Court Rules Against Inagural Prayer BanFollow

Judge Denies Bid to Block Inaugural Prayer
By SAM HANANEL
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court in California last year.

Bates also said Newdow had no legal standing to pursue his claim. Even if Newdow could show he had suffered injury because he was offended in hearing the prayer, Bates said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.

"The court's grave concerns about its power to issue an injunction against the president, which is the only method of redressing Newdow's alleged injuries, places in peril Newdow's standing to bring this action," Bates wrote in his 50-page opinion.

Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee 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 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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.

Newdow is both an emergency room physician and a lawyer and has represented himself in both legal actions.
________________________________________________________________

Well, it's good to see that there are some sane Judges remaining on the Bench.

God (for lack of a better oath) what a ******* idiot. I don't see how people fail to understand. There is a difference between allowing freedom of worship and forcing the said freedom on other people.

Following the logical conclusion to this idiot's reasoning, allowing Atheism in the country would be forcing that belief on the Theists. This is like trying to orchestrate the downfall of the very freedom that allows him to disbelieve in god in the first place.

***
Clarity, grammar, spelling and all the other stuff I never get right the first time



Edited, Fri Jan 14 17:32:36 2005 by Pensive

As a liberal atheist Democrat, I say this judge needs to go fu[b][/b]ck himself and redefine his priorities.

I wonder how much of that 10 mil he's getting?

Cheap-*** President

So, was I rated down for being a liberal, an atheist, or a Democrat? Or was it my potty mouth?

I think because you misunderstood the wording of the story.

As an agnostic libertarian-liberal-conservative I think it's the right decision. No one forces anyone to listen to the Inauguration, and no one's forcing the President to invite a clergyfuckerman to speak. I don't give a damn, really. Would be nice if Mr. Bush would invite a Muslim Cleric, a Buddhist, a Rabbi, a Mayan, etc., but whatever. He's an idiot no matter what he does.

I do wholeheartedly support that guy's right to sue though. And actually agree that the Pledge "under God" needs to go, that one is kind of forced on people.

Jophiel, was that an Elizabeth Montgomery avatar I saw you with earlier? OMG I love her.

When I was a kid like 20 years ago we had to recite it. Err, well no I refused to but I still had to sit down and listen to it. I don't know, today it might vary by state. I don't think it's a huge issue, but does seem state-indoctrination to a specific religion, something I don't think the Constitution intends.

As one who leams more to liberal and I do not believe in religion, I have no problem with Bush having a prayer recited. It is his choice, and as he is religious, it's his pary. Like stated earlier, we don't have to watch it ( I dont know many who would care to waste their time, but that's another story). As long as it is not a required for all Presidentsto do it, big deal.



I disagree. If it stated God and Jesus, then absolutely. But God can be recognized in many religions, and even those of us who do not conform to a "religion" but are still spiritual.

Eh. I kinda do. Adding the words "under God" IMO, *is* a violation of the principle of separation of Church and State. Sure, you can get around that by saying that no one is required to say it, but isn't that incredibly stupid?

Think about it. We have a pledge to an ostensible civil government, but because some idiots put religious words into it, we have to make allowances for the fact that you can't require anyone to actually say the freaking thing. That's a level of idiocy that's just astounding.

If they didn't have those words in it, the whole issue wouldn't exist, now would it? No one would have a reason to not say the pledge (at least not one constitutionally protected). Why on earth we do these huge constitutional work arounds simply so we can keep words that were never in the pledge in the first place is beyond me. It's just dumb. It's blatantly pushing religion (whether specific or not is irrelevant) into what should be a purely civil activity.


As to Bush having prayer and clergy at his inauguration? That's a completely different issue. It's his inauguration. He can choose to do pretty much whatever he wants. The only thing that's prescribed is that he take the oath of office. Everything else is simply ceremony and is purely up to him. Clearly, some sort of law *requiring* as religious aspect to the proceedings would be unconstitutional. Um... But so would having a law prohibiting one. In this case, no one is foisting religion on him. It's his inauguration, so he can do whatever he wants...

Quick correction on this: while it's true that the Eisenhower Administration made it 'official' that all coinage would bear the motto "In God We Trust", the words had appeared on various coinage dating back to the 1860s ( I believe the first coin to have those words was the Shield Nickel). I'd venture to say that there was much less debate over the issue back then.

I'd also like to riase the issue that there is no such thing as a 'Wall of Separation Between Church And State' in the Constitution. That phrase was, I believe, coined by Jefferson in one of the Federalist Papers.

People on the anti-religious side of this debate use a phrase which does not exist in the document to counter a phrase which is in the document, that being the 'Free Exercise' clause. So, in effect, their use of something that is not present seeks to deny me my explicit Constitutional rights.

No one is demanding that you recite the prayer along with President Bush. No one is demanding that you recognize the Christian God (or Allah, Shiva, the Horned God or anyone else for that matter). What I and millions of others do demand is that you on the far Left allow us to worship (or not) as we see fit.

Once again, the Left preaches (no pun intended) Tolerance while practicing Intolerance.

I'm sorry....should not have generalized.

You Leftists have been, on the whole, pretty sane about this particular issue. I might convert a few of you yet....

What I meant was, in this case, a single Leftist whacko-nutball (Newdow) is trying to force his extrememly narrow views on the rest of us- in other words, he'd like you to believe that he merely wants Tolerance of his views when the truth of the matter is he is Intolerant of your (as in the majority's) views.

meh

Edited, Sun Jan 16 13:15:23 2005 by Debalic