Suit Filed To Stop Prayer At Inauguration

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a federal lawsuit to stop prayers from being offered at Barack Obama's inauguration. Among those being served with the suit are Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery.

The Madison-based foundation, its co-presidents Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor and several of its members are among the 29 co-plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit, Newdow vs. Roberts, filed Monday by attorney Michael Newdow in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The suit seeks to stop the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.

The 34-page legal complaint said for most of the country's history, clergy has not led prayers at inaugurations. Similarly, the lawsuit seeks to stop U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from using the religious phrase, "so help me God," in the presidential oath of office. Roberts is among the defendants, along with inaugural committee officials -- such as chairperson Sen. Dianne Feinstein -- and Revs. Rick Warren and Joseph Lowery, who have been invited to deliver the invocation and benediction.

"Interlarding those ceremonies with clergy who espouse sectarian religious dogma does not unite, but rather divides, our citizenry," Newdow's complaint reads. "Similarly, instead of instilling confidence in our governmental structure, it tears at the very foundation upon which that structure is built."

The FFRF acknowledges that their suit has little chance of winning, but points out that only 18 of 57 presidential inaugurations have featured public prayer - all of those in the last 72 years.

I applaud this action by the FFRF, doomed as it is. It should be crystal clear to even the most devout Americans that there should be absolutely no endorsement or mention of any religion in a secular Democracy. Religious influence on government has never been used except to oppress, divide, demean, and ostracize.

Joseph Lowery, The Other Inaugural Pastor, Is Also Against Marriage Equality

From last night's episode of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue on MSNBC:

JOSEPH LOWERY: "Well, I've never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions. Like a whole lot of people, I have some difficulty with the term gay marriage. Because deep in my heart, deeply rooted in my heart and mind, marriage is associated with man and woman. So I have a little cultural shock with that. But I certainly support civil unions, and that gay partners ought to have all the rights that any other citizens have in this country."

DAVID SHUSTER: "Fair enough, but when somebody suggests that gay partners are somehow like incest or pedophiles, um, what should the response be from people to that?"

JOSEPH LOWERY: "Well, I think that's wrong. I condemn it. I take all kinds of sharp and robust differences with that kind of denigration. But even so, I will not refuse to be on a program with him because we have these differences. That's what the president-elect proposes to do. Bring people together with different views and hopefully out of these discussions and out of association we can find common ground to serve common good."

RELATED: Rick Warren drops loaded references to incest and pedophilia into the conversation when same sex marriage comes up, only to claim he wasn't saying that at all. A commenter on SF Gate nails it:

Context means everything. It seems highly unlikely for someone as well-versed in the Right's "culture wars" as Rick Warren to raise the issue of incest & pedophilia when talking about gays without intending it as a slur. It's like talking about stinginess & Jews, welfare & Blacks - when you raise certain issues that play on peoples' prejudices, you are committing slander on a group of people. The context of the Inauguration is also important. Sure, we need to be tolerant & include all sorts of people. But there is one and only one group in society that lost something in the last election, and Obama should have been particularly sensitive to the fact that gays and those who believe in their equality feel extremely vulnerable right now. We've had 28 years of administrations that have treated us poorly, an election that took away our rights in four states, and even a homophobic murder in New York. Could he not have chosen someone else at this sensitive time?