Religions > Atheism > Atheist challenge to presidential inauguration prayer dismissed
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Sep 2005 08:08:08 PM |
| Object: |
Atheist challenge to presidential inauguration prayer dismissed |
Atheist challenge to presidential inauguration prayer dismissed
Bloomberg
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=a6W8O0Z2XcYQ&refer=top_world_news
Sept. 16, 2005
Two days after winning a California court ruling that recitation of
the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional, a
prominent U.S. atheist lost his bid to remove prayer from
presidential inaugurations. Judge John D. Bates of U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia granted a motion by U.S. President
George W. Bush, Senator Trent Lott and other defendants to dismiss
the suit brought by Michael Newdow, who claimed he was injured by
having to forgo the public ceremony in order to avoid having to
listen to prayers and being made to feel like an "outsider." . In
his opinion, Judge Bates decided the issue is moot. "Any such order
directed at the president would be ineffective for future
inaugurations because he is constitutionally barred from serving
another term," Bates said. "This court is powerless to enjoin
future unknown presidents for future actions those presidents may or
may not take." Newdow, a Sacramento lawyer, said he will appeal the
decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. 'Under God' Judge Lawrence
Karlton in Sacramento ruled two days ago in a separate suit brought
by Newdow that a school district's policy requiring the pledge with
the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional, reigniting a nationwide
controversy. The U.S. Supreme Court last year vacated a decision that
said a California school district violated the Constitution's
separation of church and state clause by requiring teachers to lead
the pledge. The justices didn't decide whether the pledge was
constitutional, instead ruling, as Bates did today, that Newdow
lacked the right to bring the challenge. Newdow, who is planning a
new suit to remove the phrase "In God We Trust" from U.S. coins,
said he acts on his own because groups like the American Civil
Liberties Union refuse to help him.
The Memorandum Opinion in Newdow v. Bush, et al. is here
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Bates/2004-CV-2208~17:31:29~9-14-2005-a.pdf
and the Order is here
http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/opinions/2005/Bates/2004-CV-2208~17:31:29~9-14-2005-b.pdf.
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
