Lawsuit-Happy Atheist Boy (TM) Strikes Again.

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

Achtung Bubba

Refugee
Joined
Jun 7, 2000
Messages
1,513
Location
One Nation. Under God.
From Yahoo! News:


Pledge Plaintiff Files Lawsuit Appeal
Tue Jul 16, 1:09 PM ET

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is also pushing to end references to God at presidential inaugurations.

Michael Newdow is appealing the dismissal in May of a lawsuit in which he claims it was wrong for President Bush's 2001 inauguration to include a prayer.

In his Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit, he claimed the phrase "one nation under God" violates the Constitution's separation of church and state. On June 26, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed ? at least temporarily ? and ruled the pledge unconstitutional.


Okay, a few questions for you guys who agree with the 9th Circuit Court's decision of a few weeks ago:

1) I'm still harping on this, but how exactly IS the pledge unconstitutional?

2) How was President Bush's inauguration wrong to include a prayer?

3) How in the holy hell was THAT unconstitutional?

Beyond this, it's fairly clear that Michael Newdow is doing the most political damage to the cause of a secular government in a VERY long time.

Shouldn't those who agree with him, having noticed the train wreck he caused with the pledge, simply tell him to shut the hell up?
 
Last edited:
Remember, this was the same guy who claimed that saying the pledge harmed his daughter, when his daugther lives with her mother separately and they're both (the mother and daughter) active Christians! He exploited his daughter to get media attention so he could go on a series of talk shows and shine in the limelight. Pretty sad.
 
Apparently he has asked Ima Jerkoff (the guy who claims the Constitution is unconstitutional because it says "Blessings") to write an amicus curiae brief.
 
I'm not that familiar with the U.S gov. but I'll give this a try.

1. The pledge is unconstitutional because it violates the Constitutions separation of church and state.

2. The prayer was not wrong, I didnt see it but I think he must think that violates the separation of church and state. In a way it does.

3. violates separation of church and state.

I think the thing with his daughter is stupid. Unless of course she was forced into being Christian. How old is she? By now she is probably old enough to decide what she believes in.
 
The notion that Congress (and by extension via later amendments, the states) cannot enact a law that establishes a religion does not prohibit the government and people in government from exhibiting religious opinions from time to time.
 
But, Raven, the Constitution doesn't specifically use the phrase, "separation of church and state." The closest it comes is the first clause in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In order for both the Pledge of Allegiance and the inaugurational prayer to be unconstitutional, this clause has to say that the government MUST be secular.

It doesn't say that explicitly, so we must somehow interpret it, and I think we must interpret according to what we think the authors intended with that clause. And if we look at what the authors of the Constitution and the First Amendment did as the first presidents and congressmen, there's simply NO way we can find an intent to force the government to be secular.

In fact, we find the opposite: both the early Congress and President George Washington went out of their ways to mention the Creator and the virtues of religion.

I mean, we CAN have the discussion about whether the Pledge should include the "under God" clause, and we can try to pursuade Congress to change the Pledge. But bringing the courts into this is to say that the pledge violates the Constitution, and I simply don't see it.


Either way, I believe this latest effort will backfire for Newdow and his supporters even worse than the Pledge fiasco.

In the Pledge case, we had a father supposedly suing out of a concern of his daughter - though that's now being called into question, and the pledge was made voluntary BEFORE the "under God" clause was added.

With this inaugural prayer, there's no concern for schoolchildren, just an elected official choosing to express his religious beliefs (remember, the First Amendment also PROTECTS free expression). This Newdow guy has quickly gone from a concerned father to a guy who simply wants to see unpopular ideas forced through the government via the judicial system.

(To be honest, I have a problem with people, both liberal AND conservative, who try to abuse the judicial system in this manner; it certainly doesn't help one of the government's most egregious problems - that the judicial branch has probably become far too powerful.)

I just think that those that agree with Newdow's opinions would want him to settle down: his tactics are SEVERELY hurting his own cause.
 
Last edited:
Well in that case(I told you I'm not familiar with stuff like that),
The Pledge of Allegance would only be unconstututional if you were required by law to say it.
 
RavenStar said:
Well in that case(I told you I'm not familiar with stuff like that),
The Pledge of Allegance would only be unconstututional if you were required by law to say it.

I agree 100% - for a slightly different reason. I think it would be a violation of free speech, which is why I believe a mandantory pledge would be unconstitutional, "under God" or otherwise.

