Newdow Tries To Ban Prayer From Presidential Inauguration

[Kadie]

Newdow Tries To Ban Prayer From Presidential Inauguration
Attorneys For President Want Lawsuit Thrown Out

POSTED: 5:58 pm PST January 13, 2005

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- He has already targeted the Pledge of Allegiance; now, Sacramento-area resident Michael Newdow is focusing once again on the president's inauguration ceremony.

Newdow says religious references are a violation of the separation of church and state. Although he lost a similar case in 2002, Newdow is trying to ban prayer at the inauguration next week, calling it unconstitutional.


On Thursday, Newdow argued his case over the phone with the U.S. District Court in Washington.


"The president of the United States, as he takes his oath of office to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, is violating the Constitution. It's kind of outrageous," Newdow said.

more...
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4081443/detail.html

[youngred]

1. sometimes you just gotta look at the big picture

and let the little battles go

[The Backlash Cometh]

6. I agree with you. If it is a tradition, then, I say go with it. Compromise

[Voltaire99]

29. Many little sacrifices...

...a fascist state make.

If wishy-washy Democrats had stood firm on principle rather than collapsing in the myriad ways you called "compromise" and "bipartisanship" over the past quarter century, perhaps we'd still have a functioning democracy.

Stop appeasing, my friends. Look where it has got you.

[The Backlash Cometh]

33. You need to learn how to pick your fights.

I wouldn't fight to remove "In God we trust" on the dollar; but I do support the fight to remove the ten commandments from the courthouses.

[radio4progressives]

89. This IS his fight. He is a self avowed Athiest Intent in Protecting

Seperation of Church and State.

I say more power to him.

[The Backlash Cometh]

95. Yes, but you realize the consequences?

They will pin liberals as people who are intolerant of even visceral tokens of religion.

[Voltaire99]

99. I am no atheist; and yes, I realize the consequences

First, I have never avowed atheism. I avow a kind of humble agnosticism, actually, which, however impressed it is by Mystery and Wonder, will brook no theocratic poisoning of society. I leave filling in the man-made details of reverence to those so inclined; and insist, in turn, that they leave the rest of us the hell alone.

Now, to the consequences.

It is high time US "liberals," if any still exist worthy of the name, stop worrying about being branded by the right wing. Can you not measure the futility of that quest? It has made you sheep, my dears: sheep. The right shears you a little closer to the bone every year, and then off you run, scared of even the shadow of conviction, lest the big bad ranchers come to brand you again.

You will never--never--hold sway with the nearly 30 percent of Americans professing, as angry and self-righteous in their plan to reform the world as radical Islamists in theirs, to be "born again." They despise you as much as Al Qaeda does. Heh: they'd as soon stone you as vote for you. And I do mean stoning in the Biblical, not the Dylanical, sense. ;-)

That leaves you no measure of hope for flaunting your vain hypocritical attempts at religious "tolerance." Hypocritical because, of course, one cannot be a liberal believing in civil liberties while lending comfort to a religious movement bent on their destruction.

So, my friend, if we are to get anywhere, I am afraid we will have to start picking more fights than you have had the stomach for. Let me hear you speak less to the scary consequences that make you tremble and more to the matter of what you think worthy of defending.

[The Backlash Cometh]

100. No offense, but your strategy is very similar to Bush's strategy.

No compromise. He gets an idea in his head and he goes balls to the wall without taking into consideration any new facts that he might encounter along the way.

This is a better way to do things: Instead of wasting time on fighting something that is so old and ingrained in our society, go after all the new attempts that the right evangelicals are using to inflict religion in the public sector. Take a lesson out of the Iraqi playbook. Instead of doing what Bush did and bombing the entire place, helter-skelter, which in essence, has created a bigger problem for us than before; go after the fights that will not make the right-wing evangelicals stronger. If you try to take out simple words or rituals that have been with us for generations, you will find yourself fighting a bigger army than just the evangelicals.

And that is fine, if that is what you want to do, but please have the courtesy of not aligning your cause with liberals in general.

[Voltaire99]

106. But you are not a liberal, evidently; you are a margin-seeker

What you are defending is merely more defeat by degree, an approach that has left your diluted centrism utterly vanquished by simplistic market-driven ideology. You've been played for chumps, because you have no daring, worried as you are about courting every last SUV vote.

Bushies, I'm afraid, understand values and the process somewhat better: learn from them. They believe, without dilution, and they act. Would that more on our side had as much nerve.

When it comes to choosing battles, particularly those in defense of our liberties, take guidance from one of the great minds. Jefferson did not counsel periodic, occasional, or partial vigilance. What type of vigilance was it he advised, Backlash?

[pokercat999]

96. We need to learn the lesson the

repugs are teaching us. There are no small battles. The constant barrage from the repug media mortars has worn down the dems to where we are now. From a solid majority to just about even......learn the lesson! Adapt or die!

