Posted on 01/09/2005 9:16:45 AM PST by Nascardude
The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration. Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration. Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
What kind of doctor?
If I were the President, I'd put my hand on the Bible, lawyer be damned. Sod him...he's trying to shove his atheism down everyone's throat.
Regards, Ivan
A crazy one, if I had to guess.
Just TRY and get Bush to go along with this.
I pray that he wins the case, and that Bush/Rehnquist laugh at the ruling and go ahead with it anyway. It's well past time for Americans to simply ignore insane court rulings entirely. Let them enforce it.
Well put.
Don't you think it's weird how NO ONE protested the President's liberal quoting of Scripture in prime-time during his first televised address?
That should have been prime fodder for those offended by the name of God.
... or the taking of the Lord's name in vain, given the fact he was rationalizing using some of God's more artifical "blessings" as fodder for research based on their bearing the appropriate "killed by" date.
I stand by my tagline.
I'm sick of Michael Newdow. I wish he'd find some other country to live in.
what I find interesting is that the Presidential oath of office does not end with "so help me God" as does the VP oath, as well as for Congress and the Supreme Court.
He really is an ugly-tempered, whiney guy, isn't he? I saw an interview recently, and no matter what the interviewer asked, Newdow kept claiming he was being persecuted by the interviewer.
LetHal Holbrook and the boys visit him, rather than Dirty Harry :)
Can't we all just get along and work out some sort of a compromise? I was thinking something along the lines of a hand on the Bible per tradition and a foot on Newdow's ass so he gets the recognition he feels he is entitled to.
I saw him in a similar programme when I was last in the States. I was unpleasantly reminded of the saying regarding people getting the face they deserve - his is a nasty, intolerant, bigoted face, the face of a shrill fanatic.
He would be laughable if he didn't have so much venom.
Regards, Ivan
"How many divisions has the Pope?"
-Josef Stalin
I agree with the sentiment that many court rulings deserve to be simply ignored, but that's not the way to go about it.
Newdow (sp?) is a malevolent, self-serving narcissist. He is so entranced with himself that be believes he is more important than the majority of Americans, who just wish that he would STFU and go away.
It's also unconstitutional for a man to 'prevent the free exercise thereof', regarding religion, so it would seem that Mr. Newdow stands in contempt of the United States Constitution.
He's a shrink....and probably a bad one, that's why he became a lawyer!!!!
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.