12/30/2008
Group Sues to Stop Prayer at Inauguration
The Freedom From Religion Foundation and some of its members have filed a lawsuit to have religion removed from the presidential inauguration ceremony:
"The suit seeks to stop the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration. The 34-page legal complaint said for most of the country's history, clergy has not led prayers at inaugurations. Similarly, the lawsuit seeks to stop U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from using the religious phrase, 'so help me God,' in the presidential oath of office. Roberts is among the defendants, along with inaugural committee officials -- such as chairperson Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- and Revs. Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, who have been invited to deliver the invocation and benediction."
For all our Rick Warren coverage, click HERE.
Posted 2:32 PM EST by Andy Towle in Barack Obama, Inauguration, News, Rick Warren | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Good luck.
The Pledge of Allegiance didn't mention god until the 50s, but that didn't help in arguments a few years ago to remove it. Our currency mentions god. Churches get away with whatever they want---look at Prop 8, and that's even the "spooky" Mormons. And so on.
Like any politician or even most judges would ever publicly support this. 90 percent of this country defines themselves as religious in some way, and nearly all major religions involve god.
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 30, 2008 2:41:19 PM
The lawsuit won't get any traction but for those of us who approve of the suit- it is a step in the right direction. Blind adherence to dogma (and whose version is correct anyway?) is antithetical to a free country. Bravo for taking it on!
Posted by: NIck | Dec 30, 2008 2:43:26 PM
well. since public schools can't have teacher led prayers, i think it'd be appropriate to not have the actual public led in prayer in a specific way, proclaiming the government-stamp-of-approval on just one religion.
Posted by: ian | Dec 30, 2008 3:11:53 PM
I was waiting for this.
Cheers to Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor! They may not win this (especially with all the conservative douches sitting on the judicial benches across the country), but they'll definitely get some attention.
Expect Bill O'Reilly to have an aneurism over this in the next few days.
Posted by: MikeinSanJose | Dec 30, 2008 3:15:27 PM
Uh, yeah.
A lawsuit against the President Elect Inaugural and one of the Supreme Court justices.
good luck with that.
"attention" is all you might get, but even then, it won't make the national news. Maybe a blurb in some of the more liberal blogs/mags.
Posted by: Not a Chance in Hell | Dec 30, 2008 3:56:46 PM
Good, while I think Warren is a total churl, overeater and bigot, I for one don't want any "faith" in a public ceremony.
Posted by: JP | Dec 30, 2008 4:09:35 PM
I'm very glad they're taking this on. It's about time we start calling attention to all this hypocrisy. Why just last night on the Simpsons Homer made the comment that religions are based on lies. Nice.
Posted by: David R. | Dec 30, 2008 4:49:47 PM
Honestly, this is a bit much. One of the most, if no THE most historical events in American history and the gays have to piss on it. Couldn't they have least waited till the sixth to pull this shit.
Posted by: Pekemo | Dec 30, 2008 5:53:48 PM
Pekemo,
this isn't "the gays." This is an atheist organization attempting to reinforce the wall of separation between church and state. Or didn't you read that it was the Freedom from Religion Foundation?
Sure, it won't go anywhere, but good on 'em.
Posted by: MAJeff | Dec 30, 2008 6:24:53 PM
Give me a break.
I'm the LEAST religious person in the world, but this is a little much. Us gays just need to relax a little.
This clown is not making policy. He's just saying a little hail mary.
We've much bigger things to be concerned about in this country. Hello!?
Posted by: Dan | Dec 30, 2008 6:30:52 PM
Umm, Pekemo, I don't think the suit has a chance in hell, but how is this "the gays" pissing on the inauguration? The Freedom from Religion Foundation isn't a gay group. And how is the inauguration a more historic event than the actual election? It's mainly just a bunch of parties that don't add up to much. And how does either amount to the most historic event in U.S. history? You need a bit of perspective. Electing a biracial president, while great, isn't quite the same as, say, 9/11 and its aftermath or our participation in World War II.
Finally, waited until the sixth of what?
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 30, 2008 6:35:38 PM
That's actually a really good idea. It probably won't work this time, but maybe eventually...
