A group of Atheist organizations have filed a lawsuit against Chief Justice Roberts amongst others to get the phrase "so help me God," out of the oath Presidential-Elect Obama will take on January 20th. Their argument is that by mentioning God and allowing religious leaders to speak at the inauguration, we are violating what the Constitution has to say about our government not being allowed to support a particular religion. The poor, old Atheists went on to say that they will feel "feel excluded and stigmatized," if forced to watch this blatant promotion of religion on national television. I guess feeling excluded and stigmatized has soften up in America, whereas it used to be used towards certain groups of people, such as women or African-American who might have been physically harmed for expressing their way of thinking. Nowadays it just means some feelings were hurt. Well besides that, here's why this is one of the most pointless fights to fight that I've heard about in a long time.

The reason why "so help me God," is even part of the oath is because George Washington threw it in there. Originally, it was not part of the oath, but our first president felt the need to call upon a higher power he believed in to help him run a brand-new democracy. He didn't, however, say "so help me God... and I'd like to say 'screw you!' to all of those Atheists out there that don't think like I do!" Nor will President-Elect Obama throw any insults towards Atheists.

To be fair, Atheists have not included Obama in their lawsuit, because they do not want to gag him if he wants to call upon a higher power that he believes in. So do they think that he's going to be held at gun point by Chief Justice Roberts to say "so help me God,"? Yeah the Chief Justice can be a tough guy, but if Obama really felt that strongly about not invoking the help of a character that Atheists believe is just as real as the Easter Bunny, then I'm sure he could object. Personally, I think it's done more-so out of respect towards Washington than actually calling upon the help of the G-Man to pull some strings for a new presidency.

As for the complaint that religious people shouldn't be allowed to speak at the Inauguration, well gosh, I can't believe I'm defending these people again. To have Atheists say religious figures should not be allowed to speak at such events is like religious people going crazy over a scientist that happens to be an Atheist supporting the teaching of evolution over the God went click theory speaking at such an event. Again, though, I doubt someone like Warren is going to get on that stage in front of the nation and tell everyone that Satan is going to enjoy the company of Atheists and gays in the future. If he does advertise his religion, then yes, I could see the complaint, but I think that's about as likely as Obama unveiling his identity as a Muslim, something hardcore conservatives have been waiting for since they first heard his funny sounding name (because Muslims shouldn't be allowed to serve our country or anything...)

If Atheists really want their voice heard in matters of how God is mentioned in our country, they should work to get more Atheists elected to office.  Pete Stark is probably feeling lonely out there. Besides, just as Congressman Keith Ellison was able to use a Koran to swear himself in, I'm sure an Atheist can hold their hand over an empty box, just so long as they don't compare it to their idea of religion... Although that would be pretty funny!