[youngred]

52. Appeasing?

Give me a break. There has been prayer at the inagural going all the way back to Washington. Why? because the day is not about the government supporting or denying prayer, but a President's choice. Of all the things out there to fight over, Gonzales, USSC, Social Security, Iraq, etc etc etc etc, a lousy prayer is the least of our concerns.

Nednow is an extremist, and while he may be right on a lot of things this is a waste of time, effort and money

[VegasWolf]

71. Exactly, many little cuts ...

leave a corpse.

[trogdor]

43. Sure, it's tradition, BUT...

...I heard the first inaugural on the radio, and the prayer offered (by Franklin Graham, no less) was VERY sectarian in nature. No effort whatsoever was expended in making it less so. One could say it set the mood for Bush's entire first term - you're either with the talibornagains, or you're an outsider, and we'll treat you as such.

I say to Newdow, "bring it on."

[Bucky]

13. WWWD? What Would Washington Do?

On a number of official occasions George Washington invoked divine blessings on the nation's business. It's not establishing religion to do so, or the very first interfaith breakfast would have ended all religious wars overnight.

Sorry, but the separation clause is intended to protect government from the excesses of theology with power and religions from the corruption of secular authority. It's not intended to stop public officeholders from "the free exercise thereof."

I applaud the first court to have the sense to swat this fly of a lawsuit.

[theboss]

46. Washington added "So help me God" to the oath

It's not included in the oath as written in the Constituion but it has been included ever since.

[clydefrand]

2. I wish he'd try to ban Bush! That's far more pressing than what

he's after.

[bluestateguy]

3. I think this guy is a troublemaker

Nothing will be gained for anybody if he wins his highly symbolic case here. All it will do is inflame the fundamentalist wackos, thus setting us backward even more.

And why should I give a shit what they do at THEIR inauguration? He's not my president, this is not my party, and they can have their little red-state soiree however the hell they want. I will not be watching any of it on TV.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

4. "All it will do is inflame the fundamentalist wackos"

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

[loyalsister]

26. It's called backlash

It is spun in swing and red states that this guy is a LIBERAL Democrat. Then the label starts to stick, and every intellectual, scientist, or lawyer picks it up.
This works in favor of Republicans.

[Just Me]

9. He is passionate about an "open society" & separation of church/state.

That may seem "radical" to you.

It seems one more step towards democracy to "Just Me".

After all, the guy isn't seeking to force religious-oriented laws which oppress others (unlike this wave of persecutory and scapegoating "moral authoritarians" who assert GOD as their source).

He is not radical. He is taking a stand for the very thing Christ ALMIGHTY preached: acceptance. Almost ALL religious visionaries/leaders/prophets/etc. embraced "secularism",...a LOVE FOR HUMANITY.

Power-mongering, profiteering, scums-of-humanity USE "religion" to manipulate the best of people into their greedy, black-hole, self-involved lives. They suck the very life out of human energy, potential, hope and life.

They are evil.

[Zhade]

30. GREAT POST!

NT!

[JohnOneillsMemory]

32. ENFORCING THE CONSTITUTION IN PUBLIC RITUAL IS CRUCIAL!!!

OATHS ARE RITES OF PASSAGE (WEDDINGS,FUNERALS ETC) AND GIVE THE STRONGEST PROPAGANDA MESSAGE ABOUT 'HOW THINGS ARE.'

THIS LEADS DIRECTLY TO THE SPANISH INQUISITION, GITMO BAY, DEAD IRAQIS.

This IS WHY we stay in a theocratic fascist state with the First Amendment losing limbs like a US Iraq vet with a case of PTSD.

This is so important I can't possibly use a big enough font.

Gods-dammit-all!
THIS IS A SECULAR HUMANIST NATION FOUNDED ON THE REALITY-BASED AGREEMENTS CALLED THE US CONSTITUION, NOT THE BIBLE.

TAKING AN OATH TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION USING AN ANCIENT BOOK OF RANDOMLY CONTRADICTING SUPERSTITIONS ILLUSTRATES *EXACTLY* WHY THIS NATION IS SCHIZOPHRENIC AND PSCHOPATHICALLY KILLING PEOPLE BY THE MILLIONS.

1) It feeds the notion of the Divine Right of Kings to eliminate the US Constitution.

2) It feeds the authoritarian personality which is at the core of fascism receptivity. Lords, kings, fuhrers are all the same guy.

3) It feeds the dominance of women to prevent them from pacifying men’s instincts for violence because women’s brains are different from men's, less prone to violence and groupthink which reflects in polling.

4) It feeds the scam of the oil wars waged under cover of the Crusades.

5) It feeds ignorance and tribalism.

