Atheist Newdow Loses Suit on Prayer in Congress

[TacticalPeek]

Atheist Newdow Loses Suit on Prayer in Congress
Thu Mar 25, 2004 01:36 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A day after arguing his case before the U.S.
Supreme Court against the words "under God" in the Pledge of
Allegiance, atheist Michael Newdow on Thursday lost a separate
challenge to Congress's use of chaplains to offer prayers.

U.S. District Judge Henry Kennedy dismissed the lawsuit brought by
Newdow, who has filed a number of cases claiming violations his
constitutional rights. The ruling was dated on Wednesday and made
available on the court's Web site on Thursday.

Newdow, an emergency room doctor from California who has a law
degree but is not a practicing attorney, sought in the lawsuit to stop
congressional chaplains from espousing particular religious dogma. He
also sought to stop any further salary payments to the chaplains.

Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate begin their
session each day with a brief prayer delivered by their respective
chaplains or a guest chaplain.

more
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4662273§ion=news

[Caution]

1. no child of mine will *ever* recite that pledge unless

he or she wants to for his/her own reasons. I think it is absolute bullshit that there are laws requiring this in the first place.

ON EDIT: ahhh crap, it usually pays to click on the link. this is a separate suit unrelated to the pledge.

[Roaming]

5. This particular decision is specifically relating to chaplains praying

in Congress; I don't think the Court has decided the Under God part of the case yet...

[toopers]

6. Is there a federal law that requires reciting the pledge?

EOM

[Caution]

7. no but the majority of the states have laws on this

EOM

[Freddie Stubbs]

19. The Supreme Court has ruled that those who don't want to recite the pledge

do not have to. You can thank the Jehovah's Witnesses for bring that case to court.

[FDRrocks]

15. No,

but I used to get detention for refusing to pledge in the morning. So there might as well be.

[redqueen]

2. Which founding fathers or former pres's argued against prayer in govt?

I can't remember which but there were a few, I think, who have insisted that there be NO PRAYERS in congress or senate.

[9215]

9. Here you go:

"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion."
-- George Washington
Contained in an essay on the Treaty of Tripoli: http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5


The not-so-Christian founding fathers

http://realmagick.com/articles/13/13.html
Benjamin Franklin notes that during the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, a motion to pray was voted down with only three or four members of the Convention voting for it. I think we can be assured that Biblical Christians would vote for prayer while drafting the Constitution of their newly formed republic. We can easily conclude that out of all the members of the Constitutional Convention only three or four were Christian.

Looking at the writing of the founding fathers, we can see that they had little regard for Christianity.

Ben Franklin was a member of the Hell-Fire Club. Franklin wrote to Ezra Stiles, the president of Yale, saying he doubted the divinity of Christ, although he believed in his moral teachings. Franklin in his disdain for Christianity once said that "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."

George Washington, a professed Deist, refused either to take communion or to kneel in church. Washington stated that "The government of the United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion. The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or Mohammedan nation."

John Adams, The second president of the U.S. once said "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity," Adams once speculated, "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it."

In 1802 Thomas Jefferson, who drafted the Constitution, wrote "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." During the eight years of his Presidency, Jefferson refused to issue a Thanksgiving proclamation. Jefferson later declared, "Calvin's religion was demonism. The God of Christianity is a being of terrific character-cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust. The Christian God is a hocus-pocus phantasm of a God, like another Cerebus, with one body and three heads."

Jefferson relates a story about the drafting of the Bill of Rights: "Where the preamble (of the Bill of Rights) declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words Jesus Christ, so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion"
The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, fourth president of the United States stated "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." Madison added, "In no instance have...the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."

A vast majority of the men who founded the United States were essentially Pagan. This is not surprising. Monotheistic Gods inspire totalitarian governments. Polytheistic Gods inspire democratic governments. As democracy matured and the founding fathers' influence began to wane, Christians began to institute blasphemy laws. The laws used the power of the state to protect the church from criticism and derision. The laws were used sporadically until 1968 when the supreme court finally declared them unconstitutional.


Check out the terms: deist, atheist, and agnostic. I think I'm going to "convert" to agnosticism. :bounce:

[mikey_1962]

12. Say What?

Where do you get that:
"Monotheistic Gods inspire totalitarian governments. Polytheistic Gods inspire democratic governments." ??

We are the oldest and most successful Democracy in the history of the world and 90% of Americans are monothiestic.

[9215]

16. That of course is according to the author. It wasn't my take.

But I would argue that, if we are going to have any, the more gods the merrier. Note that the author says "inspire", not maintain a democracy. The democracy we have today is largely an abstract concept and becomes moreso the more monotheistic we become. The recent surge of god fearing BS has turned the country into a fascist state that faces its own destruction if things aren't turned around. Theocratic elements are asserting themselves like never before. Is this a coincidence?

If the successful democracy you talk about were true how come less than half of the eligible voters vote? They think they are in a democracy but they don't believe in it.


