It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dgtempe
Personally, i'm offended that the Bush administration wants to invoke "God"
When is the Skull & Bones gathering again?????
Originally posted 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?
Originally posted by dgtempe
Personally, i'm offended that the Bush administration wants to invoke "God"
When is the Skull & Bones gathering again?????
��From this joyful mountaintop of celebration, we hear a call to service in the valley. We have heard the trumpets. We have changed the guard. And now, each in our way, and with God's help, we must answer the call.
Thank you and God bless you all.
Our rich texture of racial, religious and political diversity will be a Godsend in the 21st century.
--snip--
From the height of this place and the summit of this century, let us go forth. May God strengthen our hands for the good work ahead�and always, always bless our America.
Originally posted by ishari
Isn't that's what's happening with the gay marriage situation?
Without the church, a marriage is just a civil union.
Originally posted by Nygdan
He is merely saying that endorsing religion at all over atheism is a violation of the 1st ammendment rights of atheists...
If anything its preventing some churches from doing it.
Originally posted by ishari
Originally posted by Nygdan
He is merely saying that endorsing religion at all over atheism is a violation of the 1st ammendment rights of atheists...
by that logic, why aren't muslims, jews, hindus, and others up in arms over this too? isn't saying a christian prayer is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights too then?
Originally posted by ishari
by that logic, why aren't muslims, jews, hindus, and others up in arms over this too?
isn't saying a christian prayer is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights too then?
That in itself is changing how the church operates, thus, the state is interfering with the church.
intelearthling
That's the meaning of the 1st amendment!
odd
rights are greater: those of a man that wants to say a prayer, or those of a man that will not tolerate its being said?
Originally posted by Nygdan
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.
SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed a suit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.
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.
That doesn't mean Bush can't meet with his pastor and have a public prayer, it just means that the 'state' can't have an 'official' prayer as part of its ceremony. In effect it would mean no actual change, just eliminating it from the state's 'itinerary'.
That's just crazy. Remove it from the itinerary? So instead of saying "Moment of prayer" we'll just have the itineraries printed up to say "Moment of personal beliefs". How about that?
Originally posted by Kriz_4
That's just crazy. Remove it from the itinerary? So instead of saying "Moment of prayer" we'll just have the itineraries printed up to say "Moment of personal beliefs". How about that?
Both mean the same thing do they not. The point is personal beliefs/religion are not relevant. It just does not need to be included.
WASHINGTON — The government is asking a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit from an atheist who wants to bar the saying of a prayer at President George W. Bush's inauguration (search), calling the practice widely accepted and more than 200 years old, according to a court filing released Monday.
:
Prayers at presidential inaugurals and legislative sessions go back to 1789, the government said. "There is no reason to reverse course and abandon a widely accepted, noncontroversial aspect of the inaugural ceremony," it said.
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