Skip to comments.
Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer (Newdow)
Las Vegas Sun ^
| 1/06/05
| AP
Posted on 01/07/2005 4:01:42 AM PST by kattracks
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.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: inagural; lawsuit; newdow; prayer; w2
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 last
To: Jesse Jackster
Vegetarians are a religion?
To: kattracks
This faggy little atheist should quit bitching and THANK GOD that he was born in a country where they don't cut out your tongue for blasphemy.(i.e. Saddams Iraq) He might even consider actually respecting the rights of his fellow citizens for a change! This liberal, "It's all about me!" attitude makes me sick!
62
posted on
01/08/2005 12:28:24 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: TexasCajun
"Hi I'm Michael Newdow and we Democrats hate God, American and George Bush!"
So concise and to the point. What can I say - I'm impressed!
63
posted on
01/08/2005 12:31:55 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: BigCinBigD
Vegetarians are a religion?
You would think it was. Have you ever met one of these idiots? Five minutes, you'd want to perform an exorcism on them by force feeding them red meat.
64
posted on
01/08/2005 12:36:43 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: stevem
The only thing that will stop clowns like this Newdow is to utterly ignore him The only way America can really ignore this guy is if he gets a talk show on Air America, maybe as Al Franken's sidekick. (I'd say Al Franken's straight man, but Al Franken would have to be funny to need a straight man. Besides, "straight man" sounds so judgmental for Al Franken's audience).
65
posted on
01/08/2005 12:41:06 AM PST
by
Bernard
("Those weren't lies - that was spin!")
To: Jesse Jackster
Christian politicians who utter that phrase are referring to THEIR Christian god, not the various gods of the various religions in America.
Christians don't worship various gods; they worship one God. If they make a reference to God, you can be pretty sure they don't mean Shiva or Buddha. As for anyone else, it's a free country; they can do what they want.
66
posted on
01/08/2005 12:42:08 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: superskunk; goldstategop
"As for anyone else, it's a free country; they can do what they want."
With liberty and justice for all non-christians.
67
posted on
01/08/2005 2:39:47 AM PST
by
Arthur Wildfire! March
(The Four Law Breakers: Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, Carl Levin, Ron Wyden)
To: Jesse Jackster
"You religious right morons have no sense of consistent principles." So tolerant - and eloquent. Not that it is any of your business but I'm not particularly religious - In fact, I disdain almost all "Organized" religions. As for my politics, I don't know how you determined they are "Religious Right" from my post but I'm sure you had facts to support this assertion. Unfortunately, your facts do not exist or are factually incorrect! But these little details aren't really important are they?
Having said that, this guy IS seriously tedious. He imposes his (non)belief system on others, has an obsession with destroying without any offering any positive alternatives and, in general is a pain in the A$$. I'm certain his own family (Daughter and ex-wife) share these and even harsher opinions of him.
No need to respond - I got all I needed of your ill-informed judgment in your last post.
68
posted on
01/08/2005 3:22:21 AM PST
by
drt1
Comment #69 Removed by Moderator
To: Arthur Wildfire! March
With liberty and justice for all non-christians.
We'll correct that and a few other problems. It took us a few decades to get here. I don't expect the wrongs in this country to be righted over night.
70
posted on
01/08/2005 6:26:30 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: trickyricky
Pay attention. With idiots like Newdow out there we don't need to react with similiar misunderstanding (I'm being charitable and not saying stupidity).
There is NO prohibition on the display of religious symbols, crosses or otherwise, however...
You cannot carry a twelve-foot wooden cross.
You can display a cross on a placard.
It doesn't help our cause when we get our facts wrong.
71
posted on
01/08/2005 7:00:12 AM PST
by
Corin Stormhands
(No tag line to see here. Move along...)
To: rwfromkansas
Should have pinged you to #71.
The memo from the Park Service has nothing to do with religious symbols not being allowed.
It deals with the type of structures allowed.
IIRC we went through this in 2001 as well.
72
posted on
01/08/2005 7:02:44 AM PST
by
Corin Stormhands
(No tag line to see here. Move along...)
To: trickyricky
Actually, I think the Secret Service trumps the President when it comes to his security. In any case, I think the restrictions are for reasons of security and not censorship. I'm a strong believer in the second amendment, but if I went to the inauguration parade, I would leave my gun at home. It's an understandable measure, as are restrictions of certain objects and placard sizes.
73
posted on
01/08/2005 7:14:02 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: drt1; hellinahandcart
74
posted on
01/08/2005 4:48:39 PM PST
by
sauropod
(Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
To: Jesse Jackster
On the Inaugural Address, it is indeed appropriate to NOT allow an expression of religion (and just one religion at that) as a part of the ceremony. I simply don't want to hear it and a lot of other people don't either. That's just too bad.
Jesus is Lord. 'Pod.
75
posted on
01/08/2005 4:59:50 PM PST
by
sauropod
(Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
To: superskunk
Actually, I think the Secret Service trumps the President when it comes to his security. Do they expect someone to beat Bush over the head with a cross?
What about beating him over the head with a menorah?
They would not DARE to outlaw the display of a menorah in the parade.
Not PC. But crosses are fair game.
If it weren't for this past Christmas' attempt by government agencies as well as commercial entities
to eradicate Christ and Christian symbols from the holiday, this might not be as egregious.
I hope Bush does something about it. The Secret Service can only order him about when his life is at stake.
To: trickyricky
If it weren't for this past Christmas' attempt by government agencies as well as commercial entities to eradicate Christ and Christian symbols from the holiday, this might not be as egregious.
I agree that we should all be instinctively watchful and suspicious of such abuses; however, I personally will cut them some slack for the inauguration parade. I certainly don't believe that a Christian would attack anyone with a large wooden cross, but it wouldn't take much skill for an evil person to build a cross around a riffle or shot gun. I know it sounds paranoid, but a few years ago, who would have thought box cutters could be instrumental in taking down the WTC? Sometimes, a little paranoia's worth it.
77
posted on
01/09/2005 10:11:33 AM PST
by
superskunk
(Quinn's Law: Liberalism always produces the exact opposite of it's stated intent.)
To: bikepacker67
He looks like the weak-lipped, dead-faced older son of Debra Winger in 'Terms of Endearment' (grown up into a full-blown *sshole).
78
posted on
01/10/2005 6:24:37 AM PST
by
beyond the sea
(Andrea Mitchell is Barbra Streisand on peyote ......and the north end of a south bound mule.)
To: All
79
posted on
01/12/2005 4:31:49 PM PST
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Beckwith
This guy is the biggest jerk in the country.bttt
80
posted on
01/12/2005 4:37:34 PM PST
by
kcvl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson