Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer (Newdow)

[Torog]

Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer (Newdow)
Las Vegas Sun ^ | 1/06/05 | AP


SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - 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.

Michael Newdow notes that two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's first inaugural ceremony in 2001, and that plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

In a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newdow says the use of a prayer is unconstitutional. The case is tentatively scheduled Jan. 14.

Last year, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the same lawsuit, saying Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury." But the decision did not bar him from filing the challenge in a different circuit.

Newdow is best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

He won that case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.

In June, however, the Supreme Court said Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter, on whose behalf he sued, and because the girl's mother objected to the suit.

Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this week, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.

[Torog]

Howdy Y'all,

This Newdow feller is really gittin on my nerves,I can only hope and pray,that everything he does-fails.

I respect everyones right to believe as they wish-but this feller is goin overboard..and it's time to bring his butt to a screechin halt.

America is and hopefully always will be-a Christian nation..period.

I really want to cloud up and rain on this sob's parade !

[Nullific]

AMERICA IS NOT A FUCKING CHRISTIAN NATION YOU PRICK.

If you truly "respect everyones right to believe as they wish" then you would consider that...whether you like it or not there are millions of people in america who simply ARE NOT CHRISTIAN or DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. There should be NO connection between church and state especially at the federal level.

[Nullific]

Oh yes and how is he going too far now?

You do know that "under god" was not originally part of the pledge anyways right?
Sorry if I sounded harsh but again your signature says
God Bless Those Who Choose To Protect Our Freedom ! and yet you dont seem concered with freedom at all, freedom would be actually recognizing people who don't believe in god and accepting that thereby not performing any christian activities at a federal event such as inauguration. When you say shit like
America is and hopefully always will be-a Christian nation..period. all it does it make you look like an intolerant christo-fascist dickhole.
Its like saying "Everyone should have the right to believe what they want...but that majority should be christian or else!"

[Encatuse]

Nullific - I realllllllly think it's important you see the movie SLC Punk!
And quick!

[Torog]

AMERICA IS NOT A F*CKING CHRISTIAN NATION YOU PRICK.

If you truly "respect everyones right to believe as they wish" then you would consider that...whether you like it or not there are millions of people in america who simply ARE NOT CHRISTIAN or DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. There should be NO connection between church and state especially at the federal level.
Howdy Nullific,

Christians still out-number those who don't believe in God,and we are not going to be dragged down to the level of the fraction of the populace,that wants to drag down America and destroy all moral values.

Christian values,give children a solid footing in Life,whereas those children who do not learn Christian values,are doomed to live Life, on a slippery slope of amoral values.

I find,that I cannot trust anyone who believes that our inalienable rights-are derived from Man..that includes politicians,America should always acknowledge,that our inalienable rights are derived from God..and that America would quickly fall from the Grace of God-if America turns our backs on Him.

[GHoSToKeR]

Howdy Nullific,

Christians still out-number those who don't believe in God,and we are not going to be dragged down to the level of the fraction of the populace,that wants to drag down America and destroy all moral values.

Christian values,give children a solid footing in Life,whereas those children who do not learn Christian values,are doomed to live Life, on a slippery slope of amoral values.

I find,that I cannot trust anyone who believes that our inalienable rights-are derived from Man..that includes politicians,America should always acknowledge,that our inalienable rights are derived from God..and that America would quickly fall from the Grace of God-if America turns our backs on Him.
Even though im not american, i'm totally offended by that.

firstly, you say anyone that isnt raised a christian is "doomed to live Life, on a slippery slope of amoral values". That means anybody who doesnt raise their child as a christian must be a bad parent. Well, im sorry, but my mum aint a christian and she is definately a great parent. Secondly, im not a christian, and i still have morals - probably the same as you, although im not as prejudice as you.

[Torog]

Even though im not american, i'm totally offended by that.

firstly, you say anyone that isnt raised a christian is "doomed to live Life, on a slippery slope of amoral values". That means anybody who doesnt raise their child as a christian must be a bad parent. Well, im sorry, but my mum aint a christian and she is definately a great parent. Secondly, im not a christian, and i still have morals - probably the same as you, although im not as prejudice as you.
Howdy GhostToker,

You're right-what I said was offensive,and I apologize.

The reason I said it was,was because certain behaviours and acts,are viewed as sins by religious values,and children of Faith, are taught not to commit sin. There's punishment for disobeying God..what punishment or deterrent,can your mother provide-that could ever equal God's punishment ? Why did you ever feel compelled to obey your parents or do good ?

