Opposing Views: OPINION:Atheists Say that Public Prayer Literally Makes Them Sick

Atheists Say that Public Prayer Literally Makes Them Sick

By Pacific Justice Institute , Defending Rights - October 09, 2009

Comments(21) | (0)

Washington, D.C. – Briefing is nearing a close in a high-profile case challenging prayer at Presidential inaugurations, currently before the federal D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The lawsuit, filed by hundreds of atheists and atheist groups, led by frequent litigant Michael Newdow, was thrown out by the lower federal court. The two ministers who offered prayers at President Obama's inauguration, Dr. Rick Warren and Dr. Joseph Lowery, are named defendants in the lawsuit and are being represented by Pacific Justice Institute.

In its Opposition Brief filed last week, Pacific Justice Institute countered the legal arguments of atheists who said public prayer traumatized them to the point of illness. Among the more dire claims, one plaintiff declared, "[W]hen Chief Justice Roberts asked the President to say, 'So help me God,' I felt threatened and sick to my stomach." Another plaintiff stated in court documents, "As I watched this inauguration, I cringed with disgust as I witnessed this special secular event again being poisoned with sectarian religious nonsense."

The plaintiffs in this case include numerous individuals, and groups such as the Freedom From Religion Foundation, The American Humanist Association, Atheists United, Atheists for Human Rights, and Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers.

PJI Chief Counsel Kevin Snider, who authored the opposition brief submitted last week on behalf of Drs. Warren and Lowery, commented, "Prayers designed to solemnize public events have a long and venerable history in our nation.

The Constitution simply does not demand that our public institutions be amoral or atheistic."

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, stated, "The First Amendment cannot be divorced from common sense. While atheists, humanists and freethinkers are a tiny minority in America, they are free to express and practice their lack of faith as they please. That does not mean, however, that the vast majority of God-fearing citizens and public officials must be silenced in order to appease them."

Regarding Article

OPINION:Atheists Say that Public Prayer Literally Makes Them Sick

I would like

As a Christian, I would like to see an end to the inclusion of religious elements in our supposedly secular public ceremonies and government events. There is no reason to use these occasions to blur the line of separation between church and state .

Atheists are among the most hated and discriminated-against groups in this country, and I can well understand why some atheists might be fearful and deeply concerned when watching the attempts of religious people to assert religion in public ceremonies. Surely we are enlightened enough to recognize that, if we are religious, we can call for God's blessing upon our President and government in the context of private religious exercises or ceremonies, and that God will still heed our prayers. Why are we so insecure in our religious beliefs that we feel that, unless we inflict our own personal religious dogma upon the rest of the population, God will not hear us?

I recall Jesus saying something about the pharisees and hypocrites who pray loudly on public streetcorners in order to attract the attention of passersby, and that those persons have already received their reward. Instead, he counseled, we should go into our private, innermost rooms and pray to God in secret, and God, who knows our innermost hearts, will reward us.

But much of the supposed "Christian" populace of this country doesn't seem to put much stock in the words and counsels of Jesus, oddly enough.

- Babaroni October 9, 2009 1:40PM

Reply to this Recommend (3)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Agree partially
  
  My problem with these militant atheists is they don't even want you to have the right to pray publicly. And they do it in such a hateful and disrespectful way, that it personally makes me not care what their position is or how they justify it.
  
  This implication that it literally makes them sick is laughable. And if it is true, they need to seek help because they obviously have much bigger issues.
  
  - LagerHead October 9, 2009 2:46PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - I've never
    
    Tell me more about the atheists who want to take away people's right to pray in public. What do you mean?
    
    - Babaroni October 9, 2009 2:53PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - For example
    
    I agree that the getting sick thing is lame.
    
    I mean, I experience dread, embaressment, and fear for the future, but I keep it to myself, because prayer is a personal ascetic activity and it would be very disrespectful to intrude on that.
    
    Which is why it should never happen in public!
    
    Hahaha!
    
    Really, I have never heard anyone (I am a card carrying Athiest with more than one affiliation) suggest there should be a bar against praying in public.
    
    Just most of us hope everyone will grow out of their imaginary friends someday. Particularly those fond of their followers killing or persecuting or pretending to believe in things we all know ain't so.
    
    - Submariner October 11, 2009 5:31AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Thank You
  
  As an atheist who got to this point by exploring many different faiths I have respect for others' beliefs and also feel the pain of not just atheists in this country, but almost any non-Christian and non-monotheist when it comes to these sorts of events. One of the most wonderful things about being American is you can be exposed to many ways of thinking and/or believing yet, when there is a large public governmental event the Christian faiths are overwhelmingly represented. It may not be as painful as the plaintiffs claim, but it does make one feel like an outcast. Inaugurations and the like should make everyone feel included and proud to be.
  
