With all the controversy over Rick Warren delivering the invocation prayer at Barack Obama’s inauguration, one group of people wants to use the occasion to raise money for LGBT civil rights.
Driving Equality is hosting a Rick-A-Thon to turn Rick Warren’s anti-equality stance into positive change for LGBT people. Every second that Warren stands at the podium, he will be raising money to advance LGBT civil rights.
…
Rick Warren’s invocation will not last longer than a couple minutes. You can pledge any amount you chose, whether it be $0.05, $0.10, $0.25, or even $1 for every second he speaks. You can even pledge a flat rate for the entire time he is at the podium. We will be displaying signs around Washington D.C. on Inauguration Day, tallying how much money Warren has raised for LGBT equality. We will make sure that everyone knows exactly how much money Rick Warren is raising for LGBT civil rights.
A couple nights ago, Rachel Maddow was discussing the Israel/Hamas situation on her show. She opened with a brief overview of what the fighting is all about.
I thought it was easy-to-follow and really informative. Is it simplified? Absolutely. But in five minutes, not bad at all.
So for anyone who reads headlines with the words “Middle East,” “Hamas,” “Fatah,” “Israel,” “Palestinian,” and then skips to another story because you have no idea what’s going on, check this out:
***Update***: The lawsuit in question has undergone some revisions (including new plaintiffs). A few changes have been made since my original posting.
You can read further commentary on this lawsuit at Daily Kos here and here.
…
Atheist Michael Newdow (of “Under God” fame) and several other atheists are suing government officials over the injection of religion into the presidential Inauguration.
The lawsuit is being filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
MICHAEL NEWDOW;
ELLERY SCHEMPP;
MEL LIPMAN;
DAN BARKER AND
ANNIE-LAURIE GAYLOR;
ROBERT SHERMAN;
MARGARET DOWNEY;
AUGUST BERKSHIRE;
MARIE CASTLE;
STUART BECHMAN;
HERB SILVERMAN;
JASON TORPY;
HARRY GREENBERGER;
KIRK HORNBECK;
JIM CORBETT;
CATHARINE LAMM;
RICHARD WINGROVE;
CHRISTOPHER ARNTZEN;
JOHN STOLTENBERG;
KATHERINE LACLAIR;
LOUIS ALTMAN;
PAUL CASE;
JERRY SCHIFFELBEIN;
ANNE, PHILIP AND JAY RICHARDSON;
DAN DUGAN;
ANNA MAE ANDREWS;
ELIZA SUTTON;
RICHARD RESSMAN;
“UNNAMED CHILDREN;”
THE AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION
THE FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION
MILITARY ASSOCIATION
OF ATHEISTS & FREETHINKERS
MINNESOTA ATHEISTS
ATHEISTS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
ATHEIST ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL
ATHEISTS UNITED
NEW ORLEANS SECULAR HUMANIST ASSN
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SECULAR STUDENT UNION
SEATTLE ATHEISTS
ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA
Why “unnamed children”? Because, according to Newdow, the public prayers amount to the “coercive imposition of religious dogma specifically denounced by the Supreme Court” in so many other similar court cases.
Who is being sued?
HON. JOHN ROBERTS, JR., CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT; PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE (“PIC”); EMMETT BELIVEAU, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIC; JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON INAUGURAL CEREMONIES (“JCCIC”);
SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN, CHAIRPERSON, JCCIC; ARMED FORCES INAUGURAL COMMITTEE (“AFIC”);
MAJOR GENERAL RICHARD J. ROWE JR., CHAIRPERSON, AFIC; REV. RICK WARREN; REV. JOE LOWERY;
What do the plaintiffs want?
They want to stop “so help me God” from being said during this inauguration and all future ones. Same with the prayers — both the invocation and benediction.
They don’t want extra money, but they do want to “recover costs, expert witness fees, attorney fees,” etc.
I do find it humorous that this section of the lawsuit is called “PRAYER FOR RELIEF.”
Why all the suing?
A couple key reasons:
The addition of “so help me God” to the presidential oath of office (said by Chief Justice John Roberts) violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
The government-sponsored use of any clergy at all during the inauguration violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment
To be clear, this is not an attack on Rick Warren for his bigoted views. That’s a separate issue.
