posted on Jan, 14 2005 @ 10:31 AM
I was wondering what exactly is that guy's point in filing a lawsuit against the reading of a prayer at Bush's inauguration. Now, I've heard tings
about the prayer violating his constitutional rights. As far as I know, religion is only mentioned in the First ammendment, which states that:
"Congress shall make no law regarding any establishment of religion...."
This, as far as I know, means that the government shall not make any law that endorses one religion over another, or reduce anyone's right to worship
as they please. So in fact, doesn't that PROTECT Bush's right to have whatver prayer he wants at his inauguration? He is a religious man, and he
probably wants to have a member of the clergy present at one of the most important days of his life, so should he not have the right to do so?
The guy (his name is Michael Newdon, I think) also said that this forces him to accept a belief other than his own (which is aetheism). Now, several
problems with that. Firstly, he might as well ask that all the churches, mosques, and synagogues in his field of vision (as well as anything else
religious) be taken down. After all, those pose a more immediate threat to his beliefs than a once-every-four-years-inaugural prayer.
Secondly, if his beliefs are so threatened by Bush's inauguration, then maybe he doesn't believe them as strongly as he thinks - and I am NOT trying
to offend aetheists in general here, just questioning the strength of this ONE guy's beliefs.
I realize that there are many opinions on this, but please lets not turn this into a Bush-bashing, or Bush-promoting contest, or a session of
condemning atheists to hell or something. I know I've sounded pretty negative towards this man in this post, but that just reflects my personal
distaste for what I believe to be a pointless exercise that wastes time and serves nothing except this one person's continuing 15 minutes of fame