NEWS: Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer, Decision Expected Friday

An atheist has brought a lawsuit to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that if upheld would prevent the saying of a prayer at President Bush’s inauguration. Michael Newdow who previously sued to remove the phrase under god from the Pledge of Allegiance. Although that suit was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on a technical issue, he has refilled to suit and intends to peruse it yet again.

UPDATE: 1/14/05 Inauguration Prayer Ban Decision Expected Friday

WASHINGTON — The atheist who tried to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance went to court Thursday to argue that the Bible and prayers should be kept out of next week's presidential inauguration ceremonies.

A decision on the matter, Newdow v. Bush, is expected Friday.

Michael Newdow filed the federal lawsuit last month against the government for allowing a prayer to be said at President Bush's (search) Jan. 20 inauguration on the grounds that the use of prayer for such an event is unconstitutional. This is the second inauguration in a row in which Newdow has fought to ban the prayer. Last time, he lost in two federal courts.

In court, the administration asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the practice is widely accepted and more than 200 years old.
Prayer Ban Decision Due

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. No doubt if there is a strict constitutional interpretation, the prayer and even the references to god in our currency will be eliminated. The hard core religious right will then no doubt put a great deal of pressure on President Bush to nominate someone with like views should he get to replace a Supreme court justice.


[edit on 14-1-2005 by Banshee]

Why do we we give into the will of a small minority many times? I doubt anything will come of this, but still...look around and see all the changes going on because a few want it there way and not the way of the vast majority. The vast majority of "WE THE PEOPLE" say screw you guys trying to make life the way you want it. Who cares if it offends stuff, I see stuff that offends me every single day, but oh well.......thats just life...learn to deal with it or live a sad life like hopefully this guy is.

This man is a real fruit cake. Next he will want all religious shows taken off television and ask that congress not start each session with a prayer. No one is forcing him to say a prayer just what is his problem?

Shots < watching the men in white coats carrying this jerk off to the funny farm.

Ya, know, I have no idea if God exist and I firmly believe that chruch and state should absolutely seperated, but this is just getting old. People who are "in your face" about their lack of belief are getting just as bothersome as people who are "in your face" about their beliefs or their sexuality.

Enough. I'd prefer that the President be sworn in by whatever method and using whatever ceremony will mean the most to him personally. If his oath will be more binding to him if he swares on a bible, then by all means let him.

Originally posted by ajm4481
The vast majority of "WE THE PEOPLE" say screw you guys trying to make life the way you want it.

Minorities are part of "The People", and he is not suing based on personaly preference, he is suing on the basis of maintaining a seperation of church and state. Its a very important issue, not merely the whining of a few 'who aren't real citizens anyay'. Also, the United States is a democracy, and specifically its a secular one that goes to great lengths to make sure that the minority is not drowned out by the voice of the majority. Democracy, not mobocracy.

shots
No one is forcing him to say a prayer just what is his problem?

Apparently his problem is that he sees the references to god in the inaugaration, pledge, and the rest as being an endorsement of god over atheism, and that this is an unconstitutional violation of the seperation of church and state.

ambient sound
Enough.

This is the second court case he's brought. How can it already be too much?

Hmmm let's see, A Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration. Well how would the country/world feel if the prayer was a Satanic one? The devil is very much alive and derives from the Chrisitain faith no? So if our society wishes to mix religion and state together, shall we prepare ourselves in accepting prayers from lucifer?

Ok maybe that's a little too extreme. I lack sleep today! But provides some what of a point in mixing religion and state.

If a prayer from a particular faith is used during this ceramony, it will suggest a bias or a preference. Preference=inequality.

I wondered when this would happen. Strictly speaking I would think he has them but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I personally dont care, if the President is Christian let him use the Bible, but what if Lebirman had won? Or a Bhuddist? Should they use a different book or none at all?

Like I said this should be interesting

Personally, i'm offended that the Bush administration wants to invoke "God"

When is the Skull & Bones gathering again?????

The only way this man will make a difference is if a judge issues an injunction forbidding any prayer to be said. Then if someone said a prayer he/she could be held in contempt, with jail time as a possible penalty.

I would bet that there are plenty of ministers willing to take that hit.

The muslim world must be laughing at us, allowing an atheist to deny the saying of a prayer. I doubt very much if they would submit to a similar ban on prayer during their official state ceremonies.

You realize, of course, that this won't be over on January 20, no matter what they decide. If it goes on like the last time, he'll drag it out with the media.

So, he wants to protect the state from the church. Who is going to protect the church from the state?

Let's analyze this a minute.

Bush was elected-true
He has to take some kind of oath-true
He made known his religious preferences-true
What 'oath' will bind him the most is the best- TRUE

So there you have it.

Not so hard at all.

What a nut bag! Just where do we live? The last thing I checked was America, home of the free. If you don't believe in god, then you can turn your head during innauguration. Was this guy done any harm during an innauguration, I doubt it. This guy must be quite the life of the party. "IIIIII'm gonnna sue you mr. god believer, don't say that word around me."

Troy

Originally posted by Nygdan
he is suing on the basis of maintaining a seperation of church and state. Its a very important issue, not merely the whining of a few 'who aren't real citizens anyay'. Also, the United States is a democracy, and specifically its a secular one that goes to great lengths to make sure that the minority is not drowned out by the voice of the majority. Democracy, not mobocracy.

Apparently his problem is that he sees the references to god in the inaugaration, pledge, and the rest as being an endorsement of god over atheism, and that this is an unconstitutional violation of the seperation of church and state.