It’s a lawsuit against using religion at all in a presidential inauguration.
Should Newdow win? Yes. He’s correct on both these counts. There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.
Will Newdow win? Not likely. He’s tried this before and failed.
In 2005, Newdow sued for the same reasons and the courts rejected his suit. U.S. District Judge John Bates, who oversaw that case, wrote this (PDF):
… the Court denies Newdow’s motion for a preliminary injunction that would enjoin the President and others from permitting clergy-led prayer at the 2005 Inauguration. Given the significant doubt that his action can proceed in the face of substantial questions relating to issue preclusion and standing, and the absence of a clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause, the Court concludes that Newdow has not satisfied the threshold requirement for extraordinary preliminary relief — a convincing showing of a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. Moreover, the balance of harms here, and particularly the public interest, does not weigh strongly in favor of the injunctive relief Newdow requests, which would require the unprecedented step of an injunction against the President.
Newdow has thus not met his burden of establishing that the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief is warranted under the present circumstances. The motion for a preliminary injunction is therefore denied…
Is there anything different now from four years ago? Not that I can see.
It’s perhaps a symbolic lawsuit more than anything else. Newdow would disagree with that, though. He doesn’t file any lawsuit unless he thinks he has a chance at winning.
He does raise a few important points in the lawsuit that should be noted.
One is that, much like the injection of God on our money and into the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1950s, we didn’t always have prayers in the Inauguration ceremony.
That only began in 1937 (PDF) with Franklin Roosevelt.
Another is that the phrase “so help me God” isn’t a historic precedent, either. Newdow writes that the first verifiable use of that phrase took place in “1881, ninety-two years after George Washington’s initial ceremony” — when “Chester A. Arthur took the oath upon hearing of President James Garfield’s death.”
After that, it was used sporadically until 1933 (again, with Roosevelt). Newdow adds that the phrase was not used in 1929 at Herbert Hoover’s inauguration.
There’s a kick in the head for anyone who believes we were founded as a Christian nation.
Just as with the Pledge Case, Newdow has the facts on his side. But I’m not optimistic about the lawsuit achieving any results.
Will it hurt us in the long run, though? I doubt it.
There is an upside to all this: the lawsuit can help raise consciousness about these issues. Presidential inaugurations used to be solely about our country — not about praying to a specific God.
It would be nice to see a president and government respecting that secular tradition.
…
Update: There are several interesting posts on the inclusion of the phrase “So Help Me God” at American Creation.
The Secular Coalition for America’s Lori Lipman Brown appeared on NPR’s Day to Day today to discuss “the role secular values will play in the next administration.”
The will.i.am song Yes We Can spoke about equality for all using the words of Barack Obama.
Now, the question is whether atheists are included in that mix.
With an invocation and benediction prayer being given at the inauguration (by Pastor Rick Warren and Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, respectively), atheists are saying those who do not believe in God are being considered second class citizens.
Below is a revamped version of Yes We Can created with atheists in mind — discussing religious equality for everyone.
Before atheists ask the obvious question, here’s a more specific breakdown from a report released yesterday by the Pew Forum On Religion & Public Life:
The (mis?)categorization of Stark leads David Hume of the Secular Right blog to speculate further:
Peter Stark’s case highlights the likelihood of what is going on: there are almost certainly other “cryptic atheists” in Congress, who take advantage of the conventional assumption by Americans that affiliation with a religion connotes theism.
Hume looks at statistics about belief in God among Jewish people and surmises:
It seems very likely that many of the Jews in Congress are culturally and not religiously identified. A quick & dirty check in the [General Social Survey] suggests that Jewish confidence in the existence of God tends to decrease with education…
I’m still hoping the new Obama administration will give certain members of Congress the impetus and freedom to come out as a non-theist without fearing the worst.
By the way, who are those 5 members of Congress who are “Unspecified” or didn’t answer the question?
Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D–HI) Rep. Bill Foster (D–IL) Rep. John W. Oliver (D–MA) Rep. John F. Tierney (D–MA) Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D–WI)
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal was on the short-list to be John McCain’s vice-presidential choice (you know, before McCain made a far more amusing selection).