6) It feeds the notion that violence produces justice, or ‘wrathful smiting.’

7) It feeds the idea that it is normal to suffer horribly because it is God's will and it will all be ok when you die.

8) It feeds the idea that destroying the environment is a good thing because it will bring on Armageddon.

9) It keeps Americans confused and unable to discern fact from fiction like Ronald Reagan claiming to have fought WWII when all he did was make propaganda films.

10) It feeds the divide-and-conquer tactic of the red/blue state meme which Orwellifies the class war between rich and poor into being between good and evil like 'Star Wars.' "Use the force, Luke."

11) It feeds the idea that pleasure and sex are bad for you while violence and suffering are good for you causing neorosis in people that disables them and makes them easy to be manipulated.

Allowing the Bible to be part of power rituals encourages science-denial and blindly following 'authority.'
Hello global warming!

This leads directly to the Theocratic Fascism we now live under as illustrated in the words of deist Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, the Torquemada of Washington DC-

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/scalia.htm
(God's Justice and Ours Speech 2002 on death penalty)

"The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."
>>
"Besides being less likely to regard death as an utterly cataclysmic punishment, the Christian is also more likely to regard punishment in general as deserved."
>>
"Mere factual innocence is no reason not to carry out a death sentence properly reached."
-- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia

"Casuistry caseates."
--JohnOneillsMemory

This is your brain.
This is your brain on the THEOCRACY.
Any questions?

[Massachusetts]

37. Whoa. Interesting comments.

[sffreeways]

45. the Torquemada of Washington DC

ROFLMAO

Oh you said it all better than I ever could. Thank you for that uplifting post.

[sandnsea]

65. Those are YOUR values

Which you are free to express and take into any political office you might be elected to. The same as a religious person is free to take their values into any political office they are elected to. The values, not the doctrine. And THAT, my friend, is what the separation of church and state is all about. Values that arise from the free practice of religions which the founders did, in fact, support 100%. The purpose of religion free from government interference has worked splendidly, religion is every freakin' place. The values people are learning from their religions and seeking to take into government is a whole other story. Religious doctrine in government isn't going to fix cruddy values and THAT should be the basis of the argument against the fundies.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

74. Civic values are in direct contradiction with Biblical God-based genocide

and that is why the 'founding fathers,' being children of The Enlightenment's new way of seeing

1)the physical world as worth understanding
2)and basing society's decisions on something called 'evidence'

OUTLAWED using formal religious tracts as basis for the use of government power precisely to avoid the Spanish Inquisition and the Divine Right of Kings which made torture and murder a tool of royalty for eons.

'God made me do it' was no longer an alibi against indictment for atrocity anymore than 'the Devil made me do it.'

That is why the US Constitution and Bill of Rights are THE HIGHEST LAW IN THE LAND and they ACTIVELY DENY THE ASSERTIONS IN THE BIBLE OF GOD-BASED VIOLENCE AND OPPRESSION.

The Bible is filled with stories of genocide, rape, incest, starvation, mutilation. All based on 'God told us to.'

Values, indeed.

Personally, I was raised by a woman who was raised by Baptist elders in their church. I am a pagan rationalist/secular humanist who's values are those espoused by a very wise mortal human know as Jesus which are egalitarian, humanitarian, nurturing, forgiving and adheres to the Geneva Conventions.

But I was also raised by a an emotional wreck of a step-father who was horribly abusive and I learned that being compassionate and nurturing does not mean being a martyr, something liberals are struggling to grasp today and leads to their inability to defend themselves against bullies.

[sandnsea]

77. Country based on the Constitution

I agree with you 100%, it is a country based on the Constitution and Law, NOT the Bible. We should be screaming that from the roof tops.

We part company when you say we are a SECULAR HUMANIST NATION. That is NOT true, it was NOT the intention of the forefathers to make this a non-religious nation at all. The intention was clearly that religion would flourish best with a separation between government and religion. And that the freedom each citizen had to practice their religion would generate a moral population. Those morals would be brought into government and shape the values the country cherished and would be represented through our laws. Equally, a public education system would also shape our morals and values, off-setting some of those ridiculous "Christian" values you mentioned. Which I already said is the crux of the problem, that the religious have had cruddy values and are trying to correct it through introducing more doctrine instead of looking at their values. I'm not saying that one must be religious to have morals or values or that the founding fathers thought that exclusively. But the first amendment clearly shows they thought the free practice of religion was important enough to protect it in the constitution. Which they wouldn't have done at all if they didn't think it was important to the basic functioning of a country.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

85. You're correct. I meant our government is designed to be secular humanist.

You are absolutely right about that important clarification.

While some may wish the White House to be the Taliban with a Department of Virtues and Vices, they are supposed to accept the limits described in the Constitution and spend their own time trying to convince men to imprison women at a grass-roots level.