What good can ever come,of placing Man as the highest authority ? How is it-that you can trust the word of a fellow human,to guide you and safe-guard your inalienable rights ?

Maybe I am somewhat prejudiced-I never claimed to be perfect..indeed-no Man is perfect..unlike God.

Have a good one...Torog

[GHoSToKeR]

what punishment or deterrent,can your mother provide-that could ever equal God's punishment ? Why did you ever feel compelled to obey your parents or do good ?

my mum doesnt use 'punishments', but I respect her, and she respects me, and we get along fine.. Im a normal guy, I work, I pay taxes, I dont break the law (except, of course, for smoking weed :)), I have good morals and ethics, and I can think for myself. In other words, i'm a normal member of society.

To your second question - I've always felt compelled to obey my mother, not because she frightens me into being good by saying i'm going to go to hell, but because she has always shown me enough respect and given me the chance to decide whats right and wrong on my own - in other words, she lets me decide for myself. Now, she hasnt done this out of neglect, or not caring, but because she does care, and wants me to grow into a self-sustaining, responsible adult.. and I show others the respect that my mum has shown me. Also, I feel compelled to 'do good' because I liek to treat others how I like to be treated :)

Torog, we've obviously been raised differently. We will probably raise our children differently. But just because we have different beliefs - you a Christian, me agnostic - doesnt mean that either of us is wrong; we're just different.

[Torog]

Howdy GhostToker,

You stated:"Torog, we've obviously been raised differently. We will probably raise our children differently. But just because we have different beliefs - you a Christian, me agnostic - doesnt mean that either of us is wrong; we're just different. "

I believe that essentially,you're probably right-however..I do feel that a parent should teach their children,right from wrong,not allow the children to decide.

Children,should be treated as children-not like little adults..liberals and gays,in America,are exploiting our children,and usurping parental authority,by treating children as little adults. I didn't treat my daughter like an adult,until she turned 18,I gave her more responsibility,as she grew older,but I was always the final arbiter of moral decisions..also,I didn't stop being a parent,once she grew up..I still give her advice and counsel-and will continue to do so,in a constructive way,with room for discussion,for the rest of my life.

Have a good one...Torog

[GHoSToKeR]

Howdy GhostToker,

You stated:"Torog, we've obviously been raised differently. We will probably raise our children differently. But just because we have different beliefs - you a Christian, me agnostic - doesnt mean that either of us is wrong; we're just different. "

I believe that essentially,you're probably right-however..I do feel that a parent should teach their children,right from wrong,not allow the children to decide.

Children,should be treated as children-not like little adults..liberals and gays,in America,are exploiting our children,and usurping parental authority,by treating children as little adults. I didn't treat my daughter like an adult,until she turned 18,I gave her more responsibility,as she grew older,but I was always the final arbiter of moral decisions..also,I didn't stop being a parent,once she grew up..I still give her advice and counsel-and will continue to do so,in a constructive way,with room for discussion,for the rest of my life.

Have a good one...Torog
my mum has always been there for me, to give me advice and to help me make decisions, and when i was younger she did teach me right from wrong.. but when it comes to religion, relationships, ethics, etc, she has let me decide for myself. Now you may have taken a different approach with your daughter, but ive turned out fine, and from what it sounds, so has your daughter.. so neither you or my mother were wrong, you just did things differently. thats all im saying

[Torog]

my mum has always been there for me, to give me advice and to help me make decisions, and when i was younger she did teach me right from wrong.. but when it comes to religion, relationships, ethics, etc, she has let me decide for myself. Now you may have taken a different approach with your daughter, but ive turned out fine, and from what it sounds, so has your daughter.. so neither you or my mother were wrong, you just did things differently. thats all im saying
Howdy GhostToker,

I'm sure that you realize,that you do indeed have a great mother,not everyone-is so lucky,to have such a good and caring parent or parents.

In my world-the parents lead and the children follow,with the father being the natural leader of the household..and if there's no dad in the picture,the mother is expected to fill both roles - and vice-versa,if there is no clear 'leader'..then one can only expect chaos. A family,should be a unit with clearly established roles and rules,they should love,respect and serve each other.

Have a good one...Torog

[Nullific]

Morals are bullshit, im sorry but you cannot legislate morality.
What you are attempting to do is make your religion law and in a nation that is supposedly tolerant of the beliefs and customs of others this should not be possible.
If you choose to live a certain way full of morals and god loving then go for it but everybody likes to say that this hell hole is a free country so shouldn't people be able to live how they want so long as they don't harm other people or their property?