Posted by: Captain Jack | Dec 30, 2008 6:45:03 PM
Obama has had dipshit prayer speakers at every rally and I really, REALLY don't like it.
If somebody in the crowd wants to pray, let them do it at home! Don't pull the "religion is awesome" ploy with such public displays at your political rallies.
Posted by: Drew | Dec 30, 2008 9:13:37 PM
Okay, I made an error and I didn't think before I typed.
That being said, Paul, just because you refuse to see the significance of the inauguration doesn't mean that history wont. I don't know if your of a racial minority but for us (us being racial minorities) this is something that is truly historic. I wouldn't put Obama's inauguration above 9/11 I would compare with 9/11 as a stark contrast in American history. To go from something so horrific and negative to something so hopefull and optimistic is a great turnaround in only seven years.
Now what I meant about my fellows gays "pissing on the inaguration" this whole Rick Warren thing. He is not is not going to be disinvited, Obama's is trying to do the right thing (all though he could've made a better choice), and no matter what you do, religion and government are not going to truly part ways anytime soon so I think it's best that we put all the anger on hold at least for one more month and then unleash hell. I just want to see my president take his vows and it seems like the gay community (most of it anyway) is trying to get in the way of it.
I'm tired of the gay community being-and this is the best word I can think of- selfish. Yes I agree we need and deserve marriage rights, but I'd rather be able to do my job without fear of being fired because I'm gay. I'd rather know that my partner or family members are secure in their jobs. Evangelicals and bible-thumpers are part of the American fabric soon just as much as the gay community is. The sooner that both parties realize that we both have a right to exist, the sooner we can start paving the path to a brighter future with a fully realized America under seperation of church and state. And I ment to say the twenty first ( I got a personal date mixed up with the inaguration, my apologies)
Posted by: Pekemo | Dec 30, 2008 9:50:06 PM
Pekemo, I understand your frustration and agree with many of your points (especially your final paragraph). But you have to remember that Rick Warren has compared homosexuality to pedophilia and incest. Obama made a terrible decision in inviting him, and gays have a right to be angry. A lot of straights have criticized the decision too. There's a difference between trying to be inclusive and sleeping with the enemy, and the widespread concern is that Obama is being naive in a lot of his decisions (not just this one) and inviting people into his administration who won't think, "Wow, great, now we can all work together and really achieve progress," but instead, "Wow, this guy doesn't know a damn thing about leadership and power and now we can continue to block progress."
But I still think that inaugurations are pretty minor events. JFK made a stirring speech at his, but I can't think of many others that have gone down in history (especially recent history) as anything besides party officials and their cronies having a big series of needless parties. I hope that I'm proven wrong this time.
I attended Reagan's first inauguration (I was 8 and my parents worked for senators, so anyone who wants to criticize me can shut up) and volunteered at several gay-related events for Clinton's first. In both cases it just seems like money that could have been much better spent, aside from the actual swearing-in. And with DC weather, who knows. The entire event could be a debacle if there's an ice storm. All the pomp and circumstance feels a bit too much like a monarchy for my tastes, but again---hopefully I'll be wrong this time.
Posted by: Paul R | Dec 31, 2008 4:02:06 AM
Pekemo makes a good point. A really good point. Look at Warren's website recently, and you'll see all the "gay stuff" taken down... He might never repeat those awful things he said, and -- you never know -- he may just recant them.
Posted by: shaner | Dec 31, 2008 7:45:31 AM
Pokemo - I understand your conflict but to me Obama, who could have been on the right side of history on this issue - has just shown symbolically that he is on the wrong side. He may redeem himself in time, and show that he has the values we can stand behind - but based on this choice and his campaign distancing from gay marriage - he doesn't look good.
For me, the anger against him is basically because of a breach of trust - if he had not represented change, we would have not expected anything. I for one thought his distancing himself from marriage was what he needed to do to win an election - not a core belief.
I was going to go to Washington for the inauguration - it was going to be a party for us all. Now, for me Obama is just a very competent and slick politician who conned me of my vote, and good for him, he is president. I don't share his joy, because its not mine anymore.
