(Atheist) Newdow Appeals Inaugural Prayer Case to Supreme Court

[truthpusher]

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200501/POL20050118a.shtml

Same story @ CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/18/scotus.inauguration.prayer.ap/

Newdow Appeals Inaugural Prayer Case to Supreme Court

(CNSNews.com) - The atheist who unsuccessfully sued to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court his lawsuit to stop the inaugural prayer planned for Thursday.

Michael Newdow's challenge to the prayer was rejected by a federal district court and a federal appeals court.

"It is unfortunate that Michael Newdow continues to pursue a flawed legal strategy that really has no chance of success," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, which has challenged Newdow's lawsuits in the past.

(snip)

Newdow is also asking that Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist remove himself from consideration of the case because he will administer the oath of office to President Bush, which contains the phrase "so help me God."

"To suggest that the Chief Justice step aside from considering this case simply because he will administer the oath of office to President Bush - the same oath taken by the nation's first President George Washington - is a bizarre and troubling argument," Sekulow said.

more:

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics/200501/POL20050118a.shtml

[Modem Butterfly]

1. Good for him

It's about time we separated church and state. Let * pray on his own time (and dime, for that matter)

[Ian David]

2. I hate to say it, but he's gonna lose.

All though I pray he wins.

And the stupid fundies at townhall.com are giving him free publicity.

[truthpusher]

3. Love the 'I pray he wins' LOL n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

5. Of course he's going to lose

He's right, so they'll find some technicality to disallow it, just like his case last summer. But it's a step in the right direction.

[Bono71]

104. I wouldn't say he is necessarily right...there is already jurisprudence

on the books regarding prayer at legislative sessions (upholding such).

[JaneDoughnut]

4. Pick your battles

This seems pretty trivial to me.

[Modem Butterfly]

6. Where would you have liked him to start?

[eallen]

8. Here's a list....

(1) The fight to keep creationism, relabled as intelligent design, out of schools.

(2) Bush's faith-based initiatives.

(3) FMA.

(4) Religious-oriented sex education in public schools.

There are plenty of important, topical issues where religion dangerously mixes with politics. Newdow has focused mostly on the symbolic.

[KittyWampus]

11. Intelligent Design Is NOT Creationism Relabeled. Although Many

Fundies try to use ID to justify their belief in a God-Personhood.

[eallen]

18. Of course it is. It's old rhetoric wrapped in new verbiage.

All of ID comprises an argument of the gaps, which in the end boils down to "I can't believe this happened without god." There is no science in it. There is no proof of a designer. Just an old ploy dressed up in new clothes.

[mutus_frutex]

19. ID [u]is[/u] creationism.

I agree that it could be postulated as a hypothesis worth looking into, but that is not the case right now. It simply is creationism.

[Charlie Brown]

48. As far as its inclusion in science curriculum, yes it is

ID posits an answer that is not supported by facts, cannot be proven, and cannot even be TESTED. ID does not meet the criteria of the scientific method, and its presence in any science book is most definitely an endorsement of religion.

If you want to teach ID, do it in a philosophy or theology class.

[Just Me]

12. Your list is already covered. Newdow is proving his point.

What is his point, you might ask.

His point is that, separation of church and state does not yet exist in this country we call a "melting pot".

With respect to your other specific (you listed four) concerns, they are already being challenged.

[mutus_frutex]

20. The guy is fighting what he can..

There are several groups fighting each of those points. As I said in other post, you have to fight every possible front and he picked the those that are accessible to him.

[Modem Butterfly]

32. As has been said before, these issues are being fought...

...on several fronts. But Newdow is reaching for the constitutional low-hanging fruit- acts and traditions which blatantly violate the 1st Amendment but which are so entrenched that people ignore them.

[eallen]

43. Actually, he's going for small points that are quite a stretch.

Most of what goes on at an inauguration is ceremony, completely at the whim of the office holder. The only part of the presidential inauguration based on a legal requirement is that he takes the oath of office. What happens before and after is pretty much Bush's party. Since it doesn't affect governance, where is the constitutional issue?

I think Newdow has a significantly stronger case regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, though most people misunderstand it. The 9th circuit did not rule that the pledge must be changed. Rather, they ruled that in its current form, it should not be taught in public school. What made Newdow's case a bit of a stretch is that an earlier Supreme Court ruling had already made its recitation optional, for every student. Newdow had to argue that this was not enough. I agree. But I also think it is a small fillup on the earlier and more substantive issue.

[RaleighNCDUer]

153. We are conditioned to think they are entrenched.

"In God We Trust" has only been mandated to be on the currency since 1957. The republic got along without it just fine for 180 years.

"Under God" has only been in the pledge since 1956. The pledge was originally written only in 189?.

Yet these are used as excuses for inserting religion into government, whenever the question comes up. If these violations of the establishment clause are repealed, it will make beating back further violations all the easier.

[mutus_frutex]

17. Yes, to YOU

Not for all the atheists in this country that feel like second class citizens.

They only strategy that is not doomed to fail is to fight the believers at every turn. The same is valid when fighting the right wing takeover of the government.

[goddess40]

41. easy to say when you're part of the majority and not

part of the persecuted minority. Yes I said persecuted - ask the guy who's facing recall because he won't stand for the pledge. Ask my kids who get hassled for not saying under god and for being atheists.

[JaneDoughnut]

94. I'm not part of the majority, actually

I consider myself secular. However, I don't think it does anyone any good if we try to block all public expression of religion. That simply isn't realistic, and it creates a dangerous backlash. I agree with the above poster, let's focus on the issues that go beyond symbolism, such as the attempt by the religious right to undermine science.

[RaleighNCDUer]

154. There's a difference between public expression and public mandate.

IMO, if * wants to say, 'So help me God' in his oath, that's fine with me. It is a personal choice and maybe it will encourage him to be honest.

But the government has no business demanding homage to religion, such as in the pledge. And saying you can just sit it out, not say the words while everyone around you says them, is a refusal to acknowlege that it puts undue pressure on the one to conform with the many.

There is nothing 'symbolic' about the pledge. It is a primary source of the problem.

[OldVlad]

101. call me cynical about your persecution

but it sounds more self imposed then anything. Also it sounds like you kind of enjoy it. Rational, reasonable, evolved cerebral cortexes wouldn't go looking to tweak noses unless they wanted a response. If you really don't believe in God, why not say "under God" anyways? What, are you "going to hell" for uttering it? Refusing the Pledge pigeonholes liberals as being "unpatriotic" more then it does unreligious. Brilliant. Seems like such a stupid thing to get exercised about, such an unneccessarily provoking way to not practice any religion, (and a ploy for attention *wink*).

I couldn't possibly care less if you are an athiest, because it really is a free country, but I do care that when you do your little local publicity to piss off your neighbors, you always refer to yourselves as "Republicans" m-kay?

[eallen]

106. That's pretty facile. Would you be happy saying "under Allah"?

I think most people are reluctant to take a pledge that puts into their mouth words from which they dissent. I don't see how anyone with a smidgeon of integrity could do what you suggest, without suffering a sense of hypocrisy and shame.

[OldVlad]

112. What a strawman, can't you do better then that?

First, if the President was Muslim, he has every right in my country to practice in the public square that which differs from the majority of Americans. Now where he to try that in any muslim country on earth the reaction would be decidedly different. (Also if he were a Christian in America there is some passive aggressive suppression of that right also, sadly)

Second, this isn't Rosa Parks-dissent, this is pretentious grandstanding, lets be clear. If you are an atheist thoses words logically are meaningless, and somewhat amusing. Besides its saying that this country's majority chose to be under God, which they do, not the athiest themselves. Its a statement of fact, not a baptism of the atheist.

Third, I consider a greater shame is losing the most hotly contested election in years to a moron like Bush far more important. Some on here (eg: you) are so angry with Christians that their emotion has gotten the best of them. Besides, my suggestion wasn't that they stop their little publicity stunts at all! It was that they call themselves Republicans when doing it. Far too many Dems have played into Rove's hands of pigeonholing the rest of us as unpatriotic, rabidly secular, and elitist snobs. If you don't recognize that reality, stay out of politics.

[eallen]

120. You're wrong on almost all points.

First, the words "under God" are not meaningless to an atheist. We know quite well what the words mean. They merely express something we don't believe. Second, the phrase is not "one nation, where most believe in God," but "one nation under God." Its affirmation logically implies a belief in God. Your notion that pledging such should not be objectionable to an atheist is either disingenuous or shows a remarkable inability to understand how it is not to believe what you believe.

Third, if you read my other posts in this thread, you'll see that I'm one of the atheists who agrees that Newdow is going too far, grandstanding over small issues when there are much larger ones at stake.

[OldVlad]

123. Can't I be wrong on all of them just for consistency's sake?

First, the words "under God" are not meaningless to an atheist.

They most certainly are meaningless, unless you have doubts about such lack of beliefs. I can understand such insecurities in that case, otherwise I think you are more then old enough to merely mouth those words or say it and laugh off the silly superstitous God worshipers rather than pouting and forcing a negative response. Even a 5 year old realizes if they throw a tantrum during something the adults hold dear, there's going to be a negative reaction.

Second, the phrase is not "one nation, where most believe in God," but "one nation under God."

Its also "indivisable" in the very next line, yet it is not, and you are free to not say the pledge in this country. Now you aren't free from consequences, and if individuals dislike you for such splitting of infinitives that's their perogative. I happen to find refusing to say the pledge offensive myself, that doesn't mean I'm going to vandalize your house, but it doesn't mean I'm compelled to respect or like you. Furthermore, if I didn't already agree with you on which party I voted for, and I was a "swing" voter, I sure as "hell" would chose the other side. Keep that in mind.

Your notion that pledging such should not be objectionable to an atheist is either disingenuous or shows a remarkable inability to understand how it is not to believe what you believe.

Sorry, but I've been around the block enough times to be able to see the difference between persecution and pretention. FYI, I used to BE an athiest, and draw on that experience here in remembering how much I did indeed argue exactly as you are now, and that I was the one who was disingenuous about my motives, which were primarily for attention and to feign victimhood.

I'm one of the atheists who agrees that Newdow is going too far, grandstanding over small issues when there are much larger ones at stake.

Wonderful, then you aren't one of these religious hating zealots that leaps at any chance to attack and are perfectly capable of realizing that my main objection to this is that its political kryptonite.

