Carol Cratty Shows Bias With Article on Religious Inauguration

Cratty is claiming that the only thing that non-religious Americans object to is that the Inauguration ceremony may at some point "discuss" or make "references" to religion and the Christian and Jewish deity God. That's just not true.

If Cratty had actually read the official complaint from the Freedom From Religion Foundation, she would have seen that the organization is objecting to, among other things, the plan to make Christian prayers an official, government-endorsed, part of the Inauguration ceremony. Those prayers, to be conducted by Christian preachers Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, are not just simple statements. They are religious rituals.

Including religious rituals in the ceremony that bestows the power of the President of the United States upon Barack Obama is not just a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids the governmental establishment of religion. Making these Christian rituals an official part of the Presidential Inauguration also creates the appearance that the President of the United States is required to be Christian, or at least to submit to Christianity, before entering public office. That's against the original body of the Constitution, which guarantees that there shall be no religious test for public office.

Adding the words "so help me God" to the Oath of Office, as Barack Obama has planned to do, explicitly creates a religious test for public office. Thus, the central promise of the Oath of Office, that the President will defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic, will be broken even before the Oath of Office is completed. For this reason, the official Inaugural prayers and use of the clause "so help me God" is offensive not just to Christians, but to all Americans who truly value the Constitution and the liberty it establishes.

Carol Cratty doesn't communicate any of this in her article. Instead, she implies that the people filing the lawsuit object to the mere mention of religion. If the issue were just a reference of discussion or religion, we might be talking about a phrase in Obama's Inaugural speech in which Obama mentions that he is a Christian, or that some Americans believe in the Christian/Jewish deity of God. That's not what's the problem at all, of course, and Cratty knows it.

The fundamental problem is that the incoming President of the United States is treating the Constitution as a document that he is free to ignore for the sake of political expediency. America just endured eight years under a President who regarded the Constitution as merely a set of guidelines. If we don't want to repeat the pain of the Bush years, we need to make it clear from the start that the President is subject to the Constitution without exception - that's what the Inauguration lawsuit is about.

If you're a non-religious American, and you support the lawsuit, there's a petition you can sign that will be sent to Barack Obama before the Inauguration. Please consider adding your name to the list.