Posted on 09/14/2005 1:32:58 PM PDT by pogo101
The opinion issued Sept. 14, 2005 may be accessed here.
Brought by the Rev. Michael Newdow? He is a reverend? I thought he did not believe in God.
Don't blame the judge, he may actually be quite sane, even though he was appointed by one of the worst presidents in modern times. Blame the Ninth Circus.
Atheism is a religion.
For $5.00 and a ticket to hell you can buy a "reverend" certificate.
Who knows how Newdow became a "reverend."
BTTT
Every freak can call himself "Reverend". Just look at people like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and Fred Phelps.
I don't know who Phelps is off hand, but I agree with you regarding Sharpton and Jackson.
He was bounced from the Supreme Court because he didn't have standing to bring the case. He didn't have legal custody of the child he used as the vehicle to bring the case. His ex-wife had sole legal custody. How was he able to bring this case?
This court would be less than candid if it did not acknowledge that it is relieved that, by virtue of the disposition above, it need not attempt to apply the Supreme Court’s recently articulated distinction between those governmental activities which endorse religion, and are thus prohibited, and those which acknowledge the Nation’s asserted religious heritage, and thus are permitted. As last terms cases, McCreary County v. ACLU, 125 S.Ct. 2722, 2005 WL 1498988 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 2005 WL 1500276 (2005) demonstrate, the distinction is utterly standardless, and ultimate resolution depends of the shifting, subjective sensibilities of any five members of the High Court, leaving those of us who work in the vineyard without guidance. Moreover, because the doctrine is inherently a boundaryless slippery slope, any conclusion might pass muster. It might be remembered that it was only a little more than one hundred ago that the Supreme Court of this nation declared without hesitation, after reviewing the history of religion in this country, that “this is a Christian nation.” Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 471 (1892). As preposterous as it might seem, given the lack of boundaries, a case could be made for substituting “under Christ” for “under God” in the pledge, thus marginalizing not only atheists and agnostics, as the present form of the Pledge does, but also Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Confucians, Sikhs, Hindus, and other religious adherents who, not only are citizens of this nation, but in fact reside in this judicial district.
The TYRANNY of the OLIGARCHY of MASTERS in black Robes!
Ask that *** what his opinion of the SECOND AMENDMENT is!
The Founders of our Nation and the Framers of the Constitution were well aware of the dangers of the tyranny and treason of a run-away governmental bureaucracy and had a very PRIMARY reason for the inclusion of the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." -- Thomas Jefferson, Author of The Declaration of Independence, and Third President of the United States
When citizens are well-armed, government officials must think twice before going too far down the road to tyranny against the citizenry. Thus, the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment is the best insurance policy that the American people could have against tyranny.
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.