Condescend to the Messenger

David Waters of WashingtonPost.com's On Faith blog takes a mostly-fair look at Michael Newdow's inauguration lawsuit by seeing what effect the messengers have on the substance of the case.

. . . I suspect the lawsuit would have generated less condescension if it had been filed by the Freedom Forum or the National Council of Churches, rather than two dozen atheist and humanist individuals and groups led by the infamous Newdow, best known for his lawsuits challenging the interlarding of the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "under God."

I think this is an important point (in a post with more not-so-important points). Like it or not, knowing the suit is being filed mainly by atheists is enough to turn most of the culture off and send many into screaming rages. This is particularly makes groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State valuable.

This does not mean, though, that atheists should sit back because no one likes them. For raw legal maneuverings, there can be arguments about when and when not to get involved. But this is as much consciousness-raising as it is law, so atheists should indeed be at the forefront, and then be ready for the backlash--especially if they win!

Waters takes the issue more seriously than most, to his credit, concluding his post with:

When Chief Justice Roberts asks President-elect Obama to put his right hand on a Bible and swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution "so help me God," is the United States of America declaring that God exists? Does the inclusion of clergy prayers and oaths to God in the inauguration of the president mean that the new government officially endorses theism and rejects atheism?

If not, do the words "so help me God" mean anything at all?

The "if not" is a true dilemma, I think, for believers fighting to keep their deity in government ceremony. Luckily, it's not my dilemma.