(In practice, they don't accept the law and ignore it. That is, they simply ignore the Constitution and act with impunity. Unindicted criminals control the injustice system, Congress, and the bully pulpit called the mainstream media.)

It is up to us to prevent and denounce the 'election' of people who espouse values we abhor and teach others how those people have always controlled power in this country and institutionalized atrocity in policies of poverty and violence in contradistinction to their own claims of 'virtue.'

If only there were a way to seperate in the public's mind the teachings of a very kind and wise man named Jesus from the rest of the Bible the way Thomas Jefferson did. We would all be safer and happier IMHO...

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes."
--Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

"To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead."
-- Thomas Paine

"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."
-- Henry Louis Mencken

"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.
If that is granted, all else follows."
--George Orwell in 1984

[sandnsea]

87. Looks like

We agree completely. I'm always happy when that happens! :)

[JohnOneillsMemory]

92. We agree? Uh oh. Are we really liberals? LOL...peace. n/t

[DemBones DemBones]

5. Talk about tilting at windmills! eom

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Noble effort

Hopeless cause

[Festivito]

8. Why should separation be more important than free practice?

Separation is not the law, free practice is.

Pity them for their pomposity. Argue against their pathetic hegemony. But, do not deny persons the right to practice their religion.

[Just Me]

10. A "moment of silence and reflection" would respect ALL THE PEOPLE.

Doncha' think? :bounce:

No one is denied their religion. No one is forced to "take" religion.

What's wrong with that?

[Festivito]

17. Maybe IT WOULD NOT.

ALL the people may not be happy only respecting religion, they still may wish to practice it, freely.

If silence you admire, avoid countries of free speech.

[Just Me]

60. What you're really advocating is inserting religion into government.

That is a completely separate and distinct advocacy position from free speech.

ALL the people have the freedom to practice their religion outside of governance. The government is imposing no law against practicing religion. However, consistent with the Constitution, the government is suppose to separate itself entirely from religion in matters of governance.

[Festivito]

67. No.I'm advocating freedom + accepting benignly inserted religious practice

There is no reference in the first amendment allowing government to deny free practise either inside nor outside the case of governance either specifically as governance or intrinsically as a part of the governance evoked by the Constitution itself.

People should have the right to practise their freedoms, even if the practices hurt the sensibilities of other persons. It is not allowed that those free practices hurt other person's freedoms. Sensibilities are not afforded that much concern -- yet. If you will.

[BBradley]

88. This has nothing to do with free speech.

I'm sick and tired of you people not understanding the argument at hand. I went through this bullshit in High School, where people set up the strawman. We are not trying to keep you from praying. Anywhere, anytime. I don't care, go for it. Practice all you want.

Our issue is with the government alienating a significant portion of it's population with sponsored prayer. It makes the assumption that we the people are religious. It makes ME feel alienated from our government. I am not the only one. The government should not have any traces of religion in any of it's practices. Sorry. If practicing religion requires you to ram it down my throat, then I suggest investing in a less confrontational brand of whatever your denomination is, otherwise you are doing the exact same thing to us, that you claim is what we're trying to do to you.

[DavidDvorkin]

11. Separation certainly is the law

That's the whole point. See the Bill of Rights.

No one is being denied the right to practise his religioin. That's a fake argument used by those who want to convert this from a secular nation into a theocracy.

[Dhalgren]

12. Right! This isn't about "practicing religion"

It's about the state sanctioning religion. Perform your mythological rites in the privacy of your own church, but keep it off the stage that belongs as much to me as it does to you.

[Az]

14. I am not convinced on this issue

The oathe is not required to be taken on a bible. The manner and form of oathe is left to the President. Sure a person that wishes to represent all the people should probably try to find a more open manner of doing it. But as far as I can tell the Government is not mandating that religious content of the oathe so there seems to be no standing for a case here.

[Behind the Aegis]

18. i never understood....

I never got why they swore on the Bible. To me, that sounds like an act of faith. Why not swear or affirm on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution? That makes much more sense, since this person is supposed to be upholding THOSE documents, not the writings in the Bible. But, that is just me.

[DavidDvorkin]

49. The oath is not to be designed by the president

It's specified in the Constitution, in Article II, Section 1:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Presidents who add the Bible and the religious part are violating that article of the Constitution, as well as the First Amendment.

[Festivito]

20. Your certitude deserves a look-see.

I cannot seem to find the word "separation" in the Bill of Rights First Amendment. Perhaps you could help.
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I do not want a theocracy, rather the opposite. Separation is a goal, not a means. The freedoms build a wall, a thick strong wall. I do not want to settle for some little scrawny line of separation, because such is worthless, and does not work.

It leads to messes. The kind that lead to this thread.