  I'm also very happy to hear someone talk about Jesus' lessons from the Bible, while I may not ascribe to faith in his origins I think there are some wonderful lessons on humanity and tolerance in the New Testament and it's a shame that I live by them (and have read them, frankly) more than many who claim to believe. You sound like a true Christian, Babaroni, and I have more than respect for that. It's hypocrisy that makes us the most angry, not worship!
  
  I am more than happy to support those I love by attending religious ceremonies when asked and feel no contempt over the prayers or customs involved, but I do not understand why a nation with separation of church and state should have prayer at a time when we are supposed to feel most patriotic and united.
  
  - CraftLass October 9, 2009 5:50PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Well said
    
    Well said, CraftLass, and thank you.
    
    - Babaroni October 9, 2009 11:06PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
amoral or atheistic ?

I don't care if people pray in public. I do have a problem with prayer during or before events which involve any ceremony or event that involves government .
From what I gather the Pacific Justice Institute doesn't mind atheists or other religions and philosophies expressing their views just as long as Christians (the god -fearing people) don't have to hear it. It seems to me that that works both ways.
I really have a problem with his reference to be amoral or atheists. Morality is not exclusive to religion, we've seen that evidenced enough.
People who feel that they have a greater sense of morality,integrity,and ethical behavior simply because they are religious and that people who denounce religion are incapable of those attributes are seriously mistaken.
There quite a number of atheists who are involved with faith-based groups because of the work that they do for people. Atheists who realize that Christian groups have access to the funding that is needed to make the biggest impact. In my opinion it would be better to live a life of morality, integrity and ethical behavior based upon a heartfelt need to do so ,rather than from fear of retribution or rewards in heaven. To realize that the life you live here should be lived with a sense of personal responsibility and compassion that comes from the heart and not the edict of god or religion.
The "Good News" is that there is no god,no retribution,no judgement,no rewards in heaven,no suffering in hell for being human.There is this life which you are responsible for whether you choose to screw it up or not. There is the human condition,none of us are any better than anyone else.There is no need for conflicts that kill people who hold different beleives,because there is no god who sanctions it. God is not on anyone's side.

- bug October 9, 2009 4:44PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh God...

I'm not a religious man, but this is why I hate atheists with a flaming passion. It seems that they won't stop until they make everyone with a higher meaning in life miserable.

- mhphoto October 9, 2009 8:32PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Mhphoto
  
  That's a pretty obvious generalization.
  As and atheist-agnostic I'm almost offended.
  To say that you hate me and that I want to make you miserable for believing in a higher power is _____.
  I would like you to look at your own beliefs and let that be your guide not what someone tells you to believe, but I don't want you to be miserable.
  Ride the pink cloud. (higher power sounds like AA to me)
  
  - ttut21 October 9, 2009 10:37PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Hmm
    
    I'm an agnostic also, and I dig what you say about AA, but I stand by what I say.
    
    I make the generalization because I know a ton of people who consider themselves hardcore atheists , and the vast majority act a damn fool when confronted by a situation in which (God [or god ] forbid) someone is either relying on their faith or simply talking about their faith.
    
    I've known people (atheist of course) to go up to two complete strangers talking about s religious topic and getting into the thick of things simply to let the others know that their wrong.
    
    Let me clarify my position. I don't hate atheists, I just hate arrogance aimed at people with faith, be it to make them feel bad or try to dissuade their views.
    
    Most of the atheists I've met fit the description above.
    
    That said, I don't like people trying to push religion onto me, or anyone else. I've had religious folk do that. I didn't like it, so I walked away.
    
    But back to the issue of prayer at the inauguration. If the atheists in attendance didn't like it, tough. The majority of the people there (including the President) wanted to partake in a prayer. If it really bothered them so much they could've done something else to pass the time. I hear sudoku is a great time-passer.
    
    I don't fault atheists for their views, but I do fault them for the things they do sometimes.
    
    Yeah, religious people try to force their views onto people, but at least they truly believe that they're doing good. Speaking solely of Christianity, it's part of their religion to bring Christ to as many people as possible. That's how people are saved according to their faith. It seems that atheists are doing it to put people down, or just to start a fight.
    
    - mhphoto October 9, 2009 11:52PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (3)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Yes
      
      Indeed there are a lot of people that do just like to argue. I'm one of them so I come on here where that's what we do, for the most part.
      I don't think they are trying to put you down. How you take what they say can be oh a missionary from the atheist side or this guy called me a moron for believing in the flying spaghetti monster. The main topic of discussion for religious people is "how do you feel inside?" and for atheists is to question your intelligence. (like a salesman questioning the manhood of the customer to sell him a ______)
      
      I agree that the prayer at the inauguration was fine. Freedom of religion . Separation of church and state as well though. What do you do?
      
      Hey I agree with you for the most part, I was just pointing out your generalization. Don't hate the group for the actions of one.
      (I know you said there were a lot that were putting you down)
      
      "I dying man has one last great decision to make. Heaven for the climate or Hell for the company."
      