The only exception I can think of where mandantory pledge recitation would be okay would be if someone is applying for citizenship. In such a case, the pledge would be an oath, much like the oath to tell the truth in a trial. AND, in such a case, it would probably be okay for the applicant to choose to drop the "under God" clause, just like a witness can choose to "affirm" to tell the truth rather than "swear... so help me God."
 
RavenStar said:
Well in that case(I told you I'm not familiar with stuff like that),
The Pledge of Allegance would only be unconstututional if you were required by law to say it.

Exactly.

And it is entirely optional.

Here's my very unprofessional take on what the anti-establishment clause means. I have always been taught in school that the intent of it was to avoid the establishment of a single Christian denomination as the national church. This was in direct reaction to the Church of England being the official church of Great Britain. Of course the practice was quite prevalent at the time in Europe so I believe all the other european nations had simliar arrangements with an official taxpayer supported church. The writers of the Bill of Rights were, I've been told, addressing a very specific issue to avoid the other Christian denominations from being "officially" left out in the cold.

Personally I think its great that this clause has been proven elastic enough to extend protection and rights to non-Christians. But I also agree with Bubba that the effort to accomodate everyone can be taken too far. It already has gone too far and all the thanks for this comes from the intention of this clause being so commonly misinterpreted.
 
Last edited:
whiteflag said:
This was in direct reaction to the Church of England being the official church of Great Britain. Of course the practice was quite prevalent at the time in Europe so I believe all the other european nations had simliar arrangements with an official taxpayer supported church.

As far as I am aware, the leadership of the Church of England is STILL under the authority of the Queen, the Prime Minister, and Parliament.

Either way, the state-controlled church is PRECISELY the sort of thing the First Amendment prohibits.
 
garibaldo said:
Remember, this was the same guy who claimed that saying the pledge harmed his daughter, when his daugther lives with her mother separately and they're both (the mother and daughter) active Christians!

DrTeeth said:
I'd like to see where this will end.
to get all super christian for a moment, i think we all know where it will end. :wink:
 
RavenStar makes an excellent point. Although we might think it is inappropriate for God to be in the Pledge (and I do, for the record), it is not technically *unconstitutional* until everyone is required to say it. Which would never happen. (I hope.)

I think if you think of the Pledge of Allegiance as a poem, for example, rather than a prayer-like vow of devotion to the United States, it helps to see the issue more clearly. While it is a nice expression of patriotic sentiment, it is not Gospel. And when you really think about it, all it should be is something akin to a poem. It would scare me if it were some sort of nationally-enforced statement on where we all stand with our country.
 
Danospano said:
I support Newdow. That's all I'm saying.

Surely, then, you have reasons to support the guy - not just that you object to a government that acknowledges God, but that you ACTUALLY believe that such a government is unconstitutional.

In other words, you must believe that a voluntary pledge that invokes the very generic name of God is FORBIDDEN by the Constitution - AND you must now believe that a prayer voluntarily given during the presidential inauguration is also FORBIDDEN by the U.S. Constitution.

Not to be too confrontational, but on what could you possibly base these beliefs?
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That's the exact wording found in the Constitution.

Voluntary prayer at a presidential inauguration is an act of the government respecting a religion. The President, all of those in attendance, all of those watching at home on the television are being forced to combine their politics with one religious doctrine. You can't edit out what you hear during a political rally. It's all one continuous event, in which the government is pushing it's religious beliefs on all those who wish to take a part in their government. This is outlawed in the Constitution.

Would anyone reading this post being outraged if the President said a prayer to Allah, Buddha, or any other non-Christain representation of God? You don't need to answer, because I know a lot of you WOULD be PISSED. You'd get all up-in-arms about how that's not right for the President of a Christain Nation to say those words! You see, that's the point every non-religious person is making.

Those of us who don't necessary believe in a God are as passionate about our beliefs as all the bible-humping morons that caused so much pain and grief in this country.

Keep religion to yourself. The same goes for sexual fetishes, gun collections, singing bass fishes by the name of Billy, and John Tesh records.
 
As I see it, America *should* be run like a professional organization. Professional organizations are, for all practical purposes, completely non-religious. That is not to say that the members of the company aren't religious, but they keep it to themselves. I certainly do wish government would actually live up to the professionalism it repeatly says it wants to be.