[Dhalgren]

34. It is easy to dismiss someone else's feelings of

oppression when the object of oppression isn't felt by you. It is like someone saying, "Gays don't need special rights." That is true, as long as they are accorded the same rights as everyone else. The same is true of "affirmative action"; if the cause for the need doesn't effect you, it is easy to dismiss it. Since it is understood that the practice of religion has nothing whatsoever to do with the governing of our nation, why insert a particular form of religion into the rites and ceremonies of that government? If it is just because it has been done in the past, well, this nation has done many things that were "traditional" at one time, but we have stopped because of our cultural and social growth. I know that this country is a "closet theocracy" and that we will never stop giving lip service to one mythology or another, but that doesn't make it right nor acceptable to those of us in the philosophical "minority".

[Festivito]

54. Justice, Freedom, Oppression (In this order)

I like our Constitution. The first thing it explicitly establishes is Justice. It goes on to give explicit freedoms. Free speech for example, in its effect, says people have the right to speak. May I add: even if the speech is oppressive.

I feel sorry for you that you feel oppressed by hearing another person speak a prayer. I just listen, or join, or contemplate my to-do list and feel no outstanding emotion. I guess you do. A bad emotion. But, I like our Constitution, as I said.

In fact, I revel living in a country where someone can so freely practise their religion, and where I am protected from them killing me or jailing me because of beliefs we do not share.

This freedom, if reliable, leads to a respectful wall of separation. Built by the feeling of freedom, consisting of respect, and as strong as freedom's reliability lets it become. Really a space, where no one needs to cross.

Perhaps some day a gay president will publicly thank his lover, alienating those who do not have a good spousal relationship. Perhaps a black man will express his pride in his roots, bringing a sad feeling to someone who does not know their parentage. And, perhaps a religious zealot president will say nothing about his religion in a speech and not pray or practise his religion in any seeable hearable palpable way, embarrassing listening atheists who would find it a mistaken revelation of their beliefs that this guy's actions might end up mistakenly reflecting on them.

Let us go form a more perfect union.

[Dhalgren]

55. I am surprised that you have such a "firm" grasp of the

Constitution, since you seem so adroit at point missing. Responding in not-to-point, generalization with insensitive condescension does not translate into a better understanding of the issues under discussion. Why would I care one whit how you cope with being forced to participate in another person's religion, since you have absolutely no concern or feelings regarding mine? If you have no sympathy for oppressed persons, fine, have no sympathy. But do not try and parade your lack of empathy as some sort of higher brand of maturity - it doesn't wash. Bush constantly displays a complete lack of empathy in almost everything he does, but it isn't something that most "adults" would praise him for. I understand that you have no concerns nor feelings for individuals who feel that their rights are being violated or that their citizenship is being pushed into the status of "second-class" (or lower), but you might try to be, at least, less callous of their feelings.

[Festivito]

62. I'm sorry that you are so overwhelmingly distressed by my post.

Perhaps you should place me on your ignore list.

I have no idea how you might derive the conclusions you've reached.

[Dr Fate]

22. Freedoom of Religion, but also freedom FROM other's religions.

Dont leave out the establishment clause and only focus on the free-excercise clause.

[Festivito]

57. Freedom from religion. When do you start the amendment process.

Maybe you could change freedom of speech into a freedom of silence where no one has to listen to anyone else. Freedom from speech.

[Just Me]

59. You're failing to distinguish free speech and separation of church/state.

Confusing or fusing those issues simply undermines our people and our country and our freedom.

[Festivito]

64. When do you start the amendment process?

...from and unfused, unconfused freedom from religion?

[Dr Fate]

78. That amendment was passed in the 1700's. The process already occurred.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (Jefferson's freedom FROM religion) or prohibiting the free exercise therof (Madison's Free exercise)

Remember when the Puritains came over here to be FREE FROM the Anglican Church and in turn have free exercise of their own beliefs?

Well, so did the Founders.

[Festivito]

91. First: the intent here is to prohibit free exercise.

Someone wants to pray, and the litigator wants to stop him from praying.

He has his reasons for wanting to stop the person from praying. He understands that he has legal reasons for be able to stop the person from praying.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Jefferson's freedom FROM religion you call it.

My original post was about separation, and why is separation more important than freedom of practice. Separation is not the same thing as freedom from religion. And, the question has not been answered, by anyone. Oh well, too bad for me.

So, the Puritans came across hoping to avoid Anglican control and therefore settled that they could not pray while governing, since prayer is an establishment of religion. By the same notion, the Bible is an establishment of religion and should therefore have no place in Congress. Yet, there it is.

That's a crock. It does not work.

[Dr Fate]

102. Not about private speech- its about a religiously neutral public govt..

Thats the freedom FROM religion- in that govt. is neutral- and does not "respect" one religion over another...

I think the Estab. clause means that the govt. should not do anything that "respects" or tends favor one belief system/establishment over another.

