| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bob Shrum" |
| Date: |
15 Jan 2005 08:31:44 PM |
| Object: |
!Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) 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.
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."
"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."
The government had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia (search) to dismiss the current lawsuit, saying the invocation
had been widely accepted for more than 200 years old.
The court on Friday said it doesn't have the power to order the
president not to speak at his own inauguration and the act of ordering
the president not to permit an invocation and benediction - which
Newdow sought - would be one and the same.
Newdow argued he would be harmed as someone attending the inauguration
by being forced to listen to sectarian and specifically, Christian,
prayer. 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.
Appearing on FOX News' "Hannity & Colmes" late Friday, Newdow continued
to trumpet his cause. He said that reciting prayers at the inauguration
violates the rights of atheists because it undermines equality.
"How can you say it's equal to say to some people that they have to
listen to other people espouse religious dogma in the name of the
government?" he said.
After his first inaugural legal attempt, Newdow became famous in 2002
for his unsuccessful attempt to remove the phrase "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance.
Two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's inaugural
ceremony in 2001, and plans call for a minister to do the same before
Bush takes the oath of office again next week.
In court this week, Newdow argued that the prayers violate the
constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.
"I am going to be standing there having this imposed on me," Newdow
told the court by phone on Thursday. "They will be telling me I'm an
outsider at that particular moment."
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 (search)
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.
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.
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.
In an interview published in Wednesday's Washington Times, Bush, who
converted from Episcopalianism to Methodism and prays daily, tried to
dispel perceptions that he is advocating his beliefs or imposing them
on anyone.
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say
that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person.
I've never said that. I've never acted like that," he said.
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."
In court Thursday, they added that