[GHoSToKeR]

On the subject of whether or not America is a christian nation or not -

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#usais

[GHoSToKeR]

On the subject of freedom of expression regarding religious beliefs -

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html#bush

what a great guy to have as president.. yea... right..... :eek:

[NowhereMan]

Morals are bullshit, im sorry but you cannot legislate morality.
What you are attempting to do is make your religion law and in a nation that is supposedly tolerant of the beliefs and customs of others this should not be possible.
If you choose to live a certain way full of morals and god loving then go for it but everybody likes to say that this hell hole is a free country so shouldn't people be able to live how they want so long as they don't harm other people or their property?


Morals .....i like mine breaded and deep fried please.

[GHoSToKeR]

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/media.html#aap) and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS: "What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."

RS: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"

GB: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

RS: "Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"

GB: "Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

UPI reported on May 8, 1989, that various atheist organizations were still angry over the remarks.

The exchange appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera on Monday February 27, 1989. It can also be found in "Free Inquiry (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/media.html#fi)" magazine, Fall 1988 issue, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.

On October 29, 1988, Mr. Sherman had a confrontation with Ed Murnane, co-chairman of the Bush-Quayle '88 Illinois campaign. This concerned a lawsuit Mr. Sherman had filed to stop the Community Consolidated School District 21 (Chicago, Illinois) from forcing his first-grade atheist son to pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States as "one nation under God" (Bush's phrase). The following conversation took place:

RS: "American Atheists filed the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit yesterday. Does the Bush campaign have an official response to this filing?"

EM: "It's bullshit."

RS: "What is bullshit?"

EM: "Everything that American Atheists does, Rob, is bullshit."

RS: "Thank you for telling me what the official position of the Bush campaign is on this issue."

EM: "You're welcome."

After Bush's election, American Atheists wrote to Bush asking him to retract his statement. On February 21st 1989, C. Boyden Gray, Counsel to the President, replied on White House stationery that Bush substantively stood by his original statement, and wrote:



"As you are aware, the President is a religious man who neither supports atheism nor believes that atheism should be unnecessarily encouraged or supported by the government."

[GHoSToKeR]

Based upon the writings of several important founding fathers, it is clear that they never intended the US to be a Christian nation. Here are some quotes; there are more in a companion document (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/extra/founding-fathers.html), and the archives at ftp.mantis.co.uk (ftp://ftp.mantis.co.uk/pub/alt.atheism/) contain still more.


"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

[James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785.]




"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

[John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson.]




"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."

[Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.]




"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."
[Benjamin Franklin, from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728.]

[maryjanemama]

Ghost, I agree with you and in no way support George W. Bush, but the comments made in your second to last post were made by his father and his father's administration. Not by George W. Bush, we can't hold him accountable for his father's mistakes. He's made a mountain of his own all by himself.

[GHoSToKeR]

oops.. my bad.. thanks for pointing that out, MJM :)

Although, I doubt GWB feels any differently...

[Nullific]

Anyone else get the feeling that Bush is Hitler reincarnated?

[Lulu]

Anyone else get the feeling that Bush is Hitler reincarnated?
Yes imagine, Iraq could be,,,,,Poland? :(

[GHoSToKeR]

Ted Rall (cartoonist and writer)

In January, 2004, asking <A href="http://www.rall.com/2004_01_01_archive.html#107344571236880734">"Is Bush a Nazi?" seems the conclude that Bush is worse because at least Hitler was elected:


Lately we're being told that it's either (a) inappropriate or (b) untrue to refer to Bush's illegitimate junta as Nazi, neo-Nazi or neofascist. Because, you know, you're not necessarily a Nazi just because you seize power like one, take advantage of a national Reichstag Fire-like tragedy like one, build concentration and death camps like one, start unprovoked wars like one, Red-bait your liberal opponents like one or create a national security apparatus that behaves like something a Nazi would create and even has a Nazi-sounding name. All of those people who see a little Adolf in the not-so-bright eyes of America's homeland-grown despot are just imagining things.
Me, I'm catching it for this week's cartoon for daring to suggest that, well--you know.
Of course, there are differences. Hitler, for example, was legally elected. And he had a plan--not one that I like, but a plan--for the period after the war.
I'll be happy to stop comparing Bush to Hitler when he stops acting like him.


http://semiskimmed.net/bushhitler.html#haroldpinter <-- good link..