The problem with Newdow's arguments are his self-contradictions and stretches of the imagination ~ Newdow equates "... references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion" ~ and, as Zip points out, he says that using the words "'So help me God' and having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them [Atheists] feel excluded and stigmatized." ~ and goes on to claim that "Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny." ~ but he also says that " ... [Obama] possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs" ~ I don't know about anybody else, but my attending a church or synagogue wedding ceremony or baptism does NOT make me feel "excluded and stigmatized" nor "force" me "to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions" ~ personally, I don't feel pressured by anyone's choice to believe or not to believe ~ except of course for those who consistently and constantly proselytize ~ and they just piss me off ~ bottom line for me: I support Obama's choice to say the words "so help me God", just as I would support someone's choice to omit those words ~

Sooz

I don't think it's required by law that the person says "so help me God". Some Presidents haven't used the Bible and some have said "I affirm" instead of "so help me God". Katy and I are both atheists. However, we think the choice of whether or not to say it is entirely up to the person being sworn in. That's his/her personal belief and forces no religion upon anyone. I think there would be a problem if the person were forced to say it.

Expressing his personal belief in the oath in no way threatens my rights to not have religion forced upon me. To deny him that right is unconstitutional. He's not forcing a religion on anyone. He's merely expressing his own.

There are battles atheists have to fight. This is not one of them and it makes it harder to fight when real violations occur.

I believe it's the "slippery slope" argument. Christianity gets a hold on our government a little piece at a time. I don't think most thoughtful people intend that, but I do think that evangelicals or 'fundies' tend to take 'so help me god' to mean God, his son, the Trinity, etc.

I'm more aggravated that Obama chose Rick Warren to say the prayer.

Newdow admits that " ... [Obama] possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs", so Obama's request should settle the matter ~ at least for THIS inaurguration ~ Sooz

Obama has asked to say 'so help me God' at swearing-in

Levites is what they should be called. In my view you can be a believer in the old testament or the new but not both. The old testament has nothing to do with Christ and his teachings. In fact, it is one of the most violent, incestuous books ever written. It's impossible to debate with anyone who takes the Bible as the only truth. Sheesh, it was written by men. It's at best an historical novel. People quote the Bible at me. I say so what. I've had people say well pray to God anyway what can it hurt. I say I'm not going to waste time praying to your imaginary friend.

Faith and belief in a supreme being can give people strength to help them through rough times. It's not a bad thing. The fanatics use it as a weapon to try to subjugate others. They spend their time judging and trying to make laws against people instead of doing as Jesus would want. Jesus was a good man.

I hate hearing people say things like "there ain't no atheists in foxholes". Really? I found that lying in a hole with hell all around you watching the bud beside you turn into spray made a lot of atheists.

Call those fools Levites and Paulians. Don't call them Christians.