro-religious.

The goal is neutrality.

I’m not trying to manipulate your words to mean something that you didn’t. So correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to set up a parallel with the two following clauses: “we’re not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies . . .” and “I’d be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious . . .” Would you only consider the inauguration to be atheistic if it were anti-theistic?

My concern lies in the way that this issue is being argued. Suppose you remove God-language, and you remove prayer because it would imply the existence of God from the inauguration and future government affairs. You might call it secularism, but realistically, there’s no God, atheos. It’s atheistic.

As a Christian I think that a government which admits that there are multiple beliefs, protects the laws that are democratically enacted by the majority, protects individuals and minorities from being forced to believe anything, and is not a wing of one particular religion, is the most consistent form of government. This is probably what Jefferson had in mind when he used the words “a wall of separation,” considering he read Scripture at government events.

If the president were Jewish, and he brought in rabbis to pray, I would not be offended. If the president were an atheist, and did not have an invocation, I’d be fine with that. If I lived in France I would not complain that there’s no God-language or prayer there in their government proceedings. I would be disappointed that it is so unchristian, but not that the civil operation isn’t acting Christian.

As I see it (and have argued), the desire to eliminate God overtones is forcing atheism within this sphere, based on separation of church and state. It’s an incorrect application of separation of church and state. It would be no different than me saying that it should be strictly evangelical in its trimmings.

Government should be free of interference from all religions. Atheism is no more a religion than science is a religion.

If I were to say to you, “Government should be free of interference from all atheists, freethinkers, evolutionists and agnostics,” that would be me forcing the government to act on behalf of my worldview. But the claim is the same as what Slippy` said, except excluding a different party.

I think that the exclusion is inconsistent.

The opposite of atheism is theism, not religion. “So help me God” won’t bother me. If Obama says, “So help me, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, benevolent ruler who will guide my actions in the Oval Office” then I’ll be slightly concerned.

I’m in for $2 per mention. If the count is very low (which I don’t expect), I’ll up it after the fact.

ETA: huh….I tried to post something like this twice before and it just disappeared. I assumed it was being moderated for some reason. Guess not.

BTW, Hemant, you will be letting us know the final word count here on the blog, right?

Of course!

I strongly disagree. Any involvement of religion in politics whatsoever is a violation of the separation of church and state in my eyes.

Then I’m afraid you misunderstand the establishment clause of the Constitution.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It says that the government may not establish or favor any one religion over another. It does not say that the government must entirely avoid the subject altogether. I agree that avoiding the subject altogether is often the safest and easiest way for the government to comply with this clause, but it’s not the only way. For example, a public holiday display on government property can comply by representing all of it’s citizens’ beliefs. But as we’ve seen recently, that can get complicated and ugly, so your solution to avoid it altogether is probably best.

Obama choosing a pastor to participate in his inauguration is not an act of the government establishing a law regarding religion. If he were *required* to have one, then that would be a violation. And I think similarly, if he were requireed *not* to have one, that might also be a violation because the establishment clause prohibits the gov’t from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

I think we atheists do ourselves a disservice when we push the establishment clause too far and try to remove all utterances of religion from everything governmental. It gives credence to the Christians’ complaints that we are trying to force our beliefs on them. All I want is a government that doesn’t take sides.

http://www.meetup.com/clevelandfreethinkers/messages/boards/thread/6094752

It is especially important that the Library of Congress have the right information on it’s site, since other sites cite it… like CNN.

Pete: we’re not trying to add atheism to the ceremonies, we’re trying to disentangle them from religion entirely. I’d be just as annoyed if the ceremony were anti-religious as I am that it is pro-religious.

The goal is neutrality.