View Full Forums : This guy needs a new hobby....


Stormhaven
01-20-2005, 08:48 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/scotus.inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html

(snip)
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

B_Delacroix
01-20-2005, 09:16 AM
Let the religious fervor begin.

My opinion:

Let them do what they want. Prayer or not. In schools or not. At inaugeration or not. Just don't let the chosen religion of whomever is doing the thing dictate how governmental policy is made.

-----------
9. Once you've stated your opinion, if someone disagrees and states their own opinion, don't try to explain your stance further. You aren't going to change anyone's mind. Just let it go.

Aidon
01-20-2005, 09:44 AM
I'm of two minds on this one.

While I prefer to see a complete seperation of Church and State...the Inauguration is also a personal issue.

All, in all, of all the Church and State issues, this one should be very very very far down the list (as opposed to the Pledge issue which I feel the Supreme Court failed its duty in remanding without ruling on the merits).

Tudamorf
01-20-2005, 01:05 PM
It's an interesting conflict -- assuming, of course, that the President <i>wants</i> to say the prayer. On the one hand, he has the right to his own religious beliefs, so it would be wrong to deny him the right to pray to his invisible friend (for all the good it will do him). On the other hand, as the highest government figure, he must avoid the appearance of endorsing a religion.

I agree, the pledge of allegiance in schools cases are far more troubling.

Panamah
01-20-2005, 01:13 PM
I would like to see the religious references in the pledge go away, and on our money, but I don't think guys like this are doing us a favor by suing over every little thing like this. They're labeled as nuts and it gets applied with a broad brush to all of us that like a wide margin between government and religion.

Jinjre
01-20-2005, 03:55 PM
The inauguration is longheld to tradition, and I believe all other inaugurations, historically, have had prayers in them.

It would be interesting indeed, if a jewish president were to be elected. Would we have yiddish prayers and would all in attendence be forced to wear yarlmukahs (sp.)?

Panamah
01-20-2005, 04:20 PM
What about an atheist or agnostic or buddhist? :p Probably unelectable in this country, but it'd be interesting at inauguration time.

Tudamorf
01-20-2005, 05:05 PM
What about an atheist or agnostic or buddhist? :p Probably unelectable in this country, but it'd be interesting at inauguration time.An atheist/agnostic is certainly a possibility, and shouldn't pose a problem at all. People would accept the absence of religious ceremony far more easily than a "foreign" ceremony. As for a Jew/Muslim/other, I'll believe it when I see it -- I doubt such a religious minority will ever be elected president.

Arienne
01-20-2005, 06:16 PM
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.Well, if an opportunity to hear a prayer is FORCING him to ACCEPT unwanted religious beliefs then he has a brain made of silly putty. The problem I have with fanatics such as these is that they believe that no one should ever be EXPOSED to religion for fear others can't think freely enough for themselves and will be brainwashed by it. Its' their outrageous belief that only THEY are strong enough to resist and they have to protect the rest of the world because we are all idiots. Frankly, the thought of people like this censoring what I can and can't be exposed to is scarier than the thought of sitting daily through a full Catholic mass said only in Latin.

Glidelph
01-20-2005, 07:03 PM
Michael Newdow needs to learn how to use either the remote or the on/off switch. He's what's called a moonbat, for rather obvious reasons.

Aidon
01-21-2005, 11:57 AM
The inauguration is longheld to tradition, and I believe all other inaugurations, historically, have had prayers in them.

It would be interesting indeed, if a jewish president were to be elected. Would we have yiddish prayers and would all in attendence be forced to wear yarlmukahs (sp.)?

Most prayers are in Hebrew, not yiddish, and I rather suspect his inaugural prayer would be in Hebrew lead by a Rabbi.

And no American Jew would ever attempt to force goyiim to wear kipot at such a function.

Follun
01-21-2005, 03:33 PM
I really don't see why people get so upset about the separation of church and state idea. It was put in place for religious freedoms for the people, that's it, cut and dry. The Founding Fathers did not want another Church of England in the United States that forced its citizens to worship one religion and could not question it. Yet people insist on taking it further.

I by no means consider myself a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or any other religious type out there. The people filing these cases aren't out for freedom or to make our country better, they are out for fame and money. Just because my country decides to have "In God We Trust" on the money or "Under God" in its pledge doesn't mean that my freedom of religion is restricted in the least bit. It doesn't make me believe in God, it's just there if I want to believe. Religion set a moral code that our country followed for many years, and even though I may not worship this religion, it does not warrant the removal of such items because it some how limits my freedom.

Panamah
01-21-2005, 05:04 PM
No, I think you're oversimplyfying, Follun. It goes both ways. The founding fathers also did not wish to have religion meddling in government, at least some of them.

I don't think this guy is suing to make money, I'd suspect he's suing to make a point. Either way, it's getting a little obnoxious.