[eallen]

125. See, I actually agree with your last point.

I would have preferred had Newdow never brought either of his suits. The problem is, as others have pointed out, what am I supposed to do about it? It's not the case that atheists act in unison, have some common set of beliefs, share political priorities, or have access to some mechanism for moderating fellow atheists who do things most might prefer them not to do.

Now, as to your other points, you seem to be confused about the difference between "meaningless" and "false." You also seem to think that people should be willing to pretend to things they don't believe, so that others will view them as adequate citizens. Sorry, comrade, but persuading someone that my political view deserves a hearing isn't worth it, if it requires me first to put on a false mask to pass someone's test of patriotism. One of the scariest things about this nation's current course is precisely that that is becoming more and more the case. How do I change that, by giving in to it?

[OldVlad]

127. there's a difference between persuading and demanding

You also seem to think that people should be willing to pretend to things they don't believe, so that others will view them as adequate citizens.

I see where you are coming from, and I think its my fault for not being clearer; while I can see that this bothers you and I am telling you to do it anyways, its appears I am saying that so that you appear as a good person.

1)I don't really care if you do appear patriotic, just as I expect you not to care when you tweak someone's nose that they don't like or respect you. People aren't going to like you for your beliefs, no matter how right you feel you are, that's just part of growing up. But I am asking you for something, the one popularity contest that matters;voting. We have been assumed to be an Athiest party, which is fine, but we are also associated with being anti and intolerent of the religious. I would say we agree that this stance is crossing the line between seperation of church & state to oppression.

I view this pouting during the pledge to be the same PR disaster. Now we could have another misunderstanding, if you are saying that you are not refusing the pledge, just agreeing with those who do in principle then I understand. Its just the act itself that I was argueing against, not the opposition to the wording. If you want to change it though, don't go the 5 year old route though, you won't be scoring any points, use reason.

If you are holding your breath to turn blue until somebody agrees with you, I'd recommend the saying "don't hold your breath"

[goddess40]

150. Your rational is the reason people can go and kill innocent people

They won't say this war is wrong and they go and kill because "they signed up". Sorry but making excuses for going along for something you don't believe in is unamerican and unpatriotic.
Forcing someone to say they believe in god is reminiscent of the Inquisition - granted on a much smaller scale. But if people go along for fear of being branded a horrible unworthy person the outcome is the same. Similar to a women who has been battered in the past and recognizes the tone of voice the abuser uses so she can avoid further beatings. Lest you think it isn't similar people can lose they jobs and they can be and are excluded from social inclusion over this stupid issue. I wish it weren't true but it is and I find very few people that are believers that have even the slightest clue about the reality of the situation. Most think since we don't believe we get what we have coming.

[RaleighNCDUer]

155. You sound even more cynical about the pledge.

It may not be written down anywhere, but it is generally accepted that a lie in any part of an oath makes the entire oath a lie. A great many people who would otherwise be happy to say the pledge will refuse to be a party to that lie. Simply restoring the pledge to its original wording would satisfy them all.

I pledge allegiance to the flag, and to the republic for which it stands; one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Now, what's wrong with that?

[eallen]

7. As an atheist, I think he is digging at ever less substantive issues.

Arguing over the artwork on a city seal, or trying to tell elected officials how to arrange their own inauguration, just provides fodder for the religious right. It makes those of us who believe in separation of church and state look silly.

[moobu2]

9. I support the guy but

He'll lose this one.

I'd like to see a complete separation, complete and total. No prayers in local school board meetings, no references to God at all in any form whatsoever in regards to our goverment..

[Wisc Badger]

10. Boy you posters sure seem to hate religion.

:shrug:

[nicho]

13. and Democrats wonder why we lose elections

supporting an athiest agenda is not going to help.

[mutus_frutex]

28. Religions are inherently discriminatory..

Therefore, a liberal must fight for a secular society. The Democrats should stand for what is right: a secular society that treats citizens (whatever they might believe or not) as equals.

[nicho]

91. I am satisfied that our society is secular

I do not want laws banning references to religion or God. I do not want laws that ban prayer in public places because that would violate the 1st amendment specifically but a violation of freedom in general as well.

[eallen]

102. Has ANYONE ever proposed such things?

There is a lot of right-wing spin on these issues. They oft will claim that the ACLU is trying to remove religion from the "public square," when in fact the ACLU is at the forefront of defending individuals who would express their religion in public. In a recent case, they came to the defense of sidewalk preachers in Las Vegas.

But the ACLU also opposes state support for religion, something that is much narrower than "religious expression in the public square," that is quite consistent with their defense of people who wish to express their religious views publicly, and in my view, Constitutionally correct.

I have never heard of anyone who has wanted to ban prayer in public places, or references to religion or gods.

[mutus_frutex]

111. The ban is inherent in the First Amendment

And is a ban based on neutrality, not on negation. Any law that is not neutral with respect to religious belief is unconstitutional.

And it applies only to the government, i.e. it protects the people from the government. It protects EVERYBODY, believers and non-believers.

Therefore:

1) No laws should be made banning references to god because no laws should be made that reference god.

2) Any public forum made available by the government must be neutral. Thus, any religious invocation in a public forum provided by the government is unconstitutional.

3) This is not a violation of anybodies freedom since that person or non-government organization can always arrange for a non-government provided forum to express their opinions/beliefs.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

128. Good luck with that

Since most of us wildly disagree with your interpretation. There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution, despite the fact that some people keep trying to write it in there. It is freedom OF religion and allows you to practice or not at your whim.

[mutus_frutex]

151. I know you favor a dictatorship of the majority

I have seen some of your other posts (If it makes you proud, I delurked to answer some of your posts :-).

Regretfully, in this case your founding father were sufficently visionary to preclude the fascist tendencies of most believers. The first amendment clearly prohibits the installation of the religion of the majority by way of the government.

It is funny how some people put more weight on one part of the first amendment than in the other. I personally like the balance of it, its neutrality.

And I must confess that this is rather theoretical to me since I'm not an american citizen, although I live in this country, I pay its taxes, I'm subjected to its laws and, hopefully, I have the same right that americans have..

[RaleighNCDUer]

158. Perhaps we need to clarify 'society' and 'public'.

There are two definitions of 'public' in our republic. One is the populace at large and the spaces that are open to that populace. A movie theater or a mall is 'public'. The other is 'that which belongs to the citizens'. The goverment controls such public places as road, government buildings, parks, etc. If an individual wants to stand in front of the courthouse waving his bible and harrangueing the people, he has that right. If a government official inside that same building insists on repeating the same bible passages to his subordinates before work in the morning, he has no such right. If a guy wants to put a cross up on his property, so that every person going by on the road will see it, he has that right. If a government official puts a cross up on his office building, he has no such right. If a football player wishes to pray before a game, he has that right. If a coach insists that his team prays before a game, he has no right, for he is a public employee.

Likewise, secular is misunderstood. Our society is neither secular nor religious, nor can it be. Portions of our society are either or both. But the society is not the government. The government is mandated to be secular -- that is it, as an entity, can have no opinion on religion one way or the other. Of course, individuals who work within the government will have all the beliefs of the society (except, no avowed atheist can get elected - don't doubt there are plenty of atheists who are civil servants, though). Those individuals are prevented by law from using the forum (public place) of the government to mandate their personal beliefs.

I know I tend to wax pedantic, but one aspect of being an atheist (except for those atheistic religion haters, who use atheism as their religion) is that it is an expression of rationality. And it seems to me that most the posters here are not speaking with rationality.

[RaleighNCDUer]

156. As an atheist, I don't mind a religiously inclined society

but I must insist on a secular government. It is, after all, guaranteed in the first amendment.

[mutus_frutex]

162. I partially agree with you..

(And, by the way, I do try to speak rationally, just saw your other message.. :-)

I personally aspire to have a secular society since in it people would find it easier to fulfill what I consider to be the founding pillars of this country: life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

I do, however, DEMAND a secular government.

So, were are probably not so different.. :-)

[Modem Butterfly]

34. What is an atheist agenda?

Seriously. Where is it? What's on it? I can already imagine what Sunday morning looks like:

8 AM: Wake up for church, realize you're an atheist, go back to sleep

[Just Me]

47. Democrats support DEMOCRACY (eg ALL "the people").

BUSHCO, INC. supports only those who can be manipulated, chewed and spit out.

[girl gone mad]

14. I don't have anything against religion.

But I do dislike having other people's superstitions forced upon me or my family.

[nicho]

16. US constitution guarantees freedom of religion

not freedom from religion.

[Just Me]

21. Okay, explain distinction: freedom OF rather than FROM religion.

Do you believe none of us should be free FROM your religion? Or should we NOT be free FROM Buddhism, FROM Judaism, FROM Islam, FROM Wicca, FROM Hinduism, FROM "new age", FROM Christianity?

The Constitution fails to guarantee we ARE NOT FREE from which of the foregoing religions?

How can one have freedom of religion without being free from ANY specific religion? :shrug:

I am sure your wisdom will enlighten us all on this poignant issue.

[nicho]

24. no, I have no problem hearing call to morning prayers

that they always show on TV on reports about muslim countries.


I am somewhat annoyed by TV evangelists but I simply change the channel.

what is interesting is you can do a TV show about religion, you can have a religious TV show, but if a prayer is recited before a president is sworn in, people are offended.

[Just Me]

33. We, are the United States of America!!!! A "melting pot"!!!

We are supposed to be exceptional in our respect for, acceptance of and invitation to diversity.

Everyone can turn off their stupid TV.

Tomorrow, who has the choice to "turn off" a leader who is basically imposing his FAUX "Christian" religion on the rest of the diverse people,...fundamentally proving his own disrespect for that "great melting pot" the U.S. of A. is supposed to represent?

Point your finger anywhere,...and you will always have four pointing back at you.

Even the pResident, himself, stated that one should never pluck a splinter from one's eye when you have a log in your own eye.

[nicho]

45. does that include religious diversity??

apparently some believe it does not. Freedom of Religion is Constitutional. "Diversity" including religious diversity and freedom of thought is a result of living in a free society.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

that is not only from the 1st amendment but the 1st clause of the 1st amendment. "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

where does it say the President cannot make reference to God while taking his oath of office??

[Modem Butterfly]

51. Let him pray on his own dime and on his own time

If his religion demands that he pray, then fine, no problem. Pray up a storm, Big Guy. But when it comes to the people's time and the people's money, then let's just keep it about business, 'kay?

[nicho]

54. he can choose to pray or not

that is what I like.

[Modem Butterfly]

57. Yes, on his own dime and on his own time

When he's at a state-sponsored event in his head of state capacity, let him keep his personal life separate from the nation's business.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

129. You would restrict his freedom to pray

And the Constitution specifically forbids that.

