Inaugurally accepting God at this...
For an atheist, Michael Newdow sure does have a fear of the power of God.
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
WASHINGTON — A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge brought by atheist Michael Newdow to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration.
On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.
Huh? I'm not sure where the perceived forcing comes in, so I'm already not following this...
But one day later, Bates ruled that Newdow wouldn't get far in his legal challenge and noted the absence of a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause."
Perhaps that's because the judge understands that the "establishment clause" calls for freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
"Moreover," the judge said in the ruling, "the balance of harms here, and particularly the public interest, does not weigh strongly in favor of the injunctive relief Newdow requests, which would require the unprecedented step of an injunction against the president."
All on account of one guy who's terrified of God. I should hope a judge wouldn't rule in favor of this...
Newdow argued he would be harmed as someone attending the inauguration by being forced to listen to sectarian and specifically, Christian, prayer.
Well, then that someone shouldn't attend the inauguration.
The court said that harm is simply too small to warrant its involvement in the matter. Also, the court said Newdow really doesn't have the legal standing to make this request since he sued over inauguration prayers in 2001 and lost that case in two federal courts.
Does this guy have a life?
In court this week, Newdow argued that the prayers violate the constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.
Apparently no one has explained to him what the "establishment clause" actually means.
"I am going to be standing there having this imposed on me," Newdow told the court by phone on Thursday.
Um, apparently it's been established no one would be imposing anything on him. But if he's so concerned, maybe he should force himself not to stand there.
Newdow also argued that taxpayer-financed inaugural ceremonies cannot be a platform for "the coercive imposition of religious dogma," adding that the president intended to "use the machinery of the state to advocate his religious beliefs."
Bates questioned both sides vigorously at Thursday's two-hour hearing, but said he doubted a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.
"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.
Bates also questioned whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last year that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first inauguration.
Well no shit. What do ya know, even the 9th Circuit got that right.
Newdow said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. He said being there live is different than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.
I'm sure he could find several people who would be willing to take that ticket off his hand.
Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.
Has any atheist ever been injured by prayer?
Inaugural references to God date back to George Washington's inauguration in 1789. Christian prayers within the ceremony began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second inauguration in 1937.
Government attorneys defending the continued use of prayer said in court papers that "there is no reason to reverse course and abandon a widely accepted, noncontroversial aspect of the inaugural ceremony."
And Newdow's antics go back to this...
In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor concerning the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. It agreed that the phrase, added to the Pledge in 1954, was an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
In June 2004, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision on a technicality, essentially sidestepping the core issue.
It said Newdow could not lawfully sue on behalf of his elementary school-aged daughter because he did not have custody of the girl and because the girl's mother objected to the suit.
Yeah, that and the fact that he didn't really have a case since his daughter didn't really have an issue.
Newdow re-filed the Pledge suit in Sacramento federal court earlier this month, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.
Dude, get some religion and stop wasting our money on this...
Maddox has some additional words for this...
Newdow v. Bush: The Inaugural Case Timeline
TIME Person of the Week: Michael Newdow - Jun. 28, 2002
Why I Did It by Michael Newdow
"Dude, get some religion and stop wasting our money on this..."
Perhaps he should stop "wasting" money (or perhaps not) but why should he be made to accept the mass delusion that is religion?
Posted by: A. P. Nalli | January 14, 2005 at 04:30 PM
[why should he be made to accept the *mass delusion* that is religion?]
He shouldn't be made to accept what you consider a "mass delusion." Nor is he being made to do so.
Posted by: tallglassofmilk | January 14, 2005 at 05:10 PM
A P Nalli -- here's an idea ... post your whining on Maddox's site, seeing's as how he's the one who made the comment.
BTW, the only delusion is the one wherein you thought your opinion matters.
maddox@xmission.com
Posted by: brian | January 14, 2005 at 05:19 PM
I think Freedom of Religion means God can mean Yahweh, Jesus, Buddha, Allah, et. al. ... or, in the case of Newdow, "me." What it doesn't mean is that I can make you believe the same way I do...
Maybe it's just me, but I think Mr. Newdow would benefit from going to church this Sunday. The difference between me and Mr. Newdow is that I will not try to impose my thoughts on him.
Cheers,
Posted by: Moze | January 14, 2005 at 08:43 PM
Michael Newdow doesn't have a prayer of not having a prayer.
Posted by: Sandi | January 15, 2005 at 02:25 AM
Newdow is delusional alright, but it's about his position on the food chain.
Has anyone heard about the dyslexic satanist?
He sold his soul to Santa
Posted by: BobG | January 15, 2005 at 10:48 AM
I hate when people make a big deal out of nothing.
Posted by: rakel | January 16, 2005 at 01:42 PM
just another attension seeker....
Posted by: Wombat | January 16, 2005 at 11:46 PM
I think the guy is just a nut job looking for attention. Does he not have a job?
And, who is funding him?
Grrrrr!
Posted by: ali | January 17, 2005 at 03:40 PM
NEWS FLASH!!!
Early reports are sketchy, but it appears that uber-atheist Michael Newdow's head exploded today at the moment the first prayer was offered at the inauguration. Witnesses claim that Newdow was calmly watching the procedings when - POP! - his cranium burst like a balloon. Shockingly, this did not affect Newdow's ability to think or reason, as he had no such ability beforehand.
Posted by: Jinx McHue | January 20, 2005 at 12:46 PM