Atheist loses bid to ban prayer at Bush's inauguration

[Freddie Stubbs]

Associated Press
Jan. 19, 2005 09:25 AM

WASHINGTON - An atheist lost his bid Wednesday to have the Supreme Court bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist denied Michael Newdow's claim that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

In so doing, Rehnquist also rejected Newdow's request to recuse himself from the case because he is scheduled to swear in Bush. Newdow had argued that Rehnquist had become a willing fixture in a government ceremony "infused with sectarian Christian religion" and thus had a conflict of interest. advertisement

Rehnquist's order came without comment.

more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0119ScotusInauguralPrayer19-ON.html

[BlueEyedSon]

1. A shocker.

[Canuckistanian]

32. I'm speechless....

What is America if you can't ban prayer? What will we tell our atheist children?

/end sarcasm

[Just Me]

2. The greatest success can be "trying" rather than doing nothing. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

10. Amen

Pun intended!

[piece sine]

25. it's also called "spinning your wheels"

and it's less than nothing; it's a net negative if you are publicly classified a "loser."

"Been down so Goddam long, that it looks like up to me."

[digno dave]

34. It's also called "digging your own grave"

[Maat]

3. I'm with JustMe.

At least he brought attention to the issue, and got the fact that Rehnquist is such a fool for the Religious Right out into the press.

[maxsolomon]

4. sounds like a sound argument

but this is not a sound argument kind of country.

[Ian David]

5. He didn't have a prayer

eom

[nicho]

6. good one

and why he is insistent on restricting free speech is beyond me.

[denverbill]

7. So you consider forced recitation of the Pledge 'free speech'?

War is peace, freedom is slavery, and free speech is the right to be required to a verbatim recitation of a loyalty oath.

[Cheswick2.0]

9. no one is forced to say the pledge or to say the words under God

Parents have rights and I understand it is hard when you are in the minority, but schools can not force any child to say the pledge.

[denverbill]

21. Yes, I'm sure many 7 year olds are willing to stand up for their rights.

When I was a kid, every day every kid in the class stood up and said the pledge. We did as we were told, whether it was doing our math, reading our books, singing a song, or reciting a pledge of allegiance. I suppose I COULD have demanded that I not be forced to recite it, if I had had any inkling that I COULD refuse and a desire to be ostracized by my classmates. I know I really loved to be taunted and made fun of when I was a little kid. Nobody likes to 'fit in' in their first few years of school.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15809

HARTFORD, Conn. — Responding to the post-Sept. 11 burst of patriotism, state lawmakers around the country want to put the Pledge of Allegiance into more public schools.

Half the states now require the pledge as part of the school day, and half a dozen more recommend it, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This year, bills to make the oath mandatory have been brought up in Connecticut, Illinois, Missouri, Minnesota, Colorado, Mississippi and Indiana.

In Connecticut, Republican state Rep. Philip Prelli said schools have gotten out of the practice.

"It comes back to teaching what our country stands for," he said.

The Connecticut Civil Liberties Union opposed Prelli's bill at a hearing on Feb. 25.

"Patriotism isn't something you have to put on the books," said CCLU Executive Director Teresa Younger. "It's something that happens when your government is taking care of its people."

In Missouri, a pledge bill that died three years ago "suddenly started picking up a lot more traction" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said sponsor Sen. Ted House, a Democrat.

The Missouri bill would require public school students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at least once a week and allow for objectors to be excused. It passed the state Senate 30-0 on Feb. 25.
<snip>
Old article, but it points out the fact that many, many students ARE in fact being forced to recite it.

[shleonny]

36. i was threatened with detention and suspension

Ihad to go to the school board and be a complete asshole to get anyone to be fair. Religion has no place in a government.

[gaia_gardener]

61. Tell my 6yo that

We've talked extensively about the pledge and he thinks it's pretty stupid when we've got a president actively working against "liberty and justice for all" and thinks he's too young to make a committment such as the pledge requires - yet he's too afraid not to say it. I told him he didn't have to and he argued that he did because otherwise the teacher would get mad.

[Freddie Stubbs]

18. Who is forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance?

:shrug:

[denverbill]

22. Many kids.

I was forced to when I was a kid, as were most other people I knew.

In my response to Cheswick above, I posted an article from 2002 which indicated that 1/2 the states required it back then, others recommended it, and many other states were considering making it mandatory.

