No praying or moment of silence at inauguration! Since When?

Psalm 10:4

The wicked one in the pride of his countenance will not seek, inquire for, and yearn for God; all his thoughts are that there is no God.


COMMENTARY (See article below)

I always wonder as to why those that do not believe in GOD do not seem comfortable in believing that they do not believe in GOD. Take for instance those challenging with lawsuits about the next Presidential inauguration (article below). Why is it they have to waste everyone else time and tax payer money to persuade that public prayer or a moment of silence if that is also what one chooses, is not a right or is unconstitutional etc for anyone who firmly believe in GOD? Why does it bother them that much to go to extremes? Answer: Because they truly know they are filthy sinners internally inside, their consciences do bear witness to them, they are without excuse and they will do anything they can to continue to try to justify what is unjustifiable and that is a foolish belief in " There is no GOD". Anyone that gets in their way and ruins their chosen belief by choosing to believe in reality of the TRUTH, they will continue to mock and flounder for the opportunity to waste anyone time that will not tolerate their foolish attacks.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (Amplified Bible)
18For the story and message of the cross is sheer absurdity and folly to those who are perishing and on their way to perdition, but to us who are being saved it is the [manifestation of] the power of God.

If they are comfortable in believing there is no GOD isn't that the same freedom as those that believe in GOD? Just because many pray in public and especially at the inauguration, isn't it every American's right to pray or not to pray even if it is public or not? Since when is it PROVEN that the US Constitution was written and agreed that our Government is not allowed to acknowledge a Creator? Where in the first amendment does it have that type of restrictions these atheists are claiming? In fact why do atheist call themselves A-theists? Kind of ironic they cannot come up with their own title. How about NO-god-lers. That can explain it better wouldn't you agree?

Anyway, the Bible is 100% factually true when GOD himself calls them fools because it is PROVEN just by their actions such as these continuous waste of time lawsuits as to how foolish their ways are when the set out to do something as attack the many billions that do believe in GOD or a god. It always is a foolish act whether they like it or not to ignore the US Constitution's face value meaning that the US Constitution speaks for itself clearly and has for 200 years and there is no restriction on public prayer anywhere between the lines.

Psalm 14:1
THE [empty-headed] fool has said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable deeds; there is none that does good or right.

[And in the article below you will see just to as how foolish they become and are becoming].

We all have the freedom and free agency to to live and WE THE PEOPLE may not always agree but WE at least know that contrary to public opinion, we know what we were founded on and no one has the right to detract or add to what was already written.
LEAVE THE CONSTITUTION ALONE, IT SPEAKS LOUD AND CLEAR AND WE NEED NOTHING NEW.

1 Cor 1:30-31
30But it is from Him that you have your life in Christ Jesus, Whom God made our Wisdom from God, [revealed to us a knowledge of the divine plan of salvation previously hidden, manifesting itself as] our Righteousness [thus making us upright and putting us in right standing with God], and our Consecration [making us pure and holy], and our Redemption [providing our ransom from eternal penalty for sin].

31So then, as it is written, Let him who boasts and proudly rejoices and glories, boast and proudly rejoice and glory in the Lord.

Richard White.2009


Atheists: No praying at inauguration!

'It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans'
Posted: December 30, 2008
10:06 pm Eastern
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Atheists are planning to crash the inauguration invocation, claiming the government is choosing between "believers" and "those who don't believe" and imposing religion on atheists and agnostics.

Michael Newdow, a California attorney who pushed a case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in an unsuccessful effort to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance, is joining Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, in a lawsuit to stop the Presidential Inaugural Committee's sponsorship of prayer on Jan. 20.

Their 34-page grievance, filed Monday in Washington, D.C., District Court, names Supreme Court Justice John G. Roberts Jr., officials in charge of inaugural activities, Rev. Joseph E. Lowery, pastor Rick Warren and others as defendants. It also aims to prohibit Roberts from using the phrase "So help me God" in the traditional oath of office, Fox News reports.

"We're hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration," Barker said. "The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers."

Barker told Fox the government is not supposed to choose sides when it comes to religion.

It's "hard wired into our Constitution," he said, insisting that the 29 atheists and agnostics named in the lawsuit love their country.

"[W]e are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," Barker said.

Rather than having religious figures such as Warren and Lowery delivery the invocation and benediction at his inauguration, Barker suggested Barack Obama host a private religious ceremony.


Dan Barker, co-president, Freedom From Religion Foundation (photo: FFRF)

"... Defendants will have an invocation and benediction during the inauguration," the lawsuit states. "Both of these activities are completely exclusionary, showing absolute disrespect to Plaintiffs and others of similar religious views, who explicitly reject the purely religious claims that will be endorsed, i.e., (a) there exists a God, and (b) the United States government should pay homage to that God."

"Those people who do pray do believe in God and they are in fact trying to use the government to pick sides," Barker said. "In America we are free to disagree. We can disagree with Rev. Rick Warren but we're not free to ask our government to settle the argument."

But Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told Fox News the decision is up to Obama, not the government.

"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with," he said. "So I think this lawsuit has no merit whatsoever."

Sprigg said Barker, Newdow and other atheists involved in the lawsuit are simply confused about the Constitution's meaning. He believes the suit will fail, just as Newdow was unsuccessful in his lawsuits to ban prayer at President George W. Bush's ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.

"These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about," he told Fox News Radio." The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies cannot include prayers or acknowledgement of the existence of God."

However, when asked if banning prayer would mean the government is favoring atheists over believers, Barker responded, "There is a difference between neutrality and hostility."

Newdow also recently lost a defamation complaint he had filed against a pastor who criticized him for his efforts to have "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The case had been brought against Rev. Austin Miles.

The case previously involved WND, the Internet's leading independent news site.

But shortly after naming WND as a defendant, Newdow agreed to drop the organization from the complaint.

The case, which originated about six years ago, alleged WND published a quote from Newdow that his daughter "was forced to recite, caused her emotional damage, stress, anxiety and a sense of being left out."

The lawsuit alleged the quote was never said by Newdow.

But WND did not publish the quotation, and Newdow quickly agreed to dismiss WND as a defendant.