Melon
 
Danospano said:


Those of us who don't necessary believe in a God are as passionate about our beliefs as all the bible-humping morons that caused so much pain and grief in this country.

thanks

I think if you look around you
as a whole, these bible-humping morons don't quite cause the grief as the average white-seperatists or militia-wackos that oppose and urge others to take up arms against the best system in the world.

Keep religion to yourself. The same goes for sexual fetishes, gun collections, singing bass fishes by the name of Billy, and John Tesh records.

Perhaps when you start keeping Michael Moron and similair wackos to yourself then you can talk

:)and there is nothing wrong with Billy-big mouth bass
 
As posted by Z Edge:
"I think if you look around you
as a whole, these bible-humping morons don't quite cause the grief as the average white-seperatists or militia-wackos that oppose and urge others to take up arms against the best system in the world."

--This is off the subject, but I will still disagree with you. White-seperatists are such a small minority anymore that anything they do, or TRY to do is met with laughter and the rolling of eyes. Militia-wackos? Pardon? Are you trying to downgrade the men and women who are exercising their right to bare arms? I don't think they've EVER suggested that we take up arms AGAINST the US government. They have suggested that all Americans ARM THEMSELVES in case the U.S. Government oversteps its bounds and tries to elevate their position in our personal lives, but never have they taught the ethics of un-warranted revolution.

--As for the comment about the "best system in the world". I have to agree with you. America has the best system on paper, but the people running the government are the ones that need a royal kick in the butt.


"Perhaps when you start keeping Michael Moron and similair wackos to yourself then you can talk"

--Speaking about politics is not the same as religion. Honestly, tell me....do you write this nonesense simply to get a rise out of me? It used to work, but now I'm not even smiling. :) oh, wait....I am smiling. Nevermind :)
 
Danospano said:
--This is off the subject, but I will still disagree with you. White-seperatists are such a small minority anymore that anything they do, or TRY to do is met with laughter and the rolling of eyes. Militia-wackos? Pardon? Are you trying to downgrade the men and women who are exercising their right to bare arms? I don't think they've EVER suggested that we take up arms AGAINST the US government. They have suggested that all Americans ARM THEMSELVES in case the U.S. Government oversteps its bounds and tries to elevate their position in our personal lives, but never have they taught the ethics of un-warranted revolution.

my apologies Danno for lumping together the two very different groups of nuts here. It must be hard to distinguish these exotics from the domestics in a place like Oklahoma, where over 70 known groups are currently operational.


--As for the comment about the "best system in the world". I have to agree with you. America has the best system on paper, but the people running the government are the ones that need a royal kick in the butt.

While the system is not perfect, I believe it is the best. And yes, we need someone to kickstart it maybe. But tell me who? Who is the idealist that thinks they can win on a prayer and get to the top and not be corrupted somehow along the lines?

Having said that; I think President Bush is the least corrupt (if any) we have seen in years (at least 8 years)


--Speaking about politics is not the same as religion. Honestly, tell me....do you write this nonesense simply to get a rise out of me? It used to work, but now I'm not even smiling. :) oh, wait....I am smiling. Nevermind :)

Then I guess people are just as passionate about religion as they are politics. And for some, religion mentions politics and warns of fanatics.

Nonsense lol! Coming from you I should feel bad
oh, me smilie too---> :) see

XOXOXO
 
Danospano said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That's the exact wording found in the Constitution.

Voluntary prayer at a presidential inauguration is an act of the government respecting a religion. The President, all of those in attendance, all of those watching at home on the television are being forced to combine their politics with one religious doctrine. You can't edit out what you hear during a political rally. It's all one continuous event, in which the government is pushing it's religious beliefs on all those who wish to take a part in their government. This is outlawed in the Constitution.

Officials praying at a presidential inauguration is *not* an act of the government respecting an *establishment* of religion. Respecting an establishment of religion goes way beyond a government official expressing a religious opinion at a government event.


Would anyone reading this post being outraged if the President said a prayer to Allah, Buddha, or any other non-Christain representation of God? You don't need to answer, because I know a lot of you WOULD be PISSED. You'd get all up-in-arms about how that's not right for the President of a Christain Nation to say those words! You see, that's the point every non-religious person is making.

No.