This is the second court case he's brought. How can it already be too much?

theres no seperation of church and state, can noone read the 1st amendment? it only prohibits laws against religion or religious practice, all these athiest suits violate the 1st amendment, and no the US is a representive republic not a democracy "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government"

no, if one sees it as atheism over god that violates the 1st amendment, nothing anywhere says anything about seperation of church and state and "god" isnt reffering to a church anyways nor is any church forcing christianity on anyone, if anyhing atheists are forcing their views on everyone else and violating rights of jews, muslims and christians, "god" isnt christian in origin afterall.

him yes but many atheist suits are being flung all over the country.

To me, this would be like one of the ATS members, suing ATS because they allow or do not allow discussion of something because it offends "a member".
What would your response be then?
Yes I am aware that ATS is not a government nor a religious entity, but the idea is the same.
To me, separation of state and church, is NOT allowing one or the other dictate how things need to be or are done.


info

"Separation of church and state
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The separation of church and state is a concept in law whereby the structures of state or national government are kept separate from those of religious institutions. The concept has long been a topic of political debate.

There are a variety of views regarding the degree of separation that should exist between church and state. Some, often referred to as secularists, assert that state should be kept entirely separate from religion. Others assert that the state ought to be permitted to become involved with religion, but ought not establish one religion as the state religion, or require religious observance. Others, sometimes known as theocrats, assert that the state should be inseparable from religion, and advocate an established church; this position is otherwise known as antidisestablishmentarianism. A related topic is civil religion.

The separation of church and state is related to freedom of religion, but the two concepts are different and one should not infer hastily that countries with a state church do not necessarily have freedom of religion, nor should one infer that a country without a state church necessarily enjoys freedom of religion."

en.wikipedia.org...

or the other side of the coin

The fact is the government has never passed a law implementing a "separation of church and state."

The concept is derived from the First Amendment of the The Constitution of the United States of America, which reads as follows:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

www.spiritual-answers.com...

but it dont imply seperation, it implies laws against religion cannot be made, this seperation idea has no basis on that amendment, for anyone who can read anyways, no offense but its pretty clear.

.
This man thinks America has any integrity,
Or human beings have any real intelligence.

They are both faulty notions.

Most people are moronic and religious people are doubly so.

Every time a volcano, asteroid, earthquake, or tsunami comes along people attribute it to some simplistic deified explanation.

As if the entire Universe hinges on a single vector.

If enough people like this guy come along, maybe that will spark some innate intelligence in humanity, but i seriously doubt it.

If i were younger and had any remaining fantasies about humanity i would cheer this guy on, but evidence from experience has taught me otherwise.
.

Originally posted by jsobecky
The only way this man will make a difference is if a judge issues an injunction forbidding any prayer to be said.

What? He has not sued for anysuch thing. He has sued against teh government endorsing religion.

The muslim world must be laughing at us, allowing an atheist to deny the saying of a prayer.

First off, who cares if muslims laugh at anyone? Secondly, this is not what the case is arguing. Do you actually think that the guy is suing to make it so that no one is allowed to pray? Its that the prayer said during the inauguaration is a function of the state. I;m not so sure that it is, but he isn't suing to prevent anyone from praying during it.



[edit on 8-1-2005 by Nygdan]

Originally posted by ishari
Who is going to protect the church from the state?

Regular citizens will be able to do exactly what he is doing. Besides, where is the state attacking the church?

namehere
no the US is a representive republic not a democracy [/qyuote]
I'm well aware that its not a direct democracy. Outside of high school lessons, a republican government is considered a democractic government. And the part that you cited, its stating that the States have to have a republican form of government. IE a new state can't have a hereidtary king as its head, even if that king is subservient to the feds.

theres no seperation of church and state, can noone read the 1st amendment?

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

The State can't, for example, require people to be a particualr religion or take a particular religious oath or create a new religion or anything like that. This is seperation of church and state.

short article
The historical record and the debate over the wording of the First Amendment show clearly that the amendment was intended to prevent government from endorsing or promoting specific religious denominations or religion generally. Early drafts of the First Amendment that specifically barred only the establishment of a national church were rejected as too weak.

if anyhing atheists are forcing their views on everyone else

If they required the state to have a pledge or inaugural ceremony wherein it was stated 'there is no god' then you'd be correct. They aren't, so you are wrong.

"god" isnt christian in origin afterall.

Obviously. It most certainly involves the existence of god tho.

While I do not agree at all with Michael Newdow, I admire his spirit and his work.

For whatever reason, he has taken it upon himself to push the extralegal concept of "separation of church and state" in the U.S. to its absurd extremes.

By doing so, he deftly illustrates the errors of treating "separation" as law when it is, in fact, a rather ill-informed misinterpretation on nothing less than a personal letter from Thomas Jefferson.

Last I looked, Thomas Jefferson's personal letters do not carry the force of law, although a U.S. supreme court in the mid-1900's seems to have ruled that they do.

Ironically, by adopting the interpretation they did, that court effectively enacted its own legislation effectively barring the practice of religion in public places, which most certainly violates both the separation of powers and establishment clauses of the U.S. constitution.

In other words, they screwed up, and we are now living with the consequences.

Michael Newdow is playing his part in this grand circus by highlighting the error of this decision through increasingly asinine theatrics.

Perhaps someday the error will be corrected, and the U.S. government will properly refrain from interfering for or against any religion, as stipulated by the constitution upon which its power derives.

Until then, the carnival continues.