This is par for the course for atheists:  Take a practice that harms no one and try to suppress it because  it might force them to confront the fact that some Americans believe in God.

The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between “believers” and “those who don’t believe” and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else’s religious beliefs.

Let me take a moment and note that watching someone pray is not subjecting them to religious beliefs as much as it is allowing them to practice their beliefs, which is supposed to be a part of our freedoms.  The person who should make the call is the guy getting sworn in, who wants the prayer, no one else.

No one can force an atheist to pray, and you would think that decency and respect would suggest that the atheists might just be quiet.

But no.

Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration. 

Oh two of my favorites.  One, a guy who sued in his kid’s name to stop the pledge, and the other a group who just managed to place a sign deriding religion placed next to a Holiday tree and nativity scene in the Washington State Capital.

The name of the group is telling, by the way.  Our freedom of religion is protected, but they feel the need to be protected from religion.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is the same group that fought to have atheist displays next to holiday displays, most notably in Washington state this year.

He said if Obama wants to hold a private religious ceremony, that would be more appropriate than having religious figures up on stage at his swearing in ceremony.

Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, said it’s Obama’s decision whether to include a prayer, not the government’s.

Exactly.

Sprigg said he thinks the case has no merit and, like previous attempts to block inaugural prayer, this too will fail. 

“These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. 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 can not include prayers or acknowledgement of the existence of God,” he told FOX News Radio.

And I like this guys hypocrisy:

Asked if prayer is excluded, wouldn’t that mean government is choosing atheists as the winner, Barker replied, “There is a difference between neutrality and hostility. 

“If the government were to invite me as a national atheist leader to get up and give an invocation that curses the name of God and that encourages people to stop believing and stop being so childish and divisive then that would be wrong because the government would be taking a pro-atheist position,” he said.

Yet that is essentially what he did in Olympia, with a sign that openly and clearly took pot shots at religion. 

Atheist really puzzle me, when they essentially take offense at nothing.

The real irony?  This is being played out against the Democrats, who tend to draw in more atheists than the Republicans do.

Biting the hand that feeds them…

While it is tempting to find and post their address, and ask every Jehovah’s Witness and Mormon in their town to drop by, I won’t.

Better than that, let’s all pray for them every night.  That will really sting…

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Allie is Wired, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, DragonLady’s World, The Pink Flamingo, L.O.M.A., Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.