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.

 

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

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Personally, i'm offended that the Bush administration wants to invoke "God"

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


dg,

It's my belief that you'll offended at anything that is righteous and moral.

Maybe we should do away with religion, prayer and the Holy Bible altogether! Since no one is perfect, we all deserve to go to HELL!




posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

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?


Isn't that's what's happening with the gay marriage situation? Without the church, a marriage is just a civil union. Pushing for that terminilogy is, in its way, the same thing as what's happening here.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Personally, i'm offended that the Bush administration wants to invoke "God"

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


I'm sure you were equally offended when Bill Clinton did it in his first inaugural address:

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.


And in Bill Clinton's second inaugural address:


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 aheadand always, always bless our America.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ishari
Isn't that's what's happening with the gay marriage situation?

How? The state is not making the churches perform gay marriages. If anything its preventing some churches from doing it. Valid religions aren't just the ones that you personally agree with

Without the church, a marriage is just a civil union.

No one is talking about eliminating the church. He is merely saying that endorsing religion at all over atheism is a violation of the 1st ammendment rights of atheists, and that in order to correct it the state should take religiously neutral positions in things like the inauguration. 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'.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

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?


If anything its preventing some churches from doing it.


That in itself is changing how the church operates, thus, the state is interfering with the church.

[edit on 9/1/05 by ishari]



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 09:57 PM
link   

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?


Christians don't tell people how they should and what God to pray to. If anything, all other religions are trying to eradicate Christianity.

BTW, atheists don't practice a religion so the 1st amendent wouldn't apply to them. They choose not to believe in a God and they need to leave those who wish to believe in God alone!

That's the meaning of the 1st amendment!


Odd

posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
what I want to know is this:

whose 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?



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ishari
by that logic, why aren't muslims, jews, hindus, and others up in arms over this too?

I don't know, why aren't all atheists upset over it for that matter?

isn't saying a christian prayer is a violation of their 1st ammendment rights too then?

By the logic outlined above it might very well be.


That in itself is changing how the church operates, thus, the state is interfering with the church.

Again, by preventing gay marriage its actually interfereing with any churches that would recognize it, and by recognizing gay marriages it is not interfereing with any churches. The government can't be expected to be held responsible because of irrational decisions and misinterpretations by some churches.

intelearthling
That's the meaning of the 1st amendment!

The 1st ammendment clearly sets out to make it so the government doesn't favour or endorse any religion in particular. Newdow's suit is not an infringement on any religion

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?

An interesting question I suppose however its irrelevant to Newdow's case. He is not suing anyone over saying a prayer nor preventing anyone from doing so. He is suing to remove the prayer as an official function/act of the state.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:37 PM
link   

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.



I'm not sure what fine line you are trying to draw here, but the article states:

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.


So what is your point? It's a matter of saying a prayer, not endorsing a particular religion. It wouldn't matter whether the prayer were muslim, Jewish, or Christian. The end result he wants to achieve is the same: "Don't you dare pray or say that G word!"




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.

Yes I do think that he is suing to make sure that the minister is not allowed to say a prayer. The saying of the prayer is a personal wish, not a "function of the state".

And who cares that muslims are laughing at us? They do - it confirms their belief that we are a weak nation, afraid to affirm the existence of a God. To them, it is a chink in our armor.


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?


[edit on 9-1-2005 by jsobecky]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I have searched everywhere. In my closet, in the back yeard, under my bed. EVERYWHERE. I just can't seen to find my LIGHTNING VOLT to strike this guy.................



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 06:13 AM
link   
This is a ceremony in honor of the incoming President. He may choose to have it in any way he wishes to as long as he takes the oath of office required by the constitution. He is not infringing on anyone's rights by saying a prayer, he is exercising his own first amendment right to freely exercise his own religion. If an atheist or Hindu or Muslim ever get elected, they may conduct their inauguration ceremony as they see fit.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   

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.

Why are they not relevant? Name one country on earth whose history you can describe without discussing their religion foundations/beliefs. If you want to pretend that religion does not exist, then go right ahead.

It just does not need to be included? I'll bet that we can take that itinerary to the editor's desk and pare it down to just one or two sentences, if we want to include just those things that "need" to be included.

No. There has not been one cogent reason given for excluding the saying of a prayer. Therefore it will stay.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
www.foxnews.com...


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.



posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 05:01 AM
link   


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



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join