Atheist Asks Court to Ban Inaugural Prayer

Yahoo.com ^ | 18/1/2005 | HOPE YEN, AP

[alessandrofiaschi]

WASHINGTON - The atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration. In an emergency filing, Michael Newdow argued that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs. His request has been rejected by two lower courts. Newdow also asked that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is designated as the justice to hear emergency appeals for the D.C. Circuit, recuse himself because he is scheduled to swear in Bush and thus has a conflict of interest. Rehnquist previously has sworn in four presidents since becoming chief justice in 1986. "He has become a fixture in a governmental ceremony that has become infused with sectarian Christian religion and not once — as far as can be determined — has he made the slightest attempt to end that ... violation," Newdow wrote. If Rehnquist does remove himself, the case will go to the next senior justice, John Paul Stevens, who has the option to refer the appeal to the full court for consideration. Two lower courts have rejected Newdow's request to ban the prayer, suggesting he couldn't show actual injury in hearing it. In his ruling last week, U.S. District Judge John Bates also said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony. Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee have argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent. Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the San-Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God. The Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other parents and children.

[rockabyebaby]

Newdow is offense, can we launch a suit against him?

[Tom Jefferson]

A problem is that the Supreme Court has not made a definitive ruling that saying a prayer at an inauguration, saying "under God" in the pledge, having the 10 commandments in a courtroom or city hall does NOT violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

[finnman69]

This guy is a glutton for punishment.

[MeekOneGOP]

---

From the article:

WASHINGTON - The atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration. In an emergency filing, Michael Newdow argued that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs. His request has been rejected by two lower courts. Newdow also asked that Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is designated as the justice to hear emergency appeals for the D.C. Circuit, recuse himself because he is scheduled to swear in Bush and thus has a conflict of interest. Rehnquist previously has sworn in four presidents since becoming chief justice in 1986. "He has become a fixture in a governmental ceremony that has become infused with sectarian Christian religion and not once — as far as can be determined — has he made the slightest attempt to end that ... violation," Newdow wrote. If Rehnquist does remove himself, the case will go to the next senior justice, John Paul Stevens, who has the option to refer the appeal to the full court for consideration. Two lower courts have rejected Newdow's request to ban the prayer, suggesting he couldn't show actual injury in hearing it .....

---

Look up "ar$ehole" in the dictionary, and the definition is illustrated with this picture:

Well, Madeleine Murray O'Hare died and someone had to pick up the torch.

[MadAnthony1776]

Nothing says he has to watch. He probably isn't going to watch. He's just being a jerk and trying for his 15 minutes of fame.

[ShandaLear]

He's not forced to accept anyone's beliefs either.

[xzins]

Recuse himself because the justice is conducting the oath --- is Newdow nuts, or what?

The oath will happen even if they canceled the entire ceremony. They are only connected by convenience, and not by constitutional mandate. Therefore, it is reasonable to view it separately from the ceremony, and it is reasonable to conclude that the participation in the oath can be dispassionately separated from the concurrent ceremony.

Since the ceremony represents the free speech of an American, who also happens to be the president, then there is no basis for censoring speech....especially so in light of the separation of powers issues.

Finally, this episode of speech on the part of the president, as with many other episodes, includes other speakers at the discretion of the president. All presidential speech is political speech, and all other instances of presidential appearance require financial provisions and preparations for the security and presence of our top elected official. This instance is no different.

The oath is the only part required by the constitution.

[LIConFem]

"They are insane..."

Irrational, at the very least. For the life of me, I cannot fathom why he's so afraid of others' beliefs.

[alessandrofiaschi]

Another reason to reshape the Supreme Court. I bet that if Scalia is named CJ, similar stupid suits will not be possible.

[MeekOneGOP]

See my post, just above. :^)99999999 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

[Lazamataz]

Newdow, go to hell.

Yes, I said hell. A religious concept.

Go there.

[mainepatsfan]

This guy helps the Dems about as much as Michael Moore.

[pookie18]

[NRA1995]

So don't watch the Inauguration, you stupid loser!!

[unlearner]

"public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God"

But Newdow also mentions God quite often. By his own definition he must have become religious.

[shiva]

We'll see what the red states have to say about that!

[MEG33]

My thought exactly.

[massgopguy]

The President is a Christian whether Newdow likes it or not. It's not the prayer that makes one a Christian.

By the way will Newdow be outed along with Issac Newton and Shakespere?

[Viking2002]

I'm amazed that this POS is still vertical, myself.

[steveegg]

Next headline; Rehnquist rejects Idiot's Desperate Plea, Offers to Hold Bible for President.