If Congress wanted to replace 'God' with 'Danospano' in the Pledge of Allegiance, I would not file a lawsuit complaining that it was unconstitutional. I think it would be rather silly for Congress to do such a thing, and I would never recite the Pledge in that form, and I'd have serious reservations about reelecting to office anyone who voted for such a bill, but I don't think it would be unconstitutional.


Those of us who don't necessary believe in a God are as passionate about our beliefs as all the bible-humping morons that caused so much pain and grief in this country.

Right, but atheists and agnostics are completely pure of heart and innocent of any wrongdoing throughout our nation's history...
 
melon said:
As I see it, America *should* be run like a professional organization. Professional organizations are, for all practical purposes, completely non-religious. That is not to say that the members of the company aren't religious, but they keep it to themselves. I certainly do wish government would actually live up to the professionalism it repeatly says it wants to be.

Melon

There are plenty of professional organizations where persons of influence or leadership within their organization feel free to express their religious opinions (a good number of NFL franchises come to mind).

If another person's status becomes contingent upon his or her religious beliefs, then it becomes a huge problem, but being a "professional" doesn't mean that one's religious beliefs must be completely hidden.
 
Danospano said:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

That's the exact wording found in the Constitution.

Voluntary prayer at a presidential inauguration is an act of the government respecting a religion.

Two things:

Most obviously, a voluntary prayer at a presidential inauguration is NOT an act of Congress, much less a law of Congress.

More importantly, you mention the prayer as an act "respecting a religion," and I agree. The problem is, it is NOT an act respecting "an establishment of religion." In other words, it doesn't set up an official church analogous to the Church of England.

So, um, your argument kinda falls apart - althought I DO appreciate your response.

The President, all of those in attendance, all of those watching at home on the television are being forced to combine their politics with one religious doctrine. You can't edit out what you hear during a political rally. It's all one continuous event, in which the government is pushing it's religious beliefs on all those who wish to take a part in their government. This is outlawed in the Constitution.

The Declaration of Indepedence mentions God some four times ("endowed by our Creator," etc.) Does the Constitution prohibit the President from reciting the document that established this country?

The Constitution ITSELF mentions "the Year of Our Lord" and implies God through mentioning the "blessings of Liberty." Is reciting the Constitution ITSELF unconstitutional?

I think not.

Would anyone reading this post being outraged if the President said a prayer to Allah, Buddha, or any other non-Christain representation of God? You don't need to answer, because I know a lot of you WOULD be PISSED. You'd get all up-in-arms about how that's not right for the President of a Christain Nation to say those words! You see, that's the point every non-religious person is making.

If an openly devout Muslim won the election, I would see no problem with him publically expressing his faith.

And if I might be personally uncomfortable with the idea, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Those of us who don't necessary believe in a God are as passionate about our beliefs as all the bible-humping morons that caused so much pain and grief in this country.

I've noticed that the God-fearers here are probably more considerate of the atheists than the athiests are of us "bible-humping morons." But WE are the ones causing all the pain and grief.

(Imagine if one of us called an athiest a "commie pinko." Imagine the reaction from the moderators.)

I further wonder: are ALL of us believers bible-humping morons?

Keep religion to yourself. The same goes for sexual fetishes, gun collections, singing bass fishes by the name of Billy, and John Tesh records.

And those things, I suppose, are also constitutionally prohibited?

RIIIIIGHT.
 
z edge said:


I think if you look around you
as a whole, these bible-humping morons don't quite cause the grief as the average white-seperatists or militia-wackos that oppose and urge others to take up arms against the best system in the world.

No, these "Bible-humping morons" (although I'm sure that "Bible-thumping morons" was what was intended) *never* cause any trouble. Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have never made comments that politically liberal Americans were responsible for 9/11. Their ilk have never spread homophobia, misogyny, and ignorance.

They cause a lot of "grief" for people like me who are Christian and politically liberal. When I identify myself as Christian, plenty of people react negatively because they automatically assume that I am a "Christian" in the way of the "Christians" that saturate the popular media: intolerant, narrow-minded, old-fashioned, and quick to judge. While I know I am far from perfect, I try to be as open-minded and tolerant as possible. I support the right of people to live out whatever religious philosophy they find most appealing (unless it involves, say, the ritual sacrifice of kittens), but it causes me a lot of "grief" to not be able to simply say I am "Christian." And some of the "Christian" pundits out there have indeed done millions of Christian Americans a great disservice by painting a picture of Christianity as smug, self-satisfied, and intolerant.
 
Back
Top Bottom