WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.

In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion.

An advance copy of the lawsuit was posted online by Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.

Joining Newdow in the suit are groups advocating religious freedom or atheism, including the American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Florida.

The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."

Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion.
 
The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. The document includes a quotation from Warren on atheists: "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God.' "
 
Newdow told CNN that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs.

"If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him," Newdow said. "I think it's unwise."
Newdow said that as a member of a racial minority, Obama should have respect for atheists, who also are members of a minority.

Newdow said religious references in the inauguration ceremony send a message to non-believers.

"The message here is, we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans," he said. Newdow said it's unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good.

He acknowledged that his suit is unlikely to be successful.

"I have no doubt I'll lose," he said, adding that he hoped to eventually succeed through appeals and hoped future inauguration ceremonies would exclude religious references.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/31/inauguration.lawsuit/index.html

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

{ As an Atheist I suppose I should support this effort by the Atheist organizations....but I don't. I don't think the majority has the right to bully the minority but I don't think the minority should be telling the majority how to live either. As well.......I think there are far more important battles to be fought than this which is primary symbolic. The efforts to force Creationism and it's stillborn twin Intelligent Design into our public school system is far more troubling. To attempt to replace science with religious orthodoxy is far more dangerous to who and what we are as a people than a few words said at the end of an inauguration.

 "As far as can be determined, the first President who is known to have added those words to his presidential oath is Chester Alan Arthur. He appended "so help me God" to his oath when he was sworn into office on Sept. 22, 1881 after the death of President Garfield. Later on, several other Presidents during the first third of the 20th Century adopted this practise. The last President, who did not use those words, was Herbert Hoover. "

 http://www.thegreenpapers.com/Vox/?20071023-0

 I do however agree that saying those words is unconstitutional.  The oath of office that presidents take on Inauguration Day is actually embedded in the U.S. Constitution �?at the end of Article II, Section 1, though it doesn’t include the words “so help me God.�?. If someone can arbitrarily add words at will to the oath what's to stop someone from saying " so to hell with God "?

 I don't think the folks who wrote the constitution would think it is acceptable to change it at the whim of any politician who comes down the pike. This is, after all, not a clause that people debate about what the founding fathers really meant but something actually thrown on at the tail end of the oath. If the writers of the constitution wanted it there they would have put it there.

Don't you think?}