Maybe he will redeem himself - and maybe this outcry will force him to redeem himself sooner than if he had not invited the donut eater. I'm happy to wait and see. But at this point it just a political game - not an emotional catharsis.
Posted by: echovic | Dec 31, 2008 9:14:52 AM
As a gay man, this makes me sad. There's a difference in fighting for our rights or trying to take away someone elses' Didn't Ghandi say "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...? Obama's inauguration should be clear of this type of controversy from supporters on the left. It's unlikely our gay population won't win more support from his team by creating a fight at the very start.
Posted by: Scott Teeple | Dec 31, 2008 11:55:08 AM
As a gay man, this makes me sad. There's a difference in fighting for our rights or trying to take away someone elses' Didn't Ghandi say "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...? Obama's inauguration should be clear of this type of controversy from supporters on the left. It's unlikely our gay population won't win more support from his team by creating a fight at the very start.
Posted by: Scott Teeple | Dec 31, 2008 11:57:25 AM
As a gay man, this makes me sad. There's a difference in fighting for our rights or trying to take away someone elses' Didn't Ghandi say "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...? Obama's inauguration should be clear of this type of controversy from supporters on the left. It's unlikely our gay population won't win more support from his team by creating a fight at the very start.
Posted by: Scott | Dec 31, 2008 11:59:58 AM
>>.. Didn't Ghandi say "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"...?"
>>
Oh, Scott, make me BARF. First, it's 'Gandhi.' Second, Gandhi for all his achievements was not a fan of gay people by ANY stretch - not the best role model. Third, I'd much rather have everyone blind than be the only person wandering around with an eye gouged out his head while everyone else gets to enjoy the wonders of binocular vision, because I have this thing about being treated unfairly.
The idea that we've gotta step aside for this 'historic inauguration' is bullshit. Fuck that. Obama threw that away when he invited that fat fuck to preach for him on his big day. I have no problem with gays making a little history of their own. Let Obama back down if it's so important to him - I have no interest in doing that. And Scott, if I recall we didn't "create this fight." You sound like a nice guy, but we all know how quickly nice people are given their rights.
(With all that said, the lawsuit will fail and is a transparent stunt.)
Posted by: Yeek | Dec 31, 2008 1:24:51 PM
Um, Scott, learn to read.
Again, this wasn't sponsored by a gay organization, it was sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation.
I happen to be one of those terrible nasty atheists, in addition to being gay. This lawsuit isn't about the issues with regard to Warren and gay folks. This is about the wall of separation between church and state that folks are so intent on destroying. As the lawsuit notes, the presences of preachers and prayers at has happened in a minority of inaugurations, and all of those have been in the twentieth century.
Posted by: MAJeff | Dec 31, 2008 1:56:04 PM
oops....twentieth and twenty-first centuries.
Posted by: MAJeff | Dec 31, 2008 1:56:47 PM
Shit hasn't even happened yet and all our attention is on Rick asshole Warren. Yes lets make the whole inauguration about him (what a F-ing mistake). F*ck Rev. Lowery who is giving the last word. Most gays are'nt familiar with Lowery (who's the better guy), but they know all about Warren because all of the sweet attention we have given him. I think religion should be %100 separate from goverenment, but seeing its not all about me I can't be like the right wing assholes and say "F*CK YOU! You have no right to speak or be here!" wow, That's great political stategy. Lets be one issue voters just like them and write off Obama because he is letting this fat a**hole speak without knowing WTF he's gonna say (but I personaly can give a shit). The sad thing is if prop 8 did not pass we would not even be harping on on about this man speaking anyway, we'd still be mad but our anger would seem a little more educated. Gays (yes I'm one of them) have got to get themselves together and not let Warren be the #1 topic to hear (yes its up to us). If we got more involved with Prop 8 has much as the opposition did, it would not have passed, but we took it for granted and did not raise a huge ruckus until the voting ended. Not too many people even new about it until it was all said and done. We gotta get better political strategy then stooping to their (the religious right er wrong)tactics.
Posted by: LZ | Jan 3, 2009 9:20:06 PM