The democratic nature of Greece and its vibrant philosophical culture was inspired by polytheism, ditto for the Romans. The later declined as Christianity/monotheism got more power. Edward Gibbons, the seminal author on the Roman Empire and a Catholic, theorized that Christianity was a key factor in Romes decline and fall. Marvin Harris the author of "Cannibals and Kings" and "Cultural Materialism" theorized that monotheism and totalitarianism are closely associated. If you look at the Christian intensive Middle Ages you see that Feudalism, a more primitive form of Totalitarianism, was not hindered by the vise grip of the Holy Roman Empire. Monotheism is content in non-democratic environments. During the Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation the spawning of new ideas were commisserate with a reduction in the grip of the Vatican.

[mikey_1962]

17. Ok... sounded odd... We are the most successful democracy

The Greeks and their colonies in Rome did have democratic republics (Rome voted every year) and were polytheistic. But i think it is coincidental and not causal.

It could be argued that we are polytheistic.... even the monotheists.
I donot believe that Catholics pray to the same God that the puritanical Wahabee Islamist do, even though they both recognize the God of Abraham

[BlueEyedSon]

3. Personally, when that prayer is over the top (religiously speaking)

it makes me uncomfortable.

[trotsky]

4. That is total B.S.

"Kennedy said that was not enough to show Newdow had suffered sufficient injury."

This is NOT about any personal injury suffered by Newdow or any atheist. This is about upholding the constitutional principle of church and state separation, and avoiding the "excessive entanglement" as brought forth by the Lemon test. There is simply no compelling reason for the gov't to HAVE these prayers, and so it fails the test.

Does not bode well for the Supreme Court case, unfortunately.

[9215]

8. Good point.

Did Newdow claim personal injury or the larger issue of Church--State separation.

Very weird and lame claim by Kennedy.

[Zerex71]

20. My take

Newdow really just needs to sit down and shut up, and I mean that very seriously. If I brought a suit against this society every time I was offended about being in a micro-minority, I would be too busy to do anything else. If he doesn't like that they say, "under God", then fine, tell his kid not to recite the Pledge and everyone goes home happy. His life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are not infringed or impinged upon one whit, so as far as I'm concerned...thanks for playing!

[lazarus]

21. "micro-minority"?

10% is a "micro-minority"?

What next, Asians? Hispanics? People from Iowa? Muslims? Redheads?

In case you hadn't noticed, the Constitution was set up to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Thanks for playing, but we all just lost a big one.

[patcox2]

10. Its not bullshit, and its not a lame or wierd basis for decision.

There is a longstanding rule in all courts which says that you cannot bring a lawsuit unless you have standing to sue. The concept of "standing" is highly technical, but the basic gist of it is that you have to have something personal at stake beyond the simple desire to make a point. Individual citizens are not entitled to bring lawsuits just to force someone to adhere to the law. (And the fact that you pay taxes and don't want to see your tax dollars paying for a capital chaplain is not enough, that is equally well established). The reference to "injury" in this case is a reference to a term of art within the jurisprudence on the topic of standing.

If Newdow were a member of congress, he would have standing, I suspect. But he is not. Likewise, he would have no standing to challenge the pledge if he did not have a daughter in school, (and given his circumstances, not having custody and bringing the suit against his daughters wishes, he probably lacks standing in that suit as well.)

You might think this is an unfair rule when its your ox getting gored, but believe me, some rules are necessary. If any crackpot could bring any suit against any government action or expenditure that they happen to disagree with, there would be ten times as many suits brought by loony right-wingers and christian fundamentalists challenging anything and everything progressive.

The very first congress appointed a chaplain and said a prayer. Many of the founding fathers were not necessarily conventional christians, but that has nothing to do with whether they believed that opening congress with a prayer offended the first amendment.

Jefferson edited a version of the New Testament, called the Jefferson Bible, which includes just the sayings and moral teachings of Jesus and the new testament and leaves out everything else. He had it printed and distributed it widely. For over a hundred years a copy of this Bible was given to every new member of congress when they took office. What do you make of that?

[trotsky]

11. OK, so maybe it's not bullshit.

But it's still not fair, and trying to maintain the wall of separation is a little more important than equating it to a "crackpot" who wants to protest some form of government program.

What do I make of Jefferson's bible? From what I've heard of it, it pissed off a lot of Christians. But apart from that, we're talking about the pledge here, and the Founders not only expressly excluded religion from the public sphere ("no religious test for public office"), but they didn't even require a pledge at all.

[boobooday]

13. There are plenty of churches

There's a huge one, big as a Wal-Mart, going up on my corner.

Can't the congressmen pray before the session? Perhaps the session should begin with a reading of the establishment clause.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[JohnOneillsMemory]

14. Our Supreme Court belives in the divine right of kings. See my sig. quote.

The Dominionists are winning with the renewed Crusades.

[RedCloud]

18. We have done a historical 180

It is interesting how much better concerned the founders were about preserving individual rights than catering to any irrational group. The freedom to worship should also include the freedom not to to worship, nor be coerced into some disagreeable Mumbo Jumbo.

As far as this being a democracy, tell me about it when:

A. women rule (they are the majority)

and

B. working people (they are the prohibitive majority)

gain control of the government and all its tentacles!