Now, Jindal’s seen as a potential Republican nominee for president in 2012.
He voted against expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
He’s completely anti-abortion, even in cases of rape or incest, getting a 100% rating from the National Right to Life Committee.
He is completely opposed to gay rights, earning a 0% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
Church-state separation? Forget it. Americans United for Separation of Church and State give him a 0% rating.
He thinks “intelligent design as an alternative to evolution may not be out of place in public schools,” so we know his support of real science would be minimal.
You’ve already heard that Illinois’ Governor Rod Blagojevich has been arrested on corruption charges — essentially, he was attempting to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.
At the moment, though, he still gets to pick Obama’s successor. (Perhaps in the near future, Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn will be making that call.)
Outside Illinois, New York governor David Paterson is in the same position, having to pick Senator Hillary Clinton’s replacement.
Which raises the question:
If atheists are unelectable, are we also unappointable?
In other words, does an atheist have a shot at getting appointed to higher office or would that, too, be political suicide for the person making the decision?
No doubt we’d prefer seeing an atheist elected to higher office.
I sure as hell wouldn’t mind if one was just placed there through other means, though.
Currently, I don’t know of any openly atheistic politicians on the shortlist for either Senator position.
Still, getting appointed might be the quickest and easiest way an atheist could obtain that position. If it ever happened, it could even show certain voters that we are capable of holding such a powerful seat — that we are trustworthy and honorable and good public representatives.
Maybe the next time around, then, that atheist could (*gasp*) actually get elected?
I am gratified by the thoughtful comments to my post Do You Really Support Freedom of Speech? Some of the comments have been so thoughtful that they have attributed all sorts of extra thoughts and meanings to me that are simply not there, so I’ll attempt to clear up some people’s misconceptions and incorrect conclusions about what I meant:
My list of five ways to respond, A through E, was not intended to be exhaustive. Of course there are many other ways to respond. Those five ways are a distillation of the basic ways that I see how people tend to respond to the issue of suppressing freedom of speech that does not agree with their opinion. The post is a thought experiment, not an accusation or a judgment of your character. I only suggested that we look into ourselves. No need to get indignant or defensive.
I neither said nor implied that upholding free speech as a principle for all people means that we should not loudly disagree with those opinions that we find objectionable. Disagreeing is not the same as suppressing. Upholding the right is not the same as agreeing with what is said. Protest against the CONTENT of the offensive billboard all you want, just please don’t protest against someone’s right to USE the billboard.
I neither said nor implied that this issue about which I am passionate should be everyone else’s passion too. A few comments correctly pointed out that people have their own priorities. One person correctly observed that there are terribly important issues about which I am not passionately involved. That is all correct, but beside the point I was trying to make.
I acknowledge I made a mistake in using the words “belief” and “support” synonymously. They often are used that way, but in this case I should have used the word “support” consistently through the whole post and contrasted it with “believe.” “Believe” in the strictest sense is a thought, while “support,” in my opinion, has to be an action. This contrast leads to the point I was trying to make, and the one that pushed people’s buttons:
What I should have said and explained more clearly is that in the scenario I described, doing nothing is not supporting freedom of speech. You may “believe” in that principle, but believing is only something that happens in your head, not in your actions. You can think all sorts of thoughts but it is only your actions that make your life what it is. Thoughts have no mass. They will not tip the most sensitive scale. If you think one thought or its opposite, it has no meaningful existence if you do nothing about it. Speaking or writing your thought to communicate to others is the first level of action, of its being real. Getting personally involved in the events pertaining to your thought is another level, a more powerfully real action. We all do what we can about things that matter to us, but merely thinking a thought like “Freedom of speech is important” without an action coming from it is doing nothing.
You are what you do, not what you think.