What do you think the Establishment Clause means?

[Dr Fate]

79. Speech is not the issue- respecting an establishment of religion is.

Look- I never said one-way-or-another that Bush cant say his prayer or whatever- I just said that you are not giving the religious clauses in the 1st Amendment a full discussion.

[sandnsea]

66. Churches are closing somewhere?

Funny, I missed it. People are free to practice their religion just as the Constitution designed. In their homes and churches. The Constitution was never designed to have religion in government. Having said that, I don't think a prayer at the inauguration is a big deal. Or the lack of one. Whatever the individual elected official wants seems reasonable to me.

[Festivito]

69. No. And free practise is not limited to church and home.

And, yes it was designed to have religion in government, specifically inserted as an amendment deigning that there be no prohibition of practice anywhere by the government.

The fact that Bush cares little about angering some people speaks to his character. But, I agree with you that he could have his prayer. If it angers some people, that is on his head. One cannot please everyone.

[sandnsea]

72. You're wrong

But I doubt you'll be convinced here. How in the world could government officials be saying prayers without that being the government practicing religion? If it were a regular, daily thing, which interestingly, it's NOT. You really need to read up on some of the other state constitutions before you make such statements about the purpose of that amendment. Particularly Virginia's.

[Festivito]

76. I guess you just cannot figure out: where?

Maybe you can please everyone!

Yes, an official praying is an official practising religion. Why would you ask how would it not be?

You have not understood that I am questioning the SCOTUS decision placing Jefferson's goal of separation of church and state as somehow a means of separation.

It is like an effective right-wing America-destroying plot to me.

Why should separation in a letter be more important than the freedom given in the Bill of Rights? It just should not be more important.

[sandnsea]

80. I don't need that letter

I've read many other statements by many other founders that supports keeping religion out of government. The Bill of Rights does not give the government the right to practice religion. The Bill of Rights are for individuals. Individuals can practice their religion as they see fit, anywhere they want. But no indivdual can use the government or a government position to further any religious principles. I honestly don't understand why anybody would want them to.

[Dr Fate]

83. "no law respecting an establishment of religion" is not in Toms letter.

It's in the Bill of Rights. Plain as day. Jefferson & Madisons private letters were studied to discern some intent. Should we ignore all background info?

I'm sure you know that Madison was concrened with the government corrupting religion, while TJ was concerned with religion corrupting government.

Bush does a damn good job of doing both, no?

[Festivito]

94. So? No one said it was. No, do'nt ignore bkgrnd. Amen. Bush stinks. nt.

[Dr Fate]

101. Er- okay- I thought you disagreed with the Establishment Clause...

...or did not agree it existed. Perhaps we are all clear now...

[Betty]

15. Considering that we are dangerously veering

towards a theocracy, I applaud anyone who raises the issue. I really wonder what this country will be like in four years, I would never have dreamed we'd be where we are now back in 2000. THe millions who voted for him this time must think that shit tastes good.

[renaissanceguy]

16. It is a dangerous precent nowadays.

I think we need to fight these little battles, because if we don't, theocracy will come like a tidal wave.

Yes, the POTUS and everyone in America has the right to exercise religion freely. But at the same time, this is not about him saying Grace before dinner. This is at an event sponsored by taxpayer dollars (along with corporations, yes). This is while he is "at work." And when you're "at work" as a government official, you should abide by the law and the will of the people. As the president, he is supposed to represent the entire nation. The entire nation is diverse of religions, faiths, beliefs, etc. He needs to be respectful of that. Now, I am aware that he doesn't care, and would rather have everyone else become a fundie Christian. That is precisely why we must fight. If we don't, believe me, FUNDAMENTALIST Christianity will be the official law of the land, to be forced upon all of us. It's very likely, folks.

http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.16472020

[jonnyblitz]

19. I agree. n/t

[JohnLocke]

21. Bullshit.

It passes the Lemon test, it's fine.

[TankLV]

23. Bah humbug!

I really think it's more appalling that bunkerboy is STILL NOT IN PRISON!

But, hey, that's just me.

[Cobalt Violet]

24. Right is right and wrong is wrong.

It's about time some did something about this wrong.

[Virginia Dem]

25. this may be the stupidest lawsuit in history

Do we really need this kind of petty crap labeled to us?

Dude needs to get a life.

Lets see.We pissed on the fundies for a year and they voted en mass and we lost...our response?Piss on them even harder.

Anyone else see the self defeating result to all this crap?

[Cobalt Violet]

28. So we should do the wrong thing for a few more votes?

I don't see them ever voting for us no matter what concessions we make for them. I don't want to sacrifice septation for a the chance of a few more votes.

