Atheist asks high court to ban inauguration prayer - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-19-2005, 01:54 PM   #16
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 04:37 AM
Why is this guy even watching the innauguration?
__________________

__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:03 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Why is this guy even watching the innauguration?
Good question. It's his choice. If he doesn't like what's on TV there's the "off" switch.
__________________

__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 03:11 PM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:37 AM
That is a good point. If it's offensive to him, he doesn't have to watch it.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-19-2005, 04:16 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:37 AM
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: 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/...ion.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.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 07:15 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 02:37 AM
This is where the idea of "separation" becomes a tool of hatred.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 08:50 AM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 10:37 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
This is where the idea of "separation" becomes a tool of hatred.
I agree. This guy is being a real 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?
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 01-20-2005, 10:38 AM   #22
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 06:37 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com