Some Believers in Faith Choose Disrespect and Hatred When Discussing Atheism

I've recently had the opportunity to read an opinion written in the Los Angeles Times by Lisa Richardson entitled: "Atheists seek restraining order against God for the inauguration." The focus of the piece concerns a recent lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow, the American Humanist Association, and The Freedom From Religion Foundation that amounts to a total of 29 co-plaintiffs. The legal complaint seeks to enjoin the sponsorship of prayers by the Presidential Inaugural Committee at the presidential inauguration. In addition the lawsuit seeks to prohibit the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts, Jr., from adding the religious phrase, “So help me God,” to the Presidential oath of office. In this commentary, I would like to focus on the use of the phrase “So help me God,” and how it relates to the presidential oath of office, discuss the tenor of Lisa Richardson's opinion piece and end with a brief discussion on the non-belief in God. The presidential oath of office is a part of the U.S. Constitution and is found at the conclusion of Article II, Section 1. A simple reading of that part of the constitution will show that the phrase "so help me God" is not included in the presidential oath. The phrase in question was first recited between the Chief Justice and the President in 1881 and was only included in presidential oath oaths of office on an irregular basis until 1933 when it began to be included on a regular basis. The phrase was never added to the Constitution as a legally required part of the oath; it was simply added ad hoc to the oath and was asked by the Chief Justice to the President who then responded to the question. The legal question raised by Newdow, et al is quite specific in its scope and "states no objection at this time" if it happens to be the decision of President-elect Obama. This is because Obama has the right to request the addition of the phrase. What is specifically objected to in the complaint is that the Chief Justice has "no such free exercise rights (that) come into play on the part of the individual administering the oath to the President." What this means, according to the lawsuit, has to do with whether Roberts includes the phrase "so help me God"by his own decision, in which case he would assume the role of being a government official who is endorsing religion. The lawsuit also points out that "It is well known that defendant Roberts is a Catholic" and that the administrator of the invocation, Rick Warren has expressed exclusionary remarks against atheists numerous times in the past. Thereby inferring that the invocation and a benediction, as a part of the inauguration, is "completely exclusionary, showing absolute disrespect to plaintiffs and others of similar religious views." The plaintiffs are addressing their contentions regarding the legal merits of their arguments; a right they are entitled to, as American citizens, regardless of their standing as atheists or members of a non-Christian religious group. As regards to the opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times, I am offended, by the inclusion of ad hominem remarks made by Lisa Richardson. She refers to atheists as irritating, anti-God types, and as cranks. In addition, Lisa Richardson's attacks against those who do not believe in God completely misses the legal questions raised by the lawsuit. To quote Richardson at length: "If you don’t believe God exists, then why doesn’t it follow that phrases like “so help me God” have no meaning? And if that’s the case, then why does something meaningless matter? I have news for Newdow -- even if he managed to bar all religious references from public life it wouldn’t matter. The Soviet Union tried that; all it did was send religious fervor underground until communism ended and it came roaring back Besides, what would Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts be expected to do if Obama were to defy a ruling in Newdow’s favor, snatch away the Lincoln Bible and swat him on the hand? Scott Walter, the executive director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, hit the nail on the head when he said in a statement: Newdow's lawsuit over the inauguration is a lot like the streaker at the Super Bowl: a pale, self-absorbed distraction. And anybody who looks at it carefully can see there's not much there." As a non-believer in God, I'm extremely troubled when any individuals' personal beliefs are disrespectfully attacked in a hateful manner that exceeds civil discourse. I believe it is my right to define and express my feelings when the belief in God question arises. Let me explain by paraphrasing the philosopher Bertrand Russell: once when questioned about his belief in God, Russell observed that philosophically, he considered himself an agnostic because philosophy is incapable of determining the existence of God; there is no philosophical method that can be employed to prove God's existence because God's existence is determined as a matter of faith and is thus unquestionable, something that philosophy, which seeks to establish proofs through rational thought and logical means. So from a philosophical point of view, I accept Russell's argument which defines my non-belief from a philosophic point of view as being agnostic. This point of view proves to be satisfactory to many non-believers. Atheism exceeds the philosophical view of god's existence that results in agnosticism and considers the existence of God from a civic or secular framework by making the claim that God does not exist and thus has no role in activities of the state. I believe if we would consider these divergent points of view and make every attempt to avoid disrespect and leave hatred out of public discourse we would all be better citizens for our efforts.