Atheist asks high court to ban inauguration prayer

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Macfistowannabe

Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
Joined
Dec 11, 2003
Messages
4,197
Location
Ohio
Atheist asks high court to ban inauguration prayer
Filing demands chief justice's recusal from case

Tuesday, January 18, 2005

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

In an emergency filing, Michael Newdow argued that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

His request has been rejected by two lower courts. (Most recent ruling)

Newdow also asked that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is designated as the justice to hear emergency appeals for the D.C. Circuit, recuse himself because he is scheduled to swear in Bush and thus has a conflict of interest.

Rehnquist previously has sworn in four presidents since becoming chief justice in 1986.

"He has become a fixture in a governmental ceremony that has become infused with sectarian Christian religion and not once -- as far as can be determined -- has he made the slightest attempt to end that ... violation," Newdow wrote.

If Rehnquist does remove himself, the case will go to the next senior justice, John Paul Stevens, who has the option to refer the appeal to the full court for consideration.

Two lower courts have rejected Newdow's request to ban the prayer, suggesting he couldn't show actual injury in hearing it. In his ruling last week, U.S. District Judge John Bates also said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee have argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent.

Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the San-Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God.

The Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other parents and children.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/scotus.inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sounds like a historical whiner to me. Nobody is forcing him to accept anything except freedom of speech.
 
Last edited:
oh whatever. i personally could do without the prayer, but so long as it is very universalized, i won't complain too much.

i could do without "under God" as well as it's a relic of the Cold War, but i'd rather pick and choose my battles.
 
Does this guy even have a case? Where was he during the 1997 inauguration? Picking and choosing indeedy-roody.

"So help me God."
 
Last edited:
U2democrat said:
I would repeat what Irvine said. You've got to pick and choose your battles. This isn't worth being fought. So what if it is or isn't said?

none of us seem to complain if we're handed too many documents with the words "in God we trust" on them, in fact, we are happy when we are given them, aren't we ?
 
There are more pressing "problems" on the planet than a prayer at a government ceremony. This is a waste of time and resources.
 
cardosino said:


none of us seem to complain if we're handed too many documents with the words "in God we trust" on them, in fact, we are happy when we are given them, aren't we ?


because of what they're worth, and what they can buy me (i need new shoes), not because of what they say. they could say "in Cardosino we trust" and i'd still be happy.

;)
 
cardosino said:
none of us seem to complain if we're handed too many documents with the words "in God we trust" on them, in fact, we are happy when we are given them, aren't we ?
:wink: Of course credit cards are an alternative for those who are horrified by those words.
 
Irvine511 said:



because of what they're worth, and what they can buy me (i need new shoes), not because of what they say. they could say "in Cardosino we trust" and i'd still be happy.

;)

So it's OK to go with having God and State intertwined as long as there's something in it for you ? Got it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.........
 
cardosino said:


So it's OK to go with having God and State intertwined as long as there's something in it for you ? Got it.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.........


no. i just don't care what it says. :shrug:

and please don't put words in my mouth or draw inferences from my comments that 1) aren't there, and 2) serve whatever agenda you've got (you've made this argument before).

the "intertwining" of God and State on coins is utterly meaningless to me, as is the "under God" part of the pledge and the whole "may God bless America" that presidents end their speeches with. these are all empty, meaningless phrases to me, and i don't feel the need (nor have the energy) to battle them like this little atheist Napoleon in California. i agree with him on a philosophical level, but, really, whatever.
 
Last edited:
Ladies and gents, I have a related story on this guy.

Here's my favorite part of the article:

U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any injury from hearing the prayer.

Here, judge this is my proof: :drunk: Looks like I'm scarred for life.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Judge denies atheist's lawsuit to prevent prayer at Bush inauguratio
Friday, January 14, 2005

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/inauguration.prayer.ap/

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any injury from hearing the prayer.

Bates also ruled that Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court in California last year.

Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the January 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent.

During the two-hour hearing on Thursday, Bates questioned both sides vigorously but expressed doubt that a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.

"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.

Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow's legal claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because Newdow lost a similar case in California last year.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first inauguration.

Newdow -- arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from California -- said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.

Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.

George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but merely the personal choice of the president.

Newdow won widespread publicity two years ago when he persuaded the 9th Circuit to rule that the separation of church and state was violated when public school students pledged to God.

But the Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued.

Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.
 
nbcrusader said:
This is where the idea of "separation" becomes a tool of hatred.

I agree. This guy is being a real :censored:hole about this whole thing. I personally decided not to watch the inauguration. I'm leaving them alone to do what they think is right. I can't expect them to agree with me, and vice versa. So much evil comes out of not being able to tolerate diversity. By attempting to "ban" something because he doesn't like it, he's practicing censorship and intolerance. I wonder if he'd admit to this?
 
Last edited:
That's exactly it, he's trying to censor what he doesn't want YOU to hear, and it does nobody any harm, and it's nothing close to what a rational person would consider "hate speech." He has every way out of it possible, and nobody is forcing him to convert to Christianity or anything like that. I don't know if I would go so far as to calling him hateful, but I would say that he is being abusive towards our legal system and our constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom