Outcasts at Inauguration

As mentioned in a previous post, Michael Newdow is back to block religious invocations at Barack Obama’s inaugural ceremony, and is joined by the Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Humanist Association, among others.

It’s not the first time Newdow has made this attempt, and there are few who predict success this time, either. As always, though, it is instructive to look at the arguments being made in the media as to the merits of the issue at hand.

For example, the official complaint insists that the “so help me God” portion of the oath is acceptable to the plaintiffs as long as it is something freely tacked on by Obama, and not administered by Chief Justice Roberts. So the beef in this instance is not with Obama, but with Roberts. According to Newdow, Roberts will be illegally giving himself the power to circumvent the Establishment Clause by making it an official part of the Oath of Office. From KCRA:

"The oath of office for the president is textually provided in Article 2 of the Constitution," Newdow said. "It says these are the words you have to say. And he's throwing in 'So help me God.' Where does he get the authority to do that?"

Newdow is correct about that, and Brent Rasmussen at UTI called our attention to the fact that even Obama's official transition website does not include "so help me God" in the oath to which it says Obama will swear, which some might see as a kind of tacit acknowledgment of the addition's 'informal-ness.'

For FfRF's Dan Barker, at least according to reports, a major issue seems to be hurt feelings, which I think is a weak argument. Per Fox News' website (emphasis mine):

"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," he continued. [. . .] "Yet we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," he said.

I have to say, I'm not compelled by this line of debate, or at least I doubt its effectiveness (for I certainly don't like feeling like an outsider in my own country). I of course think Barker is right that the oath represents a government endorsement of religion, or more specifcally of monotheism, but I am less worried about any sensitive nonbelievers being "subjected to someone else's religious views." The Family Research Council's Peter Sprigg has a point--and only this point!--when he says (also from the previous article):

The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with.

Just as believers had no rights violated when atheistic billboards or holiday plaques went up espousing the virtues of nonbelief. Many religious people claimed to have been unfairly subjected to the atheist message, but that is the price of free speech. Perhaps this is a way of humanizing the humanists, as it were, by asking people to walk in a minority's shoes to "see how it feels." On this point, Barker and Newdow are playing the roles of policers to a tee, not arguing for the opening of debate and criticism between religions, but trying to get all discussion about religion or irreligion kept behind closed doors.

But on the major point of the suit, I think Newdow, Barker, and company are on solid ground. Thus far, save for Newdow's odd music video, I haven't heard or read much in the mainstream media that makes me think the issue or the message is spinning out of control (though it's early yet).

The thing to watch for is to see how this suit and others like it cause believers to feel about their atheist neighbors. Does it contribute to the stereotype of atheists as cranks and pesky distractions? Or by concentrating on the merits and substance of the issue, can the tension be kept to a minimum, allowing this suit to have a positive impact on atheists' image in America? Newdow's crusade against "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance seems to engender mostly vitriol from Americans, but I wonder if the presidential inauguration is somehow less personal to the electorate; that it is really Barack Obama's day and his oath, rather than their own child's words in a classroom.

Watch how the media covers the plaintiffs, and see if they are treated as hostile witnesses in interviews or as troublesome oddities in articles. My cursory scan this evening shows little trouble, but the inauguration is still about three weeks away, and when it comes to atheists and public relations, lots can go wrong.