[Modem Butterfly]

141. He's perfecty free to pray

And worship as he pleases. On his own time. Just like any other government employee.

[Just Me]

38. BTW. You avoided the distinctions, didn't you,...you buggar!!!

Why don't you answer how "freedom of religion" can be accomplished without "freedom from religion"?

I'll bet you won't even try.

I'll bet you'll spin/divert/bullshit round and round and round.

And, I'll bet that I'll have every rational reason to conclude that you are just being manipulative rather than "real" or "rational".

I'll wait and see.

[Just Me]

66. HELLO,...I am waiting. BTW. Do you find "theocracy" appealing?

Moreover, do you believe the "balance of powers" is a bad thing or a good thing for "democracy"?

[nicho]

84. what is your question and I'll be happy to try and answer

n/t

[Just Me]

133. HOW MANY TIMES MUST I ASK? How many times will you evade?

:bounce: just like your talented psy-optic government :bounce:

Anyhoots, I'll get back to pinning you down on the "freedom OF religion" versus "freedom FROM religion" YOU perpetrated on this "scene",...ya' buggar.

Do you believe the Constitution fails to FREE us FROM your religion? If so,...PROVE that the Constitution protects you and your religion from the rest of this so-called "melting pot" (U.S.A.) rather than defends the freedom of the rest of us who fall within the (now divided states by the likes of you and your psychopathic leader)the rest of the realm of diversity: Buddhism, Judaism, Islam, Wicca, Hinduism, "new age", etc.?

The Constitution fails to guarantee we ARE NOT FREE from which of the foregoing religions (including your pathetic, control-freak, hitlerish crap)?

How can one have freedom of religion without being free from ANY specific religion?

[nicho]

144. of course not!!!

The Constitution in NO WAY frees me FROM RELIGON. That is absurd. I can choose any religion I desire, if I desired to do so.

I am free from any other religion I choose. I am NOT free from hearing people discuss it or mention it. If I were deaf and blind I could probably choose to remain almost 100% oblivious to it. but as is I can disregard it, learn about it, adopt it, curse it, mock it, or ignore it.

[OldVlad]

147. Perhaps you should read the 1st Amendment

It would help with all this mad libs you are playing;

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.

Italics added by me, see how obvious it is, your bizzare addition of "from" is not only not there in sentiment, word or deed, it is EXPRESSLY denied because "freedom from the religious", "enforced silence in the public square", "censorship" or whatever euphomism you wish to call it concerning ones faith not only is a direct contradiction of the free exercise, it blatently violates the freedom of speech.

I hope that is clearer for you now why you and Newdow are obviously wrong about American government.

[AliciaKeyedUp]

130. Freedom OF religion allows you to practice or not

It doesn't stop me from practicing or running for office as a faithful person.

[Just Me]

134. Freedom FROM religion allows you "choice",...freedom to choose. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

39. Do you understand the difference between a TV show...

...and a state ceremony?

In the one instance, private funds are used to produce, promote and present a TV show. In the other instance, public funds are used to produce, promote, and present a religious ceremony.

[nicho]

53. do you know the 1st amendment?

if you think the recital of a prayer is establishment of a religion then you probably believe in the Devinci Code as well.

taxpayers pay for many things that government does they don't agree with. Heck, Republicans control the entire government and we are paying for it.

[Modem Butterfly]

It's precisely the 1st amendment that protects us from this

Congress shall make no law respecting a relgion or prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Let theists fund their own religious exercises. The state, representing all people, has a more serious agenda.

[nicho]

71. Congress made no law requiring the president to say

"So help me God". this was added by Lincoln I believe maybe earlier.

here is what the Constitution REQUIRES the president to say:

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

there is no reference to God or religion. If he wanted to say "Lets have a peanut butter sandwich and a beer" he could do that too.


there is no law that says the president must say, "so help me God"

[Modem Butterfly]

74. And your point is?

[nicho]

82. that the president is free to refer to God just as you and I are

free to do so.

[Modem Butterfly]

108. Refer? Sure!

Use public money to finance religious ceremonies? No.

[RaleighNCDUer]

160. Are you two going back and forth over two different things?

* has a right to add 'so help me god' to his oath -- it is not mandated.

OTOH, there should be no invocation before the oath. That violates the 1st amendment, for it puts the government in a position of calling upon a very specific diety in doing its business. It doesn't even have to be a specific deity -- just the inference that there is a deity is in defiance of the the establishment clause.

One is the individual. The other is the government, meaning all of us. And since I am not a theist, I am automatically excluded from being 'all of us'.

[Just Me]

135. So, if he adhered to Hinduism or SATANISM,...it's okay with you.

That's what you're saying, YES?

What if he were SATAN pretending to be "Christian" in order to profit off your ignorance?

Would you be advocating for this "man" if he turned out to be a mask of a vacuum for profit off life?

BAH!!!

You take for granted the only power you have been given.

Why the hell would you even try to "listen" to "Just Me".?

[nicho]

137. Sure, then you'd know he was Satan right??

any president who is Christian should absolutely continue to reveal where he stands.

and any athiest president should have the conviction to state so publically even if that meant NOT saying "so help me God".

any muslim president should say "so help me Allah".

the philosophy of a president is certainly something we should be cognizant of. the information, of course, should be known well before the election and I assume people would take this into consideration before casting their vote.

conviction is certainly something we should expect in a president.

[RaleighNCDUer]

161. I yearn for a conviction of this president. n/t

[dmallind]

46. Freedom of must by nature include freedom from - and the difference

between calls to prayer, religious TV, and governmental religion.

The last one first:

I don't object to televangelists being able to produce TV shows either. That's because I'm NOT - and very very few atheists indeed are trust me I have been in organized atheism for a while an d know hundreds - anti-religion. However there is a HUGE difference between a private individual or company choosing to make a religious, or atheistic, or heck even Satanist (for reference we don't believe in him either :-)) product of any kind and selling it in the free marketplace. That's what makes us better, at least for now and leats in this area, than the Islamist - as opposed to Islamic - governments. Such is freedom of religion.

However when the government, using the full might and grandeur of its power to impose and control, as well as using revenue raised from a pluralistic society, determines that we must, not can but MUST, show faith in any or all gods, then there is a problem. By having my president (legally speaking) promise to ask the help of a specific deity, the oath of office (or the pledge or whatever), is making me a second class citizen because I do not accept that deity. It demeans my president and my country. It demeans me as a citizen thereof, when we mewl and beg for the putative approval and aid of a mythical figure.

Just me did a better job of showing why freedom of must include freedom from so I won't rehash the same points. All I would add is that the government absolutely does not, cannot and should not promise us a society free from religion or religious voices - that would be tyrrany against the religious and absolutely unacceptable. It should however, yet sadly does not, promise us a government free from religion. Not - never - an ANTI religious government. Just one that takes no position whatsoever and allows its citizens, with their thousands of different belief systems, free from exclusion or coercion or pressure, and free only to follow their own conscience. When government takes a position on religion however trivial it is excluding and pressuring those of its citizens who do not follow that belief - and this cannot result in an equal and just society - and it does not.

[nicho]

60. apparently he has CHOSEN to have a prayer

He could very easily have chosen NOT to have prayer. You erroneously claim that we MUST have a prayer, when it is you who are demanding that we must NOT have any prayer.

[truthpusher]

136. it's so basic...

...no religion period...no matter what the circumstance...Fuck Tradition...Tradition is an intangible when it compares to something that is alive, like equality for all. Tradition is specific only to you and yours, equality is specific to all. Tradition is a dead concept, it only exists to propagate ones own heritage and ignores others...of course I am speaking of tradition respect to a government that is supposed to promote equality.

[eallen]

22. That is one of the religious right's favorite aphorisms.

Especially when they want to mix church and state.

[OldVlad]

36. Ever hear the Kenny Rodger's song the Gambler?

If you are recognizing that conservatives like to say that phrase you are half way there, but the rest is that Rove wants you to attack people who defend religion as using "aphorisms" as well as calling them ignorant, superstitous...you name it. The more insulting, the more Dems are shown as demonizing Christians, the better for him. He's setup quite a trap, and some, even here, can't seem to stop stepping on the end of the hoe and smacking themselves in the face.

"You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em, know when to walk away, and know when to run."

I suggest "run" at this point, stop playing his game alienating 80% of the voting population. They'll never be a Church of England here compelling attendance in America. This issue is a nonstarter in reality, on some level I think its actually there to provoke some within our ranks, but politically its been an absolute goldmine for the GOP. Frankly I don't have much hope that the damage done can be reversed.

[OldVlad]

29. Amen to that

Call me "superstitious" but I just don't "forsee" a whole lot of hope from that strategy of trying to silence these folks in the public square.

[Just Me]

42. No one's "God" ever commanded them to be gullible or irrational.

At least, not that I've ever read *LOL*!!!

[RetroLounge]

30. Thanks Rush.

RL

[nicho]

37. mocking those that disagree with you

is another reason that us democrats lose. I am a practicing Catholic and appreciate my right to do so in this country. You have your right to be faithless. I can respect that. However, it is obvious that you do not respect people of faith.

and again I ask, why do you think democrats lose elections? You will not get very far with contempt for people of faith. Just ask Howard Dean.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

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

[mutus_frutex]

85. I'm just wondering:

What category from my original post do you fall into? Are you a fundamentalist catholic or do you pick and choose?

[nicho]

87. the Priori of Scion

if you must know.

[mutus_frutex]

99. I have to confess that

your reference, as spelled, escapes me.. :-)

I would like to clarify my original message too. Although it might seem that what I wrote is my personal opinion and that I was just trying to be offensive, it is an statement of facts: Moral codes, as included in most religious dogma, are incompatible. This fact forces you to the situation I described. In the case of the roman catholic church, this is quite clear since the dogma is very well delineated. Protestants and all the other related churches are a lot more wishy-washy going from the extreme of the biblical fundamentalist churches to churches that want to be "nice" to everybody and dilute the dogma until it is barely recognizable.

As you can see, I try to be pretty cool-headed in these kind of discussions. I hope you don't get offended easily (and if you do, I'm certainly sorry).

Cheers...

[OldVlad]

92. Nice, the American Catholics carry Dems in IL, MA, CA, NY...

For the life of me I don't understand why the Darwin crowd is so angry at the Christians that they insist on cutting off their own noses...