[Roaming]

27. Nobody's forced to recite the pledge

And if parents really feel strongly their children don't want to say it, they can excuse their kids.

[Freddie Stubbs]

31. The Supreme Court ruled against forcing the pledge in 1943

[shleonny]

37. doesn't matter most teachers don't know case law

you have to tell them again and again, my taxs, and your religion DO NOT mix.

[Zynx]

50. Whether or not teachers are idiots is irrelevant.

Legally, no one is forced to say the pledge of allegiance.

[shleonny]

35. its not restricting free speech

its a tax payer funded event that is being used to proseltyze for a religion. Government shouldn't be in the business of serving religous groups.

[Cheswick2.0]

8. Michael Newdow's a fool

I know this is not a popular belief here, but this guy is a flake and he is not doing a thing to help the cause of separation of church and state. Just once I would like to see him bring a suit where there was actual damage. It was a stupid suit, like all his other stupid suits. He is more concerned with his own fame than he is with solving the very real problem of religion creeping into government.

[Cooley Hurd]

11. Are we 100% sure he's legit - not a RW plant to fan the flames...

...of a wedge issue?:shurg:

[Bono71]

12. The same thing crossed my mind. n/t

[Just Me]

13. I could make a similar suggestion about y'all but I won't. n/t

[Cooley Hurd]

14. Yep, you could...

...but Mr Newdow's motives are being discussed, not mine. ;):hi:

[Bono71]

28. Ok, thanks for not doing that. n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

16. Newdow won his Pledge of Allegiance case at the Circuit court level

His case was dismissed by the SCOTUS on a technicality. I don't think the wingers would risk it.

[seriousstan]

30. You mean just like all the ELF people who are arsonists,

and any other fool who does something ignorant with a leftist lean? Funny how the extremists on our side are always Rovian plants. That Rove is one busy sombitch.

[shleonny]

39. he is completely legit

no wonder democrats lose elections, you run from every issue instead of trying to make the argument.

[Cooley Hurd]

40. No one is running from an argument...

I was simply asking if he was legit. You say yes, but offer not one shred of proof.

Oh, and welcome to DU...

[shleonny]

41. he's a lawyer who argued his own case at the supreme court

they don't let phoney's do that, but thanks

[Cooley Hurd]

44. But they'd certainly let a repug plant argue their own case...

...so, try again.:boring:

[Zynx]

49. We would lose elections worse if we were all like Newdow.

Do you honestly think this country would elect atheists?

[spooky3]

15. I beg to differ. His pledge suit had the support of a respected

Foundation, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, who consistently challenges violations of church/state separation. He lost on a technicality due to his "standing" as a non-custodial parent, not on the merits of the suit.

His issue was a valid one--that the phrase "under God" has no place in the pledge if it is to be part of a group recitation in a public school. Interestingly,that phrase wasn't in the original pledge. Had the officials taken it out, he wouldn't have had a suit. But when teachers have all students stand and recite it, students will feel subtle (or worse) pressure to participate, and if they "choose" not to do so, their refusal opens them up for being singled out.

He could be the most loathsome human being ever, but if he has a valid point, the validity should not be lost on whether you perceive him to be loathsome.

http://ffrf.org/legal/newdow_amicus2-11-04.html

Consider how you would feel if your child were ostracized for not standing up and saying "one nation that rejects God". That is the parallel for how the current pledge treats atheists and agnostics. The solution is for the pledge to simply be silent on religion rather than affirm one belief over the other.

[Mz Pip]

20. I completely agree with you

He does nothing to address or advance the concerns of the ever expanding role of religion in our political process. The Inaugural prayer is 15 seconds every four years. It is rooted in history and tradition. No one is forced to say the words.

You are right. It is all about him and expanding his 15 minutes of fame.

I also find it annoying that my tax dollars are funding these damn suits.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[spooky3]

24. I completely disagree. The inaugural prayer is a symptom of the

larger problem, and that's why people are objecting to it in lawsuits. It is the principle of separation that needs to be respected. History and tradition are irrelevant; whether one is "forced" to say the words is irrelevant, just as the majority views are, on matters of church and state. That's why the Bill of Rights is written as it is. The judge in the inaugural prayer case took great pains to point out that it was the emergency nature of the injunction that he couldn't support, but that there were important principles involved that could be decided later.