[Norquist Nemesis]

48. Stupid is as stupid does

Seriously though, we need to just ignore this guy and marginalize him. The lawsuit is rediculous and it just seems to me that Mr. Newdow enjoys being the center of attention.

[JohnOneillsMemory]

81. Ever heard that running from an animal can make it chase you?

Once a predator views you as prey, you are what's for dinner.

That's how liberals have reacted to the fascist attacks on them for 30 years.

Liberals have run until they find themselves at the end a path leading to armbands and ovens. Ask survivors of the Nazis and then look around.

This fight for the Constitution is a fight FOR SURVIVAL.

[Az]

27. The pledge issue I agree on, but this one is different

The oathe of office is not required to be said on any particular religious document. It is up to the individual how they wish to be sworn in. The oathe should apply to whatever means the individual finds binding. For us atheists our word is binding. For some theists their text is what binds them.

[Zhade]

31. See post #16, I think it nails the issue.

He's doing it on our dime - including you and me, two atheists.

That's a violation.

[Charon]

35. Newdow Tries To Ban Prayer

Do not know Mr. Newdow's politics. But you can bet the Republicans will play as part of the Liberal Democratic agenda.

[Bridget Burke]

36. Thanks for letting us know what the Republicans will say.

From the heart of the Old South!

[phasev]

38. this is where I say

STFU Mr. Newdow. Your 15 minutes are over. Sit down at the back of the bus.

[Squatch]

39. Here's a question: How do you all feel about religious

symbols, texts, services in the White House?

[NCN007]

42. They dont bother me

What about Chaplains, in the military, prisons, and even congress?

[Richardo]

40. Note to Newdow: Sit down and shut up.

For Christ's sake :D

The RW pundits will anoint him spokesman for every liberal and liberalism, and hold him up as an example of what Middle America is in for if liberals ever regain power.

Thanks for nothing, idiot.

[pdxmom]

41. Thomas Jefferson offered a prayer

in his Second Inaugural Address. If Tom felt there were instances when prayer was okay at a government "function", then it's okay with me.

[AZCat]

44. Perhaps I am an ignorant fool...

But where in Jefferson's Second Inaugural Address does he offer a prayer? :shrug:

[onenote]

47. read Jefferson's final sentence

Invokes divine assistance...sounds like a prayer to me...

onenote

[pdxmom]

51. Here's what I was referring to

" I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."

[AZCat]

53. I was wondering about that...

It sounded sort of like a prayer to me, but I wasn't sure. It wasn't explicit so I didn't know if it was actually a prayer or not. Thanks for clarifying.

[Igel]

50. So how does saying a prayer imply that Congress established

a religion for all Americans?

The guy just doesn't want to be offended.

If he wants to argue "wall of separation" language, he should read Jefferson's letter. First, scrap Thanksgiving. National days of thanksgiving are what Jefferson expressly and specifically said he could not possibly establish, unlike Adams and Washington--since he could only do what Congress authorized, and Congress couldn't authorize anything dealing with religion.

Then dispose of Christmas as a federal holiday. Why should I have to be denied federal services because of a religious celebration?

Then I'll worry about being offended because of some sound waves I don't personally think are correct.

[Walt Starr]

56. This is Bush's inauguration, not the people's

Sorry, but there can be as much or as little prayer as Bush wants. It's HIS inauguration, not mine. I don't want it nor do I want anything to do with it...

just like I don't want anything to do with the mega-church about a mile from my house. I still have to pay for the law enforcement that directs traffic once church lets out on Sunday. It's not in any way shape or form an endorsement of that fucked up fundie church, it's the police protecting the rest of us from those assholes who try to get out of the parking lot onto a major highway and cause accidents in the process!

[Ian David]

58. The guy's got balls, doesn't he?

I know it will never happen, but I hope he wins.

On edit:
I don't know if his arguments are legally sound, but I still hope he wins.

I love seeing the Godwhackstake one in the chin.

[Just Me]

61. I really admire the posts on this thread. Definitely bookmarking it.

Discussions like this always keeps me coming back to DU.

So many issues are clarified in this forum.

My compliments to DU and all its participants!!!

:yourock:

[Kathryn7]

63. JFK Inaugural Address: "Here on earth God's work must truly be our own."

Inaugural Address
Friday, January 20, 1961


"Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago." ...

..."Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."



--John Fitzgerald Kennedy

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Spiffarino]

70. Judeo-Christian country?

Whose history books have you been reading? The concept of the US as a Judeo-Xtian nation is nothing more than RW blather and nonsense. The settling of the continent began with fundies, but just because most people in the country were practitioners of Christianity, the nation itself was not founded entirely on those principles.

Most of the Founding Fathers - the framers of the Declaration and the Constitution - were deists. Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Franklin weren't Christians as we think of them today. Look up the word "Deist" and get back to me.