[Modem Butterfly]

115. What,exactly, is the Darwin crowd?

[OldVlad]

146. he had "Darwin" as his icon

and there seems to be a strange subculture of those that fancy themselves scientist who really have it in for the Christians. Apparently some Christians' weird denial of evolution has left these people suspect of them, or worse. This guy got his post deleted when he went off on some bizarre hatefilled tangent towards "American Catholics" which last time I checked was our bread and butter in so many areas. Why he attacked them out of no where was what caused me to use that word.

[Modem Butterfly]

174. Okay, so it was just a stupid flame

Got it.

:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

35. How can you have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion?

If I'm forced to choose a religion, how soon will it be before someone decides that you must choose from their religious choices?

[nicho]

40. who forced you to choose a religion??

please explain.

[Modem Butterfly]

44. You're using MY money to promote a religion

I have to support the President's prayer. How is that NOT forcing me to choose a religion?

[nicho]

49. why do you have to support his prayer??

elaborate please.

the president's evangelical faith will not convince me to convert from Catholicism

[Modem Butterfly]

52. I'm forced to pay taxes

He's praying at an event I paid for. He's praying in a capacity that I fund. I'm supporting his prayer. He's forcing me to support his religion.

[nicho]

86. so does he force you to support the Iraq war too??

and do you now since you apparently you pay taxes and thus are culpable?

[Modem Butterfly]

110. As a matter of fact, yes he is

And thanks for asking!

[nicho]

138. I'm glad I revealed it to you.

in this Democracy, the victorious rule. we still have our obligations as citizens to contribute to society. we may certainly not agree with our representatives, but then again, every so often we have the opportunity to campaign and elect.

[Modem Butterfly]

142. "in this Democracy, the victorious rule"

I don't even know where to start with this one.

[OldVlad]

59. Um...they've been saying "so help me God" since Washington

I have to support the President's prayer. How is that NOT forcing me to choose a religion?

Lets keep a little composure here and not start acting all chicken-little. Every single President does this, Bush doesn't corner the market on it, and criticizing him cedes that ground to him. In fact FDR said that, so did Kennedy and Clinton. There is a treasure trove of things to attack Bu$h on, but to claim that repeating these common words at a state function is forcing YOU of all people to choose a religion sounds hysterical & small. Pick your battles a little here, you don't want to diminish all the real things * is doing to this country right?

[Modem Butterfly]

62. And until 1920, every President was elected without women voting

Just because something has been done a certain way a long time doesn't make it right, and just because there are other battles to be won doesn't mean you should continue to ignore a blatant violation of the Constitution.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

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

[Bono71]

100. Good grief where have you been, my man?

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one with the views you espouse. Welcome aboard.

Oh, and you had me at hello.

[Modem Butterfly]

113. Can't you make your point without personal insults?

Until 1920 it was traditional for women to be denied the right to vote. Yet tradition didn't make it right. And it is traditional to pray at Presidential inaugurations. Yet tradition doesn't make that right either.

Yeah, but you're still here, it proves that you weren't "forced" to take their "religion" and were, are, and always will be quite free to not believe.

And yet, I have to pay for it. How is that right?

Your overstatements and victimhood claims do affect the real world, they marginalized Gore, they marginalized Kerry, and I don't think it was either of the men's fault. I blame this chicken-little crying from people like you for their losses.

Please stop the hysterics.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[Modem Butterfly]

65. And yet, I have to pay for it

So much for not being a captive audience.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

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

[Modem Butterfly]

73. Not the "swearing in" part

If the President wants to have a private prayer breakfast with Enron financing, more power to him. If he wants a prayer breakfast with MY money, there's a problem.

[seriousstan]

25. When you are elected President refuse to say "so help me God".

[dmallind]

27. Neither hateful nor trivial

Atheism is not anti-faith. It is simply the absence of faith. Trying to hold the last remaining shreds of secularity in US government together is certainly not trivial.

It's easy to speak as a believer, or heck even an apathetic nonbeliever, and say that it's no big deal that we have reference to mythical figures on our currency, in our courts, on our town halls, in our schools and in our Congress. However think of all the references to "God" in government and public life. Now change the word to Buddha or Zeus. Still doesn't sound important? Bear in mind that every time a public official affirms the supremacy of some bronze-age deity over the law and common good of the people they are implicitly and even explicitly saying that something - ANYTHING - is more important than the benefit of the nation. Not a good idea. They are also saying - every time - that the tens of millions of nonbelievers in this country are not fully involved or included in its government - that we must trust in, swear to or give thanks to something we regard as a figment of the imagination no less than Superman.

Would it be OK to have the same oaths to him? If we had would you be able to empathize with how degrading this is to concerned nonbelievers that everyone else thinks it's important we swear oaths and allegiance to a comic book hero? to BELIEVERS there is a huge difference between your god and Superman but to nobelievers there is absolutely zero in and of the constructs themselves. Sure belief in gods has more influence on society. Sure there are more people who take it seriously than Superman - but the ideas themselves are identical.

Furthermore while on the surface these fights semm trivial - does it really matter what money has printed on it and so on - the influence and meaning runs far deeper. It's a rare debate with an Xian where they don't bring up the motto as "proof" that we are an Xian country and therefore should subscribe to theocratic laws. This kind of thing is EXACTLY equal to the idea of declaring terminal damage to a fetus as a homicide. In and of itself it may not be a big deal, but it sets up a framework that assigns full humanity and full human rights to a fertilized egg. The governmental and public sponsorship and endorsement of religious messages however mundane does the same thing - it establishes a framework that gives us religion-dominated laws. That's why all battles to secularize - NOT "atheismize" - government are important.

[nicho]

31. US not created in a religious vacuum

thus your comparison to Zeus is not realistic. The anti-establishment clause does not mandate that government avoid any references to God. there is no declaration of Christianity or even monotheism by the US Government.

when an atheist is elected president he can choose not pray at the inaugeration. However, the important thing is that he not only have that choice but if he WERE a buddhist he would be free to choose an appropriate prayer in that case as well.

and I also would disagree with you on conferring rights to an embryo. if a woman is murdered whether she is in the 1st or 9th month, in this situation I would maintain that the child was murdered as well.

[dmallind]

67. Realistic? What has realism to do with faith?

Without getting into the whole argument again of what the FFs meant by "Creator" or what religion they were (because IMO at least it matters not one whit - we are not hidebound to their personal examples thankfully!) the first amendment absolutely DOES mandate that government avoid endorsing religion.

I suspect (not wanting to put words in your mouth so I'll work on previous debates I have had) a lot of this thinking comes from the canard that the establishment clause refers only to a national mandated religion, so that hypothetically the government could endorse religion in general but not a particular one.

The problem there is what the heck does the "thereof" refer to then in the free exercise clause? Whatever their failings the FFs were far from sloppy or careless linguists and there is absolutely no grammatical alternative to the "thereof" in the exercise clause referring to the exact same thing as the establishment clause. Think about that for a moment - what else could it possibly be? So in other words then if only a national mandated religion cannot be established, only a national mandated religion has its exercise protected. This of course is nonsense you say - and you're right.

It's nonsense because the establishment clause does NOT refer to a nationalized faith. However the clauses must and do refer to the same thing - ANY religious belief, from Festivus to black masses to speaking in tongues to so-called strong atheism. Government can establish none, and we can practice any or none as we see fit. Now if government can establish - which under the Lemon test is quite a restrictive limit which certainly includes mottoes and oaths etc - no religious position at all, how can it officially sanction the use of "God". Only (parts of) two religions refer to their deity as capitalized generic term. Many many religions do not. Certainly atheists acknowledge no god or God. So even by using and funding the use of these words in an official capacity, government is establishing a religious viewpoint.

[nicho]

80. read the amendment again

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

There is no law that says the president must state "so help me God"

you are overanalyzing. "thereof" means religion. Congress cannot pass a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, which is exactly what you want it to, or you want a court to declare it so.

[dmallind]

93. You however are UNDERanalyzing

If thereof refers to religion then so does establishment> Surely you must agree with that.

Since when did the exercise of Christianity necessitate a public oath of office refer to God? In fact doesn't Matthew 5.6 say Xians should NOT pray publicly? You seem to be saying I want to stop Shrubby being a believer. Nothing could be further from the truth. If his belief, however ill-considered I think it to be, is what stops a guy with his finger on the button from being an alcoholic then may he never become an atheist.

You are not acknowledging the difference between what GWB the man (and I use the term loosely) is legally allowed to do and what GWB the President (and I use the term even more loosely) is, or rather should be, legally allowed to do. I care not one whit if Shrubbie moans unto the almighty for hours on end in the Lincoln Bedroom. I care not if he asks Jehovah whether he should have peas or carrots for dinner. I care if the POTUS, in his official capacity as my and my country's nominal leader, in one of the most integral and important acts of pomp and circumstance in our political calendar, uses the grandeur and spectacle of the US Government to declare, implicitly, that I am less of a citizen because I do not acknowledge this god whose help he apparently needs. For example if by some incredible stroke of luck an atheist gets elected and takes the oath of office and says at the end "so help me reason and an abiding disbelief in the ridiculous myth of gods" would that trouble you one whit? Would that not be a bit of slap in the face for you? Would you not wonder how that thinking affects his policy decisions and whether they may affect you negatively?

Now here's the thing - I - yes I - would indeed disagree with that. I'd love the concept, but not agree with its imposition on a pluralistic society by a man acting in his official capacity as the leader of that society - that would be exclusive and insulting and wrong. If of course he said it to me in an inauguration ball in a private discussion I would heartily agree - but NOT with his using the power of the POTUS to make a public proclamation.

[nicho]

143. I want him to make a proclamation!!

I want to know where he stands, whomever the president may be. If that faith is what prevents him from falling off the wagon, I want to know that. Do you not think that's useful information to know when you make a determination to select a president??? and you should have the conviction to declare your allegiances or lack thereof if you ever ran for public office.

I would expect an athiest to NOT say "so help me God"!!! but because we already knew he was an athiest because he is a man of conviction and openess and disclosed his beliefs to the American public, he nevertheless was defeated.

I don't know why you don't understand that clause in the Constitution. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The word "thereof" refers back to "of relgion" otherwise it would be repeticious and state "....an establishment OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise OF RELIGION"

perhaps I am mistaken in inferring that you take "establishment of religion" to mean a religious establishment as in a Church congregation???? In declaring a state religion?? That, of course, would be an incorrect interpretation of the Amendment.

[dmallind]

179. Not so

I'm glad you agree that both clauses must refer to the same thing. You are rare amongst believers I have debated before in admitting this much.