Maybe you wouldn't, but many religious people would correctly be offended if a President required a 15 second speech at his inauguration, affirming that there was no god. Yet that's what the non-religious are subjected to. That's why such expressions have no place in state events, particularly those that are supposed to be unifying and inclusive, in bringing all citizens together.

[Mz Pip]

42. How is something

that has been done for over 200 years a symptom of a current push by the RW to interject religion into education, politics and medicine? For the most part Church and State have kept a relatively respectable distance until the Bush Administration and supporters began chipping away at the boundaries.

We now have clergy telling people who to vote for and not in isolated instances. We have "creation scientists" demanding their position be placed in our public school curriculum. We have public health policy that refects only the most conservative morality. The Inaugural prayer is not a symtom of this insanity and banning it will do nothing to change the idiot fundamentalism that is creeping into our public policy.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[spooky3]

43. It is a symptom of the problem of inadequate separation of

church and state. I did not claim it alone indicates a trend. I also agree with you that creeping fundamentalism is a problem. But that doesn't mean it is the only problem or that only picking and choosing the violations of church and state that bother you personally is the best or most defensible route.

You may be comfortable with how things were prior to recent trends, but that doesn't mean others are, nor that the Constitution was or is being followed. The majority gets its way more often than the Constitution provides that they should, in part because no one complains or because the judiciary also has a majority of believers.

For a better discussion of these issues than I can offer, go to www.ffrf.org.

[Mz Pip]

47. For me it's a question

of proportionality. The only analogy I can come up with off the top of my head is the Impeachment of Clinton. Technically, he did commit perjury, he did lie, but was the offense worth making the huge fuss that the RW did? I don't think so. What he did pissed me off for a variety of reasons but I didn't think it was worth a 70 million dollar investigation and trial.

I feel pretty much the same about the Inaugural prayer. In the grand scheme of things I don't see the point in making a big deal out of it. I'm not a Constitutional lawyer but I kind of doubt that the constitution guarantees that there will never be any mention of God anywhere anytime in the government. I think there is a difference in acknowledging in a general sense the hope that some being will give us a favorable nod to insisting that public policy reflect the beliefs that some attribute to said being. It's a question of degree IMHO.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[LeftyMom]

56. Newdow can't sure for those

He lives in California (If I recall correctly he divides his time between the community in Southern CA where he practices medicine, and the Sacramento area, where his daughter lives.) We haven't got fundie "creation science" in the schools, his daughter's school district has really good sex education (I went to school out there, so I know) and you can buy emergency contraception direct from the pharmacist here. Sure, we have problems with activist clergy (there was a big flap about whether to allow prominent pro chioce catholics communion during the Recall election, apparently we were the test maket for that one) but as an atheist it doesn't effect him.

He's dedicated a lot of time to chipping away at the incursion of religion into the public square. Whether you agree with him or not, his dedication is certainly admirable.

[jarab]

26. You stated it well. n/t

...O...

[shleonny]

38. its not stupid

my taxes, and your religion should not mix.

[WI Independent]

60. His pledge suit probably

got Bush a few thousand votes last November. Not Kerry voters going to Bush... Bush votes that would have stayed home.

[Zynx]

63. It was probably more than just a few thousand.

That whole pledge controversy may have swayed many wavering voters to the Republican side as a protest against what they see as the loony left.

[MADem]

17. No LAW has been changed, up to this point

The way I am understanding this issue, the guy asked for an emergency injunction to prevent prayer at the inaugural. Rhenquist just said screw you, I ain't dealing with this, because you can't show me how you are harmed. There's not been any ruling beyond what happens on the 20th, near as I can see. This article is slightly clearer in framing the issues: http://www.insightmag.com/news/2005/01/17/National/Atheist.Seeks.Emergency.Injunction.From.Top.Court-835484.shtml

Quite frankly, I have issues with House and Senate chaplains paid for with taxpayer dollars, the forced "bowing of heads" at military formations, and all that happy crap. I just don't think it belongs in the political-military spectrum at all. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and so forth. And while many Americans are raised with Judeo-Christian traditions, a lot of Americans are not, and why should they have to put up with these paid expressions of loyalty to a being they don't regard as supreme? To paint the issue starkly, what if the prevailing bunch of ninnies in DC worshipped cow turds, and required everyone to pray to a Crawford cowflap in the shape of a cross or something? People would be outraged. But because the invocation/benediction nonsense at these public events is ingrained in our custom, we don't question it. Years ago, we didn't question segregation, either--hell, it didn't bother "the majority" so screw the affected minority! I always thought the strength of the country was that we had some sensitivity--it sometimes took awhile, but we eventually got it. Maybe one day we'll get this issue, too.

