Posted on 01/13/2005 11:09:35 PM PST by kattracks
WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.[snip]
During the two-hour hearing, Bates questioned both sides vigorously but expressed doubt that a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.
"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.
[snip]
The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first inauguration.
Newdow — arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from California — said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.
Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.
George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but merely the personal choice of the president.
(Excerpt) Read more at nj.com ...
Even if this argument had merit, how can any serious person--even atheists like me--look at this as anything other than a Bush hater wanting to rain on a religious man's big day? What a jerk!
You have to wonder if this guy thinks prayer is something like the Crucifix shoved in Dracula's face. If he hears it, even though he thinks it means nothing, he is somehow going to suffer physically?
He'd have a better case protesting the meal on the grounds that he might gag from someone passing gas near him after dinner.
This guy is getting way too much press. I can understand liberals airing him, but conservatives? His case is as boring and unintesting as the Scott Peterson case.
You know, every time I see a stupid thing like this, I can't help but think that the atheists who do these dumbass lawsuits are promoting what they DON'T believe in. I mean, invariably, the first words out of my mouth are "Aw, Christ!"
I think he craves attention and wants publicity. He probably just like to know he Pisses people off and finds gets some sort of sickening sexual gratification it.
The guy is an embarassment--he got a ticket to the inauguration just so he'd be in a position to get his rights infringed. (As he sees it.) And then he sues over it. I think like many libs he has an inflated idea of his importance. No wonder he's an atheist--he thinks God takes attention off who the universe REALLY revolves around--himself.
If he wants to pray, he can go to church. Why not just keep it to yourself. Seperation of church and state should mean just that-- what part of the word seperation is so difficult?
"what part of the word seperation is so difficult"
The part that says you can't find it anywhere in the Constitution.
The part about finding it anywhere in the Constitution. It is not merely difficult. It is impossible.
Great minds, huh?
Most athiests walk through life being entirely unoffended or even oblivious to mentions of God. This fellow feels each pinprick of religiousity as if it were a gaping wound. This marks him as a pettty, spiteful character. I would suggest that if he so offended by God, that he should start by divesting himself of his cash, which says "In God We Trust".
Regards, Ivan
I bet you were even ready with the part about finding it in the Constitution of the old Soviet Union, weren't you?
I must admit, I wasn't. It is too late at night for my mind to be that clear.
Just in case you ever need it:
http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/ic/r100000_.html
It's article 52, and it reads like the libs WISH our Constitution read.
That might seem a bit oblique in the way of protest, but it made sense the way he explained it to me.
If I were a state supreme court justice I would do something similar, but more provocative. I would have one ton marble monument placed in a prominent place in my courtroom or chambers. It would be in the shape of a book or a scroll and it would have ten arbitrary symbols or lines of undecipherable homemade heiroglyphs on it. I would not say anything more about it but that I personally found it inspiring in my work. It would annoy the ACLU and atheists greatly, but what could they do?
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.