Newdow targets use of clergy

The Washington Times Insider ^ | January 9, 2005 | Jon Ward

[GAWnCA]

California atheist Michael Newdow said yesterday that his legal attack on "Christian religious acts" in this year's presidential inauguration specifically targets only those performed by clergymen.

"I have never sued to have anyone keep his or her hand off of a Bible," Mr. Newdow said in response to yesterday's story published in The Washington Times regarding his lawsuit. "As my prayer for relief and judgment specifies, I sought only the prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."

[goldstategop]

He's only against Christian worship. More hypocrisy from a self-avowed atheist.

[JennysCool]

More hypocrisy from a self-avowed atheist.

...and notorious goofball. Don't forget that part. The MSM usually does.

[dandi]

Why can't these people just have the intellectual honesty to admit that they hate God and they hate Christians? It has nothing to do with fears of "slippery slopes" or "people being made to feel excluded or uncomfortable" or the "state establishing a religion". Being reminded of God cramps their anything goes, moral relativism lifestyle.

[ReadyNow]

"... or the free exercise thereof."

[Sterrins]

Why can't these people just have the intellectual honesty to admit that they hate God and they hate Christians?

It'd be like pro-abort types saying "Hey, we're in favor of killing babies." It doesn't come across too well.

[hmong]

Any news media snooping in here. Read this.. Newdow is lame! I know, very mature.

[VOA]

"I have never sued to have anyone keep his or her hand off of a Bible," Mr. Newdow said

How nice. He just wants to stop people from admitting (GASP!) in public that they
even occassionally have a "laying of hands" on a Bible...

Newdow is just the sort of guy that C.S. Lewis had in mind when he predicted that
one of the aims of the leftists was to make religion a strictly private matter.

Yep, diversity of opinion is for everyone...except those d-arned Christians.

[VOA]

"As my prayer for relief and judgment specifies, I sought only the
prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."

Hey Newdow...don't worry, we won't charge you for using our trademark religional terms.

And nice of you to admit that you are trying to BAN (what else is "prohibition"?)
of religion.

How the heck are clergymen making professions of faith in public a promotion
of religion...when there's no established church.

The people listening to these clergymen can just count sheep if they
like.
And people of faith can hum "dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum..." to the Jeopardy theme
while atheists are "testifyin'" in the public square.

[VOA]

Why can't these people just have the intellectual honesty to admit that they
hate God and they hate Christians?

If I were an oppossing lawyer, I'd argue that Newdow is pushing for
promotion of atheism in the public commons.
By banning any religional expression.

In other words, Newdow is going to get the sort of public display of atheism
that would have made Freud happy: A void.

[7.62 x 51mm]

POS.

[Waco]

Kinda like using lawyers to further" respect for the law, ain't it? Heaven forbid!

[k2blader]

I have come across fellow "Christians" who behave worse than Newdow. Being an atheist, Newdow doesn't have Christ in his life and is thus operating on his own steam, so to speak. Christians don't have that excuse.

[DoughtyOne]

Even if I didn't believe in God, I'd at least try to be respectful of the concept. In my mind I'd hate to think I might possibly be pimping for Satan.

His original complaint sought to protect his daughter from something niether she or her mother found objectionable. That was thrown out.

In an interview the other night he claimed he had 30% custody of his daughter. That's another way of saying he gets her every other weekend and two weeks in the summer. Very impressive.

Tell you what Michael, if you care so much about your daughter, why don't you expend some energy on obtaining more access to her. Perhaps you can pass off some of that sterling brilliance (you claim to have) during the process. And we can get a reprieve from being exposed to your supreme ignorance (which we have observed).

[DoughtyOne]

Christians don't claim to be perfect. Only athiests claim that they should be.

[k2blader]

Agreed. There was a time I disliked people like Newdow most. But then I realized there are even worse things out there than atheists.

C. S. Lewis was once an atheist. The work of the Lord is wondrous to behold.

[DoughtyOne]

Who do you think Satan spends most of his time on, those who have forsaken God and deny He exists, or those who believe in Him and are trying to avoid overt sin?

I would submit that many bad things have been done by Christians. I have it on pretty good authority that most of them are human.

One man that I know of, lived a perfect life. The rest of us are doing a pretty lousy job of following in His footsteps. At least we can still see them.

[Budge]

I can't help but think NEwdow's idol is Madeline Murry O'Hair.

[Bill S]

This idiot and others like him should be thrown out of court on his ear and fined for initiating frivolous lawsuits.
Giving these morons any ink is ridiculous. He is quoted as saying that he "knows" there is no God. That's obviously impossible.

[sirchtruth]

"As my prayer for relief and judgment specifies, I sought only the prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."

Just like the ABSOLUTE SLAM on gay marriage this is going to set atheist back huge.

Religous or not, Americans will not allow unelected, unrepresenative whacko selfish dorkish prix to dictate law.

He had his 15 minutes, now be gone!