But hey, it's SNOWING in Washington. Mother Earth is weeping, cold and wet tears!

[Merlin]

19. This is a Rove trick to give Bush an applause line in his speech.

The moron will no doubt make this a highlight of his mis-address.

[RedCloud]

23. Zeus bless this atheist!

He should have at least Pope W swear that
"THOU SHALT NOT KILL!" over and over.

At least make him uphold that part of the Babble, er Bible.

[2DleftofU]

29. A failure of government

The duty of government is to control the savages. Here in the U.S. the savages include any member of an organized religion, and, more broadly, all those who want to impose their "god" on the true citizens of the U.S. As I have said before, there should be absolutely no crossover between church and state. And it is time we get rid of all the other methods that government of Bushitler subsidizes religious activity as well. For example, our 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.

[superconnected]

46. Guess mother Theresa can go to hell

"Here in the U.S. the savages include any member of an organized religion"

Gee ANY MEMBER? Okay.

Glad we've got our generalizations down.

[mutus_frutex]

57. Mother Theresa was no saint..

See, for example:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/hitchens_16_4.html

Regards...

[Arkana]

51. Are you done ranting now?

Not trying real hard, are you?

[Benhurst]

33. Aw, come on now, folks. What would a coronation be without

some smug, rich, self-appointed "man of god" bellowing out an incantation to a mythical god of war and hate?

[superconnected]

45. God is being used here

It's not about doing gods will. God will be abandonded the second the fundies don't see it working for stealing and looting from America. He's a pretense - a twisted one, not the aim or the cause.

I'm pretty sure the intent of sticking "Under God" as well as making people swear on Bibles, was to keep people honest. Obviously it hasn't and won't.

But acting like everything the fundies do is for God - as a post way above said, or attacking "imaginary gods" etc. is not going to hit the root here which is very real. It's corruption, the idea of God is being misused, and the people who will be honest because they hold themselves to higher standards are being insulted - by the administration, and by people who make fun of "GOD" as if Christianity were the problem.

[Benhurst]

55. Of course God is being misused at such functions. Would Bush

and company want to hear anything a godly man would have to say about them or the nation-state they are creating? Of course not. So, as usual, they'll get some self-serving hack like "The Pastor to the Presidents" or his son to "bless" their collective corruption.

While it may be true that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, in BushAmerica religion has become the first.

[Zynx]

48. I'm not exactly sure that this even qualifies as a church and state issue.

The only actual "state" function here is the oath of office, which does not technically contain the words "So help me God". There is no written legal requirement for the rest of the ceremony. The rest is just fluff that we have added on over the years. Nobody is forcing anything down anybody's throats here. Pick your battles a little more carefully or you will end up discrediting all of those who seek to maintain the seperation of church and state over much more serious matters.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[orleans]

53. i wish the christian right would stop ramming their beliefs

down my throat

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. They say the best defense is a good offense

Maybe Mr. Newdow took this principle to heart. Can't say I blame him.

Edit: it's "loser", not "looser".

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

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

[hansberrym]

58. the AP might as well have written: A damned fool lost his bid...

The historical record firmly supports the notion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids the favoring of one religion over another, and that there should be a wall separating Church and State. The question turns on what is a reasonable definition of a religious establishment, what is meant by “church”, and how far the "wall of separation" metaphor can be stretched.

Since Everson vs. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court has considered James Madison’s "Memorial and Remonstrance" and Thomas Jefferson’s "Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom" as the best evidence regarding the meaning of the Establishment Clause. And it must be noted that Madison and Jefferson relied on “the Creator” and “God Almighty” respectively in those famous arguments against Religious Establishments. But under the irrationally broad interpretation proposed by Newdou, both of those legislative acts would actually be impermissible establishments of religion since both explicitly proclaim God as the source of their authority.

It is not rational to stretch the definition of the "Establishment Clause" so far that the broadened definition would actually render unconstitutional the legislative acts initiated by Madison and Jefferson in support of the protection from religious establishments.


http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jm4/writings/memor.htm


http://www.nv.cc.va.us/home/nvsageh/Hist121/Part2/VaStatRelFree.htm