So if any religion can be freely exercised - any religion at all - what is it that can't be established? Exactly the same surely - any religion at all - any specific, group of, sub sect of, etc etc.

With me so far?

So what does establish mean? Well in SC and Appeals court precedent it has been taken to mean government sponsorship of, funding of, endorsement of, or preference for any religious position over another. Check Lemon and Abingdon etc.

So if establishment means those things and establishment is prohibited, why can you not see that a government-sponsored display or oath of religious nature which obviously gives preference to one religion is the same thing? The only way this could pass muster is if the oath was to "any and all gods who may or may not be listening" otherwise you have government giving preference - establishment and funding - establishment - to specific faiths?

Again there is a BIG difference between the POTUS in his capacity as a private citizen and his capacity as POTUS. When he speaks for himself he can say whatever he wants. When he speaks for his office he cannot (or rather should not be able to in this case)

This is neither unusual nor objected to in thousands of other exactly analogous examples. Does Bush have the right - odious though we may think it and not saying he IS - to be a virulent racist in private? Yes he does. Does he have the right to use the power of the presidency to exclude blacks from his inauguration? Hell no! Can a judge be a communist? Absolutely! Can a judge use his power to deliver his will rather than his judgment to endorse and benefit communist ideas? No! Mayors can be misogynists but they cannot illegally refuse to hire women for city jobs. Not just for despised options either: police officers can be committed to affirmative action, racial equality and the reparations idea but they cannot racially profile against whites or refuse to arrest blacks. All these things you I assume would never think to argue so what's the difference between saying Bush can be an evangelical Xian but cannot use the presidency to advance or give preference to Xianity?

[girl gone mad]

88. Welcome to DU.

The religious zealots in this country clearly have not learned the lessons of the French revolution, which is to say that if you push your beliefs hard enough, eventually you are going to get pushed back.

Christian leaders are playing a dangerous game by linking themselves so strongly with a political movement. Such alliances have rarely ended well, particularly for the religious establishments.

[truthpusher]

15. We are dealing with an epidemic here...

...the most powerful force in the world right now (US President) is using his religion as a device to plunder this country and the rest of the world...he will continue until things are so fucked up it will be too late...I am sorry to sound apocalyptic here, but I have never seen it like this...pretty awful.

[Just Me]

26. Unfortunate, that there are those supporting this most egregious of sins.

A man USING "God" in order to wield power unto himself.

Scholars have contemplated what is the "unforgiveable sin".

I imagine USING "God" to manipulate/use/profit off the vulnerability of others,...is as close to unforgiveable,...as any human being could get.

[mutus_frutex]

23. Yes we do.. :-)

Very few things are more degrading that religious belief.

[chunkylover55]

50. If every inauguration since George Washington has involved a prayer,

then why all of a sudden is this a problem? How does this violate the establishment clause today when it hasn't for the past 200 years?

[Modem Butterfly]

56. Yeah! From the first days of this great nation...

...women have been denied the vote. Why are they getting all up in arms about it now? -1919

Slavery is a great tradition in this nation. In fact, our "peculiar institution" pre-dates our nation. The servitude of the Negro is just and right. Why do you wish to change the very fabric of our Republic? -1859

[chunkylover55]

69. Sooooo. . . you're comparing Newdow's attempt to rid the inauguration

of prayer, to the womens' suffrage movement and the fight to end slavery???

Its slightly different -- and if this is the agenda Democrats want to buy into, I can promise you there will be a Republican president for the forseable future.

[Modem Butterfly]

78. Nope

They were entrenched institutions which it was crazy to change. A sure loser for their respective party supporters at the time. And yet, they did change. And their respective parties are still around.

I wonder how that could be?

[dmallind]

79. It's difference however is only in degree not in correctness

It's great that we've got universal suffrage and at least legal equality between "races". But that doesn't mean there aren't other inequalities and other injustices in our legal system. To be sure atheists can vote (but never be elected due to appalling ignorance demonstrated by Pew studies which show atheists as THE most unelectable minority by far) and we're not held in bondage or whipped (just fired, not promoted, reviled, mistrusted, threatened and risking excessive property vandalism). Absolutely silly to compare our plight to that of slaves. I don't think anyone has though - only compared the position you are taking by analogy to other injustices.

If your position is based on the precedent of the country (by the way Washington at least and no doubt many others used a Deist not Christian bible) and saying that 200 years of tradition makes something right, we must then test this to see if it is a valid test of what is right. It's easy to point to centuries old traditions that were not right, therefore it's not a reliable determinant of correct, just and equal governance.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[Bono71]

98. Agree...

it is disturbing the almost gleeful tone some of the posters on this board take when something bad (property damage comes to mind) happens to a church and the story is posted on this board.

Most people in this country are at least nominally religious...and most of those people are Christian...the last thing this party needs to do is alienate people over something as trivial as a 2 minute prayer at an inaugeration (requested by the guy getting sworn in).

[OldVlad]

105. I missed that, celebrate vandalism even?

Most people in this country are at least nominally religious...and most of those people are Christian...

86% if I remember correctly from the controversy about the Passion that was supposed to bomb.

the last thing this party needs to do is alienate people over something as trivial as a 2 minute prayer at an inaugeration (requested by the guy getting sworn in).

Its getting to the point where I'm starting to think these people are so emotionally immature that they REALIZE that their bigotry towards Christians is destroying the Democratic Party, election by election, and because they're mad about losing like we all do they have some sado-masochistic desire to push even more old Dems out of voting. "God" help us, I don't see how we're ever going to mend the fences their careless words have cost us in the middle states the last decade or so.

[Bono71]

107. Not to mention that when times are tough (ummm...now?!) people

become more religious...let see, war, unemployment, yeah, let's bash God...smart move.

On edit: yes...about a month ago there was a post about some vandalism at a Catholic Church and many on this board either 1) mocked the church or 2) openly celebrated the vandalism.

[chunkylover55]

103. Thanks. And I agree -- its good to know that not everyone on this

board has a knee-jerk reaction of glee to stories like this.

To put things in context here -- I consider myself a fairly religious person, but I don't actually consider myself a Christian. That being said, I don't think there is any purpose in removing the prayer from the inauguration. It doesn't offend me, and I can't imagine how it would offend anyone else.

To say the prayer violates the first amendment is entirely incorrect and reeks of ignorance. Whether or not our founding fathers were Christians or deists is inconsequential, as none of them exhibited the disdain for prayer in a public venue that so many secularlists do today.

[RaleighNCDUer]

164. As it is in accordance with your beliefs, it is not surprising that

it does not offend you. That you cannot imagine how it could offend evinces a lack of imagination on your part.

If he wants to say 'so help me god', that is, I think, his prerogative, as that is what makes the oath binding to him (of course, I'll then expect him to refrain from lying, from executing unjust wars, and other such activities that would be in violation of his oath). But by having an invocation as part of the swearing in, he is calling upon his god to guide the country, not upon the lies of the land, not upon the constitution, and my personal suspicion is that his god will take precedence over the law. That violates the establishment clause.

Believe me, I am very offended.

[Name removed]

68. Deleted message

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

[Malva Zebrina]

55. Does anyone here ever wonder why "God" is capitalized? nt

There is only one god that is capitalized with a capital "G"

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[Modem Butterfly]

64. Gosh, he won at the Circuit Court

And he went all the way to the Supreme Court, only to have his case bounced on a technicality.

But as an attorney, you knew that, right?

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[Modem Butterfly]

75. You didn't ask about this lawsuit.

Mr Newdow doesn't have a chance in hell of winning! Has he ever been successful?

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

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

[Charlie Brown]

77. I'm convinced that Newdow is a media whore

He's doing far more to damage the liberal cause than he is to help it. He's the very paradigm of the obnoxious secular humanist who is determined to push God out of all public venues. He appears to be taking on these causes for very petty reasons (his own grudge against religions), and not because he's been discriminated against.

Rush and Hannity are a lot happier with people like Newdow on the loose.

And he doesn't have a right to sue in this case. He's not being discriminated against.

If non-Christian clergy wanted to sue for being denied the opportunity to lead an invocation, they would have much more credibility.

It's best we denounce self-interested figures like Newdow, just like conservatives should denounce Roy Moore and Jerry Falwell. Like these two nefarious sideshows, Newdow is only looking out for himself.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

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

[OldVlad]

97. As someone with a degree in Psych

I say your diagnosis is beyond question.

The fact that he is even talked about after piggy backing unwanted onto his own daughter for face time should show every med-iot that this guy isn't worth the ink for the text to quote him.

[Bono71]

96. Agree 100%...if democrats openly support this yahoo

and his tilting at windmills it is not in the best interests of the party.

If Bush were trying to pass a law that stated everyone had to become a Christian, that would be one thing...

But a simple 2 minute prayer at his own inaugeration is fine by me...

[OldVlad]

114. Tilting at windmills

I like that, I'll have to remember that old verbage.

Glad I had ya at hello, but I guess somebody didn't like my blaming for the state we're in. *blushes* I guess its hard to see that without rattling off some polling data, but have a solution; you run for President in 08, save the party, and clean house of some of these haters, deal?

[Modem Butterfly]

116. Purging the party - There's a great platform for 2008!

Vote Democrat - Because dissension is for losers.

[OldVlad]

118. You again, why don't you try answering my previous posts

rather then some drive by snip. I am all ears.

Besides, you aren't dissenting, you are attacking, and doing so in a most ill advised manner. If I don't want you screwing the pooch any more then has been, and boy howdy has it ever, I consider it a favor to you and much as to all Americans that the Dems win by not voicing intolerance towards the Christians praying.

[Modem Butterfly]

119. Straw Man Alert

If I don't want you screwing the pooch any more then has been, and boy howdy has it ever, I consider it a favor to you and much as to all Americans that the Dems win by not voicing intolerance towards the Christians praying.

No one has expressed intolerance toward prayer or praying. In fact, if the President thinks it will help, I encourage him to pray. But not on my dime and not on my time. Let him keep his personal, private affairs (such as religion) out of state matters.

[OldVlad]

121. So he can pray, but if you see it, he can't. Makes sense

No one has expressed intolerance toward prayer or praying.

Gotcha.

But not on my dime and not on my time.

So Public Servants, because they are government employees, are not allowed to express religious beliefs in public because you don't approve. Now can they eat meat at public banquets because I am a vegetarian and I don't want my dime being spent on steak going in their belly? Just how much of a lowest common denominator do you think you're entitled to in restricting employees?