One commenter said that I was taking the stance that “you’re either with me or against me.” No, my stance is that you’re either part of the solution or part of the problem. That is because of the power of apathy. The vast majority of people are very apathetic. Public apathy is what allows freedoms to be lost and despots to rise to power. We are all apathetic about issues which do not directly affect us, so we do nothing other than perhaps think thoughts. In that way we are part of the problem. Doing nothing about an outrage does not mean you are “for” the outrage, as one person said I was implying. Of course not. BUT doing nothing other than thinking thoughts like “Gee, those people should have the right to speak their opinion” means you may believe in free speech but you’re not being SUPPORTIVE of free speech. If you speak up, or write, or donate, or march or demonstrate, then your support is real.
Actions speak louder than words, but mere thoughts don’t speak at all.
My main point is that if you “believe” in free speech only in your head but you do not support it with your hands and feet then please consider that that will not be sufficient if you want to continue to enjoy that freedom. There are many people who want to take that freedom away and they’re doing much more than just thinking thoughts. Thomas Jefferson said, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” But vigilance, being watchful, is not enough. Lots of people just watch as their freedoms are eroded. I would say the price of liberty is unceasing action.
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” (Attributed to, but not actually said by Voltaire)
Richard Wade here.
With all the recent controversy over billboards, I thought it might be a good time to reflect on our own attitudes toward freedom of speech. This “Fear God” billboard has been up in my home town in Southern California for many months. As far as I can find out, there have been no complaints. A half hour’s drive away in Rancho Cucamonga, as you have read, the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s “Imagine No Religion” billboard (inset) was taken down after only a few days. The City Council has denied reports that they pressured the billboard company to take it down, but they still claimed that City Hall had received “90 complaints.” Regardless of who is responsible in this case, one point of view is free to express while another is frequently censored.
Apparently, freedom of speech is not for everyone but is determined by majority vote on a case-by-case basis. Apparently only ninety “votes” are needed to overthrow the First Amendment and cancel someone’s liberty.
When asked, most Americans will say they believe in free speech, but when they hear or read an opinion that offends their views or beliefs, sadly many are either glad or apathetic if that opinion gets unconstitutionally suppressed. If you say you believe in free speech, then here’s a test, a chance to look into your heart and see if that is really true:
Imagine that the sign shown below proclaims a message that is offensive to your opinion, is the opposite of your opinion or attacks your opinion. Pick something that would really anger you. Then imagine that the local government and/or the advertising company decide to take down the sign before the date agreed upon, simply because it offends them or it offends many people in the community, including you.
Do you respond by:
A) publicly demonstrating to support the removal of the sign?
B) approving of the removal in a letter or email to the local paper, the local government and/or the billboard company?
C) doing nothing? (talking only on a blog comes close to doing nothing)
D) disapproving of the removal in a letter or email to the local paper, the local government and/or the billboard company regardless of your difference in opinion?
E) publicly demonstrating against the removal of the sign and insisting that free speech must be upheld regardless of your difference in opinion?
If your honest-to-your-inner-heart answer is A, B, or C, then you do not believe in freedom of speech. Your values are reflected by what you actually do in real situations, not by what you say in a hypothetical chat over a cup of coffee when nothing is on the line.
If it is acceptable to you for another’s freedom of speech to be stifled, then that includes your own freedom of speech. If the minority opinion, the unpopular opinion does not have the exact same guarantee of free expression then your opinion will eventually be forbidden as well. You’re only enjoying being in the majority opinion for the time being. The tyranny of the majority tends to increasingly demand conformity. Sooner or later you will have an opinion in the minority, the vote won’t go your way and you will be gagged.
Excuse me, I have to shout here:
EVERY SINGLE MAJORITY VIEW IN SOCIETY TODAY WAS ONCE A MINORITY VIEW WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED. EVERY WELL-ACCEPTED IDEA OF TODAY WAS CONSIDERED A HARE-BRAINED, CRAZY AND DANGEROUS IDEA WHEN IT WAS FIRST THOUGHT UP. EVERY MAINSTREAM RELIGION OR SCHOOL OF THOUGHT WAS ONCE SEEN AS A SUBVERSIVE, EVIL CULT AT ITS INCEPTION.
(Ahem.) If your sincere answer was D or much better E, then you do believe in freedom of speech.
It is ironic that the freedom of speech that the majority takes for granted is protected by a minority. Only a few people have the maturity and courage to follow Voltaire’s principle of defending even unto death the right of someone to disagree with them.