      - ttut21 October 11, 2009 2:18AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Agreed
        
        I have to say though, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is brilliant...
        
        - mhphoto October 11, 2009 11:03AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - You found the motherload...
      
      Athiest's (especially those brave enough to admit to the label in the states) are a small portion of the 15% or so people in this country that are not in religion .
      
      If you know that many, you are in a wierdly concentrated pocket. I would guess a college campus or something like that, based on the behavior you describe.
      
      But there is a real breakdown in understanding here in this comparison.
      
      Religion has no valid (by valid in mean in the sense of consistent definition of terms and with respect to any acceptable verification of a truth claim in epistemology) claim on morality or meaning that Atheist's lack, but there are certainly some important epistemlogical and existential philosophies that provide secular humanism in general, and atheism in particular (with respect of truth claims) a nuance and depth lacking the vast majority of religious dogma.
      
      That is to say, every philosophical problem with meaning, metaethics, and truth have no solutions in theism that are not as valid in strict materialism, while athiesm forces humanity to work these things out on their own, so to say.
      
      Even more simply put, the fact that there is no reason to believe in gods does not negate higher meaning being possible; in fact it is not truely possible without a humanistic appreciation.
      
      It is very difficult for people to not get defensive and take things personally, but this is mostly due to the undue protection from critical analysis religion has exploited for most of human history.
      
      - Submariner October 11, 2009 5:48AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - You're right.
        
        Sorry if I'm only on page two of the dictionary to type to you, but I hope my simpleton ways will make sense.
        
        This is my question to both the scientific(non-theist or atheist) and theist populations.
        
        Where did God or The Big Bang come from? What was before that?
        
        Now Buddhist religion makes more sense to me. Except the reincarnation. The search for nirvana and inner peace to find "heaven" on earth.
        
        Any logic in there submariner?
        
        - ttut21 October 16, 2009 12:37PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Wrong, Right, and Left
        
        This is the quintessential fair question, in my opinion.
        
        God = Big Bang? Or, What is the ontological root cause?
        
        This is why all athiest's must in philosophy allow for some type of "supernatural" primum movum; that is at some point nothing comes from something, right?
        
        This is exemplary of why the existentialists maintain that the universe is inherently meaningless.
        
        It's a problem for theists except that the dogma typically maintains that the various Gods have always been around.
        
        Buddhism is appealing to a great many for it's simplicity, lack of supernaturalism (fundamentally - there is a lot of supernatural activity in some variations, usually left over from indigenous mysticism. It's very parsimonious, for a religion , which gives it a lot of philosophical integrity.
        
        Mostly, I appreciate the idea that we have to have discipline and compassion to make THIS life worth living. Heaven on Earth as you say.
        
        - Submariner October 16, 2009 1:11PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Right
        
        Having to have discipline and compassion to make life worth living isn't entirely true. Some don't and get by fine.
        Buddhist, I was more pointing out a "higher power" that makes the most sense to me.
        
        God=Big Bang is as good of a theory as any I guess. I've seen science at least try to explain or figure it out though... String theory and Parallel Universe theory pop to mind.
        God just was and always will be.
        
        Side note. Could you imagine what would happen if we found intelligent life in the universe? That would through the mightiest of wrenches into religion .
        
        - ttut21 October 16, 2009 2:01PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
Get over yourself already!

Could someone please explain to me how a public prayer is forcing religion on anyone? Please. This is the crap that drives me crazy. No one is being forced to beleive anything. So how does a prayer offend you? Are people really that shallow, that paranoid, that mentally unstable that a public prayer, regardless of the situation, is somehow going to morph into the establishment of a National religion with everyone having to proclaim adherence? If that were the outcome, believe me, it would have happened long ago. It did not, so relax. You don't want to believe, that is your choice. The unfortunate thing that many misunderstand is that you do not, do not, have a right to be offended. So get over yourself already and stop wasting time and money on this idiotic stuff.

- moby clarke October 10, 2009 12:50AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The OP is a lawyer in this case

Um, is there anyway this could be a less objective article?

I mean, this whole thing is silly in more way than one, but why is this group getting free propaganda for their case?

At least they have toned down the Rhetoric, though the equation of athiesm to amorality is disengenuous at best.

Thomas Jefferson would be an athiest by even Unitarian standards these days (though he was not one, he was far to reasonable about his religion for the modern standard in the US).

Not that TJ was the moral compass for this issue, but if they want to disect the bill of rights or bring up tradition, let's really get down to details. Like defining "common sense".

Commone sense is what tells a person that the world is flat.

- Submariner October 11, 2009 5:56AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Title meant to smear atheists

This title and specific mention of ONE plaintiff that exaggerated were obviously put in there to make atheists look like whiny complainers that are overly sensitive. And from the looks of the comments here, some have fallen for it. I'm sure many more have as well.

- GermyJ October 14, 2009 3:26PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.