Edit - here's a start, from Brittanica.com:

By the late 18th century Deism was the dominant religious attitude among Europe's educated classes; it was accepted by many upper-class Americans of the same era, including the first three U.S. presidents.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[onenote]

84. bullsh^t

How about a link or two, dusty...What a load of crap. Let's have some examples of how the Constitution was "founded on Biblical principles", let's see some discussion of the content and context of the biblical references in the writings of the founding fathers. I'm not gonna hold my breath, because you can't and won't provide them.
I, however, will:
http://www.bigissueground.com/atheistground/peters-churchstatereply.shtml

This article neatly answers the bogus arguments of those who claim that the US was founded as a "Christian nation" and, in particular, specifically debunks arguments based on the Lutz and Hyneman research. Scroll down around 2/3 of the way and you'll find it.

Now go do some real research or go back to your hole.

onenote

[Spiffarino]

103. Gee, you almost had me

...until you touted Bradford. It is his type of convoluted reasoning and pretzel logic that has gotten FundXtians so stirred up.

For example, he mentions how Madison used religious symbolism and words like "sin" and "sinful" to describe the nature of human beings, while ignoring the fact that, as president, Madison vetoed two bills that he considered clear violations the First Amendment. One was a measure giving federal land to a church, the other a proposal to officially incorporate an Episcopal church in Washington, DC.

Read what Madison wrote after he left office. He expands on his views of the meaning and use of the First Amendment. Perhaps it will enlighten you.

If Bradford is the basis of your reasoning that the founders were establishment Christians, there's no reason to debate this with you. Try reading a book or two that isn't completely agenda-driven.

On edit: Hey folks! Get your copy of Founding Fathers! According to the University of Kansas Press website, it's "A MAIN SELECTION OF THE CONSERVATIVE BOOK CLUB!"

[Kathryn7]

75. Jefferson wasn't a good "deist" according to his 2nd Inaug. Address

"By the late 18th century Deism was the dominant religious attitude among Europe's educated classes; it was accepted by many upper-class Americans of the same era, including the first three U.S. presidents."


Jefferson believed he was "in the hands" of the God of the Bible who led His people to the land of plenty. This isn't a deist "hands off god".

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations.” Thomas Jefferson 2nd Inaugural Address

[BBradley]

90. That's laughable.

You need to seperate public addresses from private letters. Jefferson was a deist. Admitting so in public was political suicide. You're wrong, sorry. He clearly doubts the divinity of christ in his private letters.

[Kathryn7]

93. If true, this doesn't make him a deist.

He believes in a “hands on God” of the Bible from what he says in his inaugural address. Interesting that at that time it would be political suicide to admit to being a deist. Washington took the opportunity at his Inauguration to kiss the Bible after his oath. He didn't have to do this. Obviously there was not the separation of Church and state that some are calling for nowadays.

[Spiffarino]

104. Jefferson used the term in his writings

He said in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Congregation that there needs to be a "wall of separation between church and state" which is the reason we continue to use that phrase when we speak of the Establishment clause in the Constitution.

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Having said that, it's important to note that Jefferson used a lot of religious language, mentioning "God," "the Creator," and "the Almighty" often in his public speeches and writings. It's altogether proper that he would have done so as this was the vernacular of the time and well-understood by his contemporaries to be the norm. It also shows that he was a firm believer in one's right to speak freely about religion.

While I'm considered by my conservative friends to be a "frothing liberal," I believe Jefferson was exactly correct. There should be no law or government coercion of any kind in place to keep one from exercising his or her religion freely, and there should be no law or attempt to coerce people into accepting a religion or religious practice against their will. That is why this debate continues to be important. It helps us find our common ground.

[Kadie]

82. **UPDATE - Judge: Prayers OK For Inauguration

Judge: Prayers OK For Inauguration

UPDATED: 4:51 PM EST January 14, 2005

WASHINGTON -- A federal judge has rejected an atheist's effort to prevent a Christian prayer from being recited at President George W. Bush's second inauguration.

Michael Newdow previously tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. This time, he claimed that having a minister deliver a prayer at next week's inaugural ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Attorneys for the president and his inaugural committee argued that prayer has historically been included in inaugurations dating back more than 200 years.

more...
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4083178/detail.html

[JohnOneillsMemory]

86. Hmm. 'Precedent' was used to maintain slavery, too. What a cop out.

Why isn't 'precedent' used to make the White House comply with the Constitution?

"Uh, cause it's been un-Constitutional for a long time."
"Oh. Well then OK. Nevermind."

There's an education on the slow evolution of human justice and the mechanics of using law to reverse it.

[Toucano]

97. Good luck with that. n/t

[Virginia Dem]

98. glad most see how this is self defeating

we need to pick our fights and not get caught up in non issues

[Spiffarino]

105. Amen!

...oops.

:evilgrin: