It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
Originally posted by ajm4481
The vast majority of "WE THE PEOPLE" say screw you guys trying to make life the way you want it.
No one is forcing him to say a prayer just what is his problem?
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?
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.
The muslim world must be laughing at us, allowing an atheist to deny the saying of a prayer.
Originally posted by ishari
Who is going to protect the church from the state?
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?
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.
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.