Sounds perfectly consistent, yet frighteningly oppressive to me.

Government employees have the same rights as everyone else under the Constitution.

[Modem Butterfly]

122. He can pray, but not on my dime and not on my time

So Public Servants, because they are government employees, are not allowed to express religious beliefs in public because you don't approve.

If it's their time, and not my time, I have no problem with it. Read the Bible at home, not while you're supposed to be directing air traffic.

[OldVlad]

124. Non sequitar

If it's their time, and not my time

Ah yes, the Tyranny that is Modem Butterfly's "time" You aren't opening your mind to what I am saying, you're just repeating yourself. Try this, if you disagree with politicians who speak differently than you command them to, in a representative republic we run against them and defeat them. Why don't you simply vote for people you agree with on this most important issue, and if you lose, deal with it.

Read the Bible at home, not while you're supposed to be directing air traffic.

This has nothing to do with whether a politician is being negligent in their duties. If they are going over childrens books while planes are hitting buildings, they're neglegent. That doesn't mean you ban all politicans from reading to children. Your logic is faulty because you just don't want to admit it, you hate hearing religious people talk about their faith in public and want to marginalize them.

Your rights end when they enfring on others.

[Modem Butterfly]

139. Not on my time, not on my dime

Try this, if you disagree with politicians who speak differently than you command them to, in a representative republic we run against them and defeat them.

Completely beside the point. The government sponsorship of religion has little to do with individual politicians and nothing to do with an individual citizen's ability to "command" them.

That doesn't mean you ban all politicians from reading to children.

No one is trying to "ban" politicians from doing anything. In fact, you are the only one bringing up the idea.

To get back to the topic at hand, people can pray at will. Just don't use my money to pay for your religious ceremonies. Again I say, not on my time, not on my dime.

Your logic is faulty because you just don't want to admit it, you hate hearing religious people talk about their faith in public and want to marginalize them.

Ah. A psychic. How unusual.

:eyes:

Your rights end when they enfring on others.

I'm not sure what "enfring" means. I've heard the expression used "Your rights end when they are infringing on the rights of others" and that is most applicable here. Politicians and other government workers have the right to free exercise of religion. Citizens have the right to have state and religion separate.

[OldVlad]

145. So we are talking about the free expression clause, hmmm

Yes I am a poor speller, but I make up for it with moxy. ;-)

I've heard the expression used "Your rights end when they are infringing on the rights of others" and that is most applicable here. Politicians and other government workers have the right to free exercise of religion.

Ah yes, good...true;

Citizens have the right to have state and religion separate.

K, and that is happening by a government worker talking about their faith or praying in public during a ceremony how exactly? I guess I was simply dismissing you as having some emotional vendetta at Christians because I fail to see how anyone is oppressed or violated by this whole prayer in the public square enslavement. If you already acknowledge its the free exercise clause, its not compelling people to attend the Church of England so its not establishment, where do these "rights" come from for you to supercede the 1st Amendment?

Its not honest to say you are against using judges to prohibit "the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" if you are saying that simply because * is a government worker you want to stop him at a ceremony from both exercising a religion, and freely expressing himself.

You feeling marginalized is not enough of a justification for what amounts to censorship. Its even worse then that since its precisely this intolerance of public Christianity that has so many in the middle states leaving their own party. Its past time to look in the mirror and see where this rabid secularism has gotten us, we've lost seats in 3 consecutive national elections! Respect the rights of Christians to speak at government ceremony might be smart place to try to convince these goody-goodys we're not the boogey man RW radio makes us out to be on these values.

[Modem Butterfly]

149. Not really

Citizens have the right to have state and religion separate.

K, and that is happening by a government worker talking about their faith or praying in public during a ceremony how exactly?

Exactly my point. Using government funding for a religious ceremony is not keeping the state out of religion.

If you already acknowledge its the free exercise clause, its not compelling people to attend the Church of England so its not establishment, where do these "rights" come from for you to supercede the 1st Amendment?

From the 1st Amendment itself.

Its not honest to say you are against using judges to prohibit "the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech" if you are saying that simply because * is a government worker you want to stop him at a ceremony from both exercising a religion, and freely expressing himself.

Well, it's a good thing I'm not saying that, isn't it?
;)

Once again: President praying on his own time, on his own dime good. President using government funds to promote religion, bad.

It really is that simple.

Its even worse then that since its precisely this intolerance of public Christianity that has so many in the middle states leaving their own party.

If you really believe that, please explain the 25+ years of Democratic dominance following the Murray v. Curlett decision.

Respect the rights of Christians to speak at government ceremony might be smart place to try to convince these goody-goodys we're not the boogey man RW radio makes us out to be on these values.

1) No one is saying Xians can't speak at government ceremonies and 2) sitting on our hands and trying not to rock the boat isn't going to convince anyone, especially the large number of independants and Dems who are turned off by DINOs.

[OldVlad]

152. You're trying to convince me of this, and you call them "Xians"?

Using government funding for a religious ceremony is not keeping the state out of religion.

If you already acknowledge its the free exercise clause, its not compelling people to attend the Church of England so its not establishment, where do these "rights" come from for you to supercede the 1st Amendment?

From the 1st Amendment itself.

Time out. I've already had to post this once to someone making themselves look foolish, lets look into that shall we;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.

Don't see anything about "state out of religion" I do see establishment which obviously this isn't. I also don't see this whole "state funded event supercedes free speech" I asked you where your "rights" come from for you to impose you view on state employees and you said the 1st Amendment, its clearly not in there, care to admit that now or just drop the charade you were ever talking about 1st Amendment and admit you simply feel uncomfortable hearing these things.

President using government funds to promote religion, bad.

It really is that simple.

Again *sigh* why are you are so incapable of anything other than repeating that over and over and over...How is a politician saying "so help me God" or leading a prayer at their own ceremony establishing? Sure he's "promoting" but as you learned today, the free exercise is protected in the Bill of Rights, if you live in a cave and have never heard of his religion its an advertisement for something new, but otherwise this "1st Amendment" you claim you are fighting for is directly opposed to you claiming you can stop him from "promoting" and yes its just that simple, its a free speech issue as much as a free exercise and you don't have a legal leg to stand on.

If you really believe that, please explain the 25+ years of Democratic dominance following the Murray v. Curlett decision.

Good question and interesting that you bring that up, it shows you are trying to think beyond your slogan, however there was huge capital banked by the GOP from Reagan railing against this ruling in the early 80s, banked in the south and the middle states that viewed school prayer as somehow needed. Today, with secularist getting far more extreme and many of those "Xians" feeling persecuted and unwelcome in public life, and more importantly with the Newdow's media whoring given a free pass by all Dem spokesmen I see, even in an election year(!), many of those Reagan Democrates have a new names; Republicans. That 25 years, that was really the end of 50 years, I'd say in large part to boneheaded things like this, and until we start thinking rather then feeling I forsee 50 years of Republican domination.

1) No one is saying Xians can't speak at government ceremonies

Nice derogatory slight, very bridge building of you.

2) sitting on our hands and trying not to rock the boat isn't going to convince anyone, especially the large number of independants and Dems who are turned off by DINOs.

Oh my goodness, if censoring Christians from free exercise is somehow liberal or opposing it is "DINO" then the Democratic Party is positively doomed, 50 years is too conservative, more like 100. Come on, don't kid a kidder. You've got issues with "Xians", I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with someone not being real about what they're after; isolating and marginalizing them. You can deny it til the cows come home, but you can't put forth another explanation.

[Modem Butterfly]

157. Xian is the traditional way of refering to Christians

Time out. I've already had to post this once to someone making themselves look foolish, lets look into that shall we;Amendment I

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Again *sigh* why are you are so incapable of anything other than repeating that over and over and over...

I guess I keep hoping you'll actually read what I'm writing. Silly me.

however there was huge capital banked by the GOP from Reagan railing against this ruling in the early 80s, banked in the south and the middle states that viewed school prayer as somehow needed.

By that token, you could trace back to Nixon's southern strategy, which capitalized on Johnson's push for Civil Rights.

You claim that Murry v. Curlett was bad for Dems because it gave the
Repugs material they could capitalize on 20 years later. That's not outrage, that's good PR. They manufactured an issue out of settled law that was twenty years old. If not for Murry v. Curlett, it would have been something else, like Roe v. Wade (oh wait, they did) or the 1964 Civil Rights Act (ditto).

The Repugs have better marketing and slicker PR. They're masters of flinging mud and using third-parties to spread rumors and innuendos. We won't win any battles by pandering to their agenda, rather, we'll play right into their hands and be responsible for an even more radical right turn. What we need is our own echo chamber, our own marketing and PR hacks, and, though I hesitate to say it, our own muck rackers. Politics in America is only partially about ideas- it's mostly about presentation. For example, check out the way in which the war was sold.

Nice derogatory slight, very bridge building of you.

You're showing your ignorance here. Xians is an old and respectful way of refering to Christ and his followers. X = Chi, the first letter of Christ's name (hence the use of the term Xmas).

http://www.bartleby.com/61/80/X0008000.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas

http://www.youthpastor.com/lessons/index.cfm/Why_call_it_Generation_X_15.htm

I can go on, but I think my point has been made.

Come on, don't kid a kidder. You've got issues with "Xians", I have no problem with that, but I have a problem with someone not being real about what they're after; isolating and marginalizing them. You can deny it til the cows come home, but you can't put forth another explanation.

Unfortunately for you, you'll have to limit yourself to things I've actually said, not things you wish I had said. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

[OldVlad]

163. See the news today?

Take it up with the Supreme Court.

You did, you lost today. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-01-19-newdow_x.htm?csp=34 As you should have for the reasons I explained, any questions?

As for you X issue, point taken. It is perfectly historical, however again bad PR. You are right about the Repubs and Reagan being slick, and by that measure we are rock stupid, from your own link 1;
Many therefore frown upon the term Xmas because it seems to them a commercial convenience that omits Christ from Christmas.

2
The abbreviation is widely but not universally accepted; some view it as demeaning to Christ.
3
The use X as a symbol of Christ offends some people.

Now it may be perfectly innocuous that you used that, as you said I am not a mind reader, however since it is universally understood that such a reference is offensive, why do it other than to be antagonistic? A better question is, why be antagonistic towards these people, even if you win in the Supreme Court, you'll always lose.

[Modem Butterfly]

165. Incremental steps

You did, you lost today. As you should have for the reasons I explained, any questions?

One step at a time, one court case at a time. You should try taking the long view, friend. :)

As for you X issue, point taken.

Thank-you!

Now it may be perfectly innocuous that you used that, as you said I am not a mind reader, however since it is universally understood that such a reference is offensive, why do it other than to be antagonistic?

I think you need to go back and read your own post:

The abbreviation is widely but not universally accepted; some view it as demeaning to Christ.

The use X as a symbol of Christ offends some people.

"Some" is not "universally". Not even close.

Unfortunately, there are always some people who will be offended by something someone says. It's one of the risks of engaging in a dialogue.

A better question is, why be antagonistic towards these people, even if you win in the Supreme Court, you'll always lose.

ROFLMAOPIMP!

Does it hurt to be that ironic?

:evilgrin:

[OldVlad]

166. I was apparently unclear

I had meant to edit what I wrote when I thought about it, but didn't get a chance to. Its universally accepted that some, and I would say many, misinterpret your using of Xmas. Not that all are offended, and certainly its not wrong to offend-I kind of enjoy it frankly when I am right, but when you are already losing so much with so many over a nonissue like this, I think its reasonable to ask "why bother"

A better question is, why be antagonistic towards these people, even if you win in the Supreme Court, you'll always lose.

Meaning that even if they were to say "Newdow, your brilliant, why didn't we think of that earlier. From now on government employees do not have free expression when speaking on your dime" You will still lose support if you in any way side with this radioactive nonsense, and even if no Dem steps forward and says "I applaud Newdow's attention seeking" there is still the general feeling amongst the populace that Christianity is under attack even more then yesterday, and they are seeking someone to lead against this attack. Since Rove has managed to corner that market (and we've helped) they will invariably be even more inclined to listen to the GOopers. Bravo, this triangulates us right out of power. Should be familiar though, its been happening for decades.

But the Court told the incrementalist he had no injuries and his case was baseless, along with the legalese way of saying "get the hell outta here" The only thing he accomplished was making secularists, whom I agree with save for this trend of intolerance, appear to many extremist, intolerant, and most of all completely unaware or uninterested in what the Bill of Rights says.

Incrementalism is appropriate however, the Democratic Party has incrementally destroyed itself by not standing up publicly to wrongheaded activists like Newdow.

[Modem Butterfly]

167. You were something all right...

Its universally accepted that some, and I would say many, misinterpret your using of Xmas.

You need to go back and read your post again. That's not what you said and that's not what your cites indicate.

Bravo, this triangulates us right out of power. Should be familiar though, its been happening for decades.

You could say the same thing about any issue. In fact, many have. "Oh we can't vote agains the war! We'll lose the Security Mommy vote!" "We can't support abortion rights! We'll lose the Pro-Life vote!" and on and on and on.

Well, I've got news for you, Henny Penny: The sky IS falling. But the solution isn't to assume the fetal position and hope the voters mistake you for a Republican. We have to actually get out there and campaign. We have to market ourselves again. We have to make slime and mud-slinging work for us.

You know, Tom Delay has done some crazy, crazy things. Yet he is considered "colorful". David Duke is a flaming Republican who's a freaking GRAND WIZARD OF THE KKK. Bush is a damn draft-dodger who deserted his post in all likelihood to cover up a cocaine problem. Yet last summer all anyone could talk about was whether or not Kerry earned his Purple Hearts. WTF? It had nothing to do with Kerry's positions vs. Bush. It had to do with marketing, with the slime machine and the echo chamber. They've got them, we don't. We'd better stop worrying about Newdow (who, AFAIK, isn't even a Dem) and start worrying about the other party.

[OldVlad]

168. Nice rant, what does that have to do with my "why" q?

You need to go back and read your post again. That's not what you said and that's not what your cites indicate.

Yes, I should have said that since all 3 mention that SOME misperceive the use of "Xmas" as being against Christ, even though you are saying its merely a historical term with no offense intended, it is universally accepted that there will be SOME that will be offended by it. There are a lot of terms people find offensive, and I understand that sometimes its ok to do it, but if you are choosing to offend, and its strategically myopic, its fair to ask "why"... its not lost on me that you chose to dodge that. Me thinks I was right all along.

You could say the same thing about any issue.

Uh, as a matter o' fact, NO YOU CAN'T.

In fact, many have. "Oh we can't vote agains the war! We'll lose the Security Mommy vote!" "We can't support abortion rights! We'll lose the Pro-Life vote!"

Except there are many valid reasons to oppose the war and support abortion rights, I'm still waiting for the one to deny the 1st Amendment.

Well, I've got news for you, Henny Penny: The sky IS falling. But the solution isn't to assume the fetal position and hope the voters mistake you for a Republican.

I couldn't agree more. I've been saying the same thing, however, denying the free exercise to Christians isn't a "Republican" thing, if we have ceded that ground as your words betray, "heaven" help us.

We'd better stop worrying about Newdow (who, AFAIK, isn't even a Dem) and start worrying about the other party.

Why they appear to getting along famously. Seriously, I'm glad Newdow isn't a Dem, so we need the party leaders and the pundits calling this publicity whore what he is and letting people know this intolerance is not a Democratic Value, which was my point.

If we can't be introspective now, we never will, because yes the sky is falling.

[Modem Butterfly]

169. Again, you should actually read the post before you respond.

Yes, I should have said that since all 3 mention that SOME misperceive the use of "Xmas" as being against Christ, even though you are saying its merely a historical term with no offense intended, it is universally accepted that there will be SOME that will be offended by it.

It's universally accepted that there will be SOME offended by anything.

but if you are choosing to offend,

I'm not.

Except there are many valid reasons to oppose the war and support abortion rights, I'm still waiting for the one to deny the 1st Amendment.

So am I. But all I've heard is some circular BS about tradition and scaring the horses.

I've been saying the same thing, however, denying the free exercise to Christians isn't a "Republican" thing,

Again, no one is trying to deny Xians the right to free exercise of their religion. But painting the issue that way is a typically Repug tactic. Congrats- you've internalized their arguments.

Seriously, I'm glad Newdow isn't a Dem, so we need the party leaders and the pundits calling this publicity whore what he is and letting people know this intolerance is not a Democratic Value, which was my point.

Gee, you must have missed the sideshow in the summer of 2003, when everyone and anyone who could grab a microphone was denouncing the 9th's decision.

:eyes:

The Dems are demonized on so many fronts right now, why not spend the effort on marketing and outreach instead of disavowing the efforts of a private citizen who, acting on his own, isn't even a Dem? It would gain them no ground with the rabid righties, who consider it immoral and unpatriotic to vote Dem and it would alienate free-thinkers and tolerant people of faith who, like it or not, are actual, reliable Dem voters. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose.

[OldVlad]

170. There's belaboring a point, and then there's attacking

Yes, it was poorly worded, I have explained what I meant ad-nausem. You know but choose to be insulting about it at this point. This has grown old.

It's universally accepted that there will be SOME offended by anything.

but if you are choosing to offend,

I'm not.

Um, rectify that contradiction. You are saying some people are offended so who cares, then claiming you aren't choosing to offend? Stop playing games to avoid asking the fundamental question of why offend such a large group. For what positive purpose could it possibly serve. We both know why at this point, you simply don't like them and are lashing out. Call yourself a Republican if you want to do that.

I'm still waiting for the one to deny the 1st Amendment.

So am I. But all I've heard is some circular BS about tradition and scaring the horses.

Another total dodge, I posted the text of the 1st Amendment, showing indisputably how you are contradicting the letter of it, if you want to continue sophist' word games of pretending things are backwards, this conversation is over.

Again, no one is trying to deny Xians the right to free exercise of their religion. But painting the issue that way is a typically Repug tactic. Congrats- you've internalized their arguments.

Excuse me...young lady, I have been fighting for the Democratic Party since before Karl Rove was born, don't talk down to me like some naive teenager. I can't help it that the Republicans happen to agree with me that Newdow's idiocy is censoring speech while Democrates are MIA.

Gee, you must have missed the sideshow in the summer of 2003, when everyone and anyone who could grab a microphone was denouncing the 9th's decision.

You and Newdow are making me tear up. Poor tyranical securlarist, everybody bein' mean. You should have sent him a pick-me-up-bouquet. Don't recall Dems doing that, I'd be happy to read some links.

The Dems are demonized on so many fronts right now, why not spend the effort on marketing and outreach instead of disavowing the efforts of a private citizen who, acting on his own, isn't even a Dem?

Because disavowing your friend IS marketing AND outreach. Think.

[Modem Butterfly]

172. Bored now

You are saying some people are offended so who cares, then claiming you aren't choosing to offend?

There are some who will be offended by anything. I'm not choosing to offend, but I can't control for every person anymore than anyone else can.

And for the record, I did not say "so who cares". Once again, please limit yourself to what I've actually said, not what you wish I've said.

I posted the text of the 1st Amendment, showing indisputably how you are contradicting the letter of it,

Take it up with the Supremes. You know, the people charged with interpreting and applying the Constitution.

Excuse me...young lady, I have been fighting for the Democratic Party since before Karl Rove was born, don't talk down to me like some naive teenager.

Does it hurt to be that ironic?

:evilgrin:

[OldVlad]

182. Its boring because you can't focus and argue logically

And for the record, I did not say "so who cares". Once again, please limit yourself to what I've actually said, not what you wish I've said.

Oh brother, there's no wishing, don't puff yourself up. I asked you what logic there is in offending so many people without apparent reason in using such an easily misintrepretted obscure historical reference, you didn't give one. It would have been just as valid for you to type Christian as Xian yet after 5 times of asking the motivation, you only have denials and insults. Its obvious I struck a nerve & you do enjoy irritating Christians, because of some disdain for them. I don't care, but don't pretend you are compelled to say Xians.

Take it up with the Supremes. You know, the people charged with interpreting and applying the Constitution

Where have you been? Your friend did, he lost, the people charged with interpreting agreed with me, which is patently obvious to everyone here, even many of the athiets that posted.

You also failed to provide any links for when there was a circus in 2003 against Newdow from Democrates. While I think you made that up, take heart, the party leaders are waking up post-election pasting;
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/01/20/sen_clinton_urges_use_of_faith_based_initiatives?mode=PF

Unless of course the Clintons are DINOs now for betraying the radical secularist agenda.

[Modem Butterfly]

185. Sorry Charlie

I asked you what logic there is in offending so many people without apparent reason in using such an easily misintrepretted obscure historical reference, you didn't give one.

How can there be "logic...in offending so many people" when there is no proof there are "so many" people offended in the first place? Some people are offended by the use of the term Xians. But some people will be offended by anything.

It would have been just as valid for you to type Christian as Xian

Now you get it. I'm glad to see you're finally reading my posts.

Where have you been? Your friend did,

As a matter of fact, no one I know, let alone consider a friend, has ever gone to the Supreme Court. Are you speaking of Newdow? No, it can't be him either, since he went to the Supreme Court on another issue rather than the validity of the Separation clause, which, is of course, your issue. So of whom are you speaking?

You also failed to provide any links for when there was a circus in 2003 against Newdow from Democrates.

Oh yeah. See, the thing about that is, I just don't care.

:shrug:

The Dems can denounce Newdow from the mountain tops, but it won't bring them any votes. In fact, it puts safe votes in jeopardy. It's a losing issue, which is probably why the Repug echo chamber is hoping we spend time and money on the issue, then they can say, "See see see? Those disingenous Democrats think you're stupid enough to believe they're not actually opposed to God!". Saying nothing gives them nothing. Sure they'll spit and fume, just like they always have. But the best answer to that is to develop our own echo chamber.

[dmallind]

181. Unless there are 98 Repubs in the Senate

A lot of Dems MUST have decried (spinelessly) the 9th's decision - since the resolution doing so passed 98-0

The group chanting the oath with the ever so subtle and not at all demeaning or in your face screaming emphasis on the McCarthyite insertion certainly contained a shitload of Dems too.

I do agree that public opposition to preferential treatment for Christianity (I will abjure the common, millennia old contraction which was a watchword amongst early church fathers and is still shown today in the ubiquitous Greek-lettered fish decals since apparently for some reason this may offend the spiritual descendants of those brave souls who drew fish in the dirt lest they be tortured for their beliefs) is political suicide.

That does not however make it wrong. Any number of legally and constitutionally sound positions have been political suicide in the past and will be again in the future. This too should pass. By the way public support for gay rights is also political suicide in the "heartland". Should Dems drop that one too?

[OldVlad]

183. Can you say that without the runon sentences?

The group chanting the oath with the ever so subtle and not at all demeaning or in your face screaming emphasis on the McCarthyite insertion certainly contained a shitload of Dems too.Que? Come again, was this translated from Greek on babblefish or something? I have no idea what you are saying here.

That does not however make it wrong.

Never said that, (which you know) I said the rights of them to free express at public gathering must not be trampled upon, no matter how angry it makes you.

[dmallind]

184. Seems perfectly clear but let's parse it

The group chanting the oath

>>> The Congresspeople who assembled the day after the 9th's decision to do a TV photo op of them all delivering the pledge.

with the ever so subtle and not at all demeaning or in your face screaming emphasis

>>> Warning - subtle sarcasm was used here - and delivering the pledge with extreme emphasis on one phrase which was both obvious and intentionally retaliatory to the 9th Circuit decision.

on the McCarthyite insertion

>>>That one emphasized phrase being "under God" which was added to the original (and Constitutional) pledge in 1954 under the paranoid atmosphere of the red scare and godless communism

certainly contained a shitload of Dems too

>>> Consisted of many Democratic Congresspeople.


>>> All this was in response to your post saying you didn't remember Dems objecting to the 9th's decision. They most certainly did.

That does not however make it wrong.
Never said that, (which you know) I said the rights of them to free express at public gathering must not be trampled upon, no matter how angry it makes you


>>> So wait a minute you are NOT saying that opposing the religious content of the pledge or oath of office is wrong? You are NOT saying that we should ignore these acts of establishment because dealing with them will annoy believers? In that case I unreservedly apologize, but that's not what I got from your posts. EDIT ADD to address point I missed. Free expression is fine. If the crowd or any portion thereof wants to break into prayer or even a selection of choruses from Gilbert and Sullivan it would bother me not one iota. However the difference is clear. Government sponsored, mandated, led, funded or preferred expressions of one religious position or another are NOT free exercise when done by the government or any part thereof. Individuals have free exercise rights, the government does not. That is establishment.


>>>and on a final note why is it that atheists can't take a position contrary to that of believers without being accused of being angry? I am not angry - I just disagree. Trust me hearing the bastardized pledge does not make me walk around in a fit of seething rage. It merely makes me wonder when we'll stop trying to establish faith as a necessary component of patriotism and citizenship.

[Modem Butterfly]

186. Shhh... you're not supposed to point that out!

Don't you know that unless it's on Fox News it never actually happened?

:P

[dmallind]

180. But that IS establishment

Time and time again - with few exceptions - public displays of preference to one religion over others are found unconstitutional. I can't recall a case on this that was lost on constitutional grounds, just technicalities and sleight of hand like municipalities "selling" a few square feet of ground under a cross of course allowing only religious groups to bid.

Have we all forgotten Roy Moore? Have we all forgotten Duluth City Hall? Abingdon (school prayer)?

When government at any level sponsors or promotes ANY religious position over ANY other it is establishment pure and simple. Establishment is nothing at all to do with declaring a national religion (again I ask if it is what does the "thereof" refer to? BOTH clauses must refer to the same thing and if any religious position can be freely exercised then no religious position can be established). Establishment is shown whenever the government uses its power or funds to promote or prefer - and a sectarian prayer certainly does both. The only way this case was "lost" was on standing just like his earlier pledge case.

The courts - dominated by believers as ALL government is (strangely though believers still feel oppressed) - will do anything in their power to avoid dealing with these questions. The SC is loath indeed to take on separation cases and seems to write decisions with exceptional narrowness when it cannot avoid taking them - but in almost all cases these have found that establishment is FAR wider in scope than you are acknowledging.

[NCN007]

132. How about those who 100% of their time is "your" time?

Like soldiers on deployment or inmates in prison. Are you saying the government should not pay chaplains?

[Modem Butterfly]

140. Inmates aren't government employees

FYI.

[NCN007]

171. But they live on the government's dollar

and nice job completely ignoring my question

[Modem Butterfly]

173. Just like school children...

...they are required to be there. They're allowed to form their own prayer and study groups and to have reasonable accomodations made for their religions (i.e., kosher or hallal meals where needed). But the prison can't broadcast scripture over the loudspeaker system.

[NCN007]

175. I completely agree

But to bring prisoners (and soldiers and patients in many hospitals) religon, the state pays for chaplains.

[Modem Butterfly]

176. Which states? Which hospitals?

[NCN007]

177. My mistake

I know several people who do chaplain work in prisons and hospitals, but apparently its either volunteer or paid through the church. But thats not true for military chaplains...

On edit: In England, the chaplain is one of the three statutorily appointed officers of the prison

http://www.cofe-worcester.org.uk/work_of_the_diocese/chaplaincy_prison.html

Many states (I checked CA and TX) have them at state prisons too.

[Modem Butterfly]

178. I have no problem with volunteer chaplains

As long as they're not permitted to harass the patients. My partner of ten years was in the hospital, recovering from very serious surgery. I walked into his room one morning to hear him weakly telling a minister to leave him alone, while the minister continued to read the Bible at him (my partner is an atheist). I shooed the insensitive prick out of his room and stayed there myself to keep any other unwelcome visitors away. And no, this wasn't a Xian hospital.

Regarding military chaplains, that's a thorny issue. On one hand, we have people who are ordered away from home and often sent to places where they can't access their own services or holy people. Talk about restricting the free exercise of religion! On the other hand, we have government quite literally funding religion. It's controversial enough that even the righties freak out about it- they sponsored legislation to limit the military chaplaincy (sp?) program to Xians, Jews, and Muslims only after a Wiccan coven at Ft. Hood was covered in the press in the late 90's. The legislation didn't go very far due to proceedural grounds. Then there was the Baptist chaplain in Iraq last year who was bribing soldiers with water to submit to baptisms.

[Robb]

109. "The Great Escape"

...which was just on television recently, so fresh in my mind:

"Harass, confuse and confound the enemy, to the best of their ability. Use up valuable resources looking for us instead of fighting the war."

Newdow's just one guy. Good on him.

[jmowreader]

117. I don't care whether Bush has a prayer at his inaugural

An atheist myself, I'm more offended by the Texas State Society's Black Tie and Boots Ball being the social nexus of this inaugural and by the shit he's planning to feed hundreds of rich people at his inaugural banquets than I am by a prayer a minister will offer at the ceremony.

Let Bush have his prayer, if it will make him feel better. The 42 real presidents all had prayers of some sort at their inaugurals--some of them may have prayed the Astronaut's Prayer ("Dear God, don't let me fuck up") instead of a more traditional liturgy--but they all had prayers. I am far more concerned about losing the right to choose, the right to contraception, the right to science in science textbooks than I am about whether Bush does something every president has done.

And I am starting to think Michael Newdow is really a Christian. Just think: every time this gentleman goes off on one of his crusades, we atheists come off looking really bad for a really long time. The Pledge of Allegiance case provided fodder for wingers for MONTHS. This inaugural-prayer thing will do it for YEARS. This is exactly what a fundie mole would do.

[Proud2BAmurkin]

126. This guy has BALLS. A patriot.

nt

[Mz Pip]

131. I don't care if

there is an Inaugural Prayer. I really don't. This guy strikes me as being a self absorbed crackpot who wants to keep his 15 minutes of fame going.

Meanwhile my tax dollars are going to fund the court time for this. We have more pressing concerns as far as the separation of Church and State. The Inaugural prayer is a symbolic jesture born of tradition. It is what it is. We need to be concerned about tax money going to fund faith based initiatives, creationism being taught in schools, false science to promote religious dogma (i.e.condoms don't prevent AIDS). The list go on and on. I don't care about the 15 seconds of Inaugural prayer.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Behind the Aegis]

148. nutball

Perhaps he is a 'nutball,' but at least he is willing to stand up for what he believes in, which is more than I can say about many of the Democrats in Congress! Just because something seems hopeless or not popular, doesn't mean it doesn't deserve to see the light of day. People bitching about "there are bigger fish to fry," I ask you...where the fuck are your frying pans? I don't see your names in the news "frying these bigger fish!" We need to keep religion and government apart, and he is putting his money where is mouth is. More power to him!

[2DleftofU]

159. Right On

There should be absolutely no crossover between church and state. And it is time we get rid of all the other methods that government Bushitler subsidizes religious activity as well. For example, my taxes paid for the streets and traffic controls, yet every Sat. and Sun. those same streets are used by right wing fascists to travel to and from their little indoctrination sessions. They are literally riding on our tax dollars. This must be stopped.

[Moderator]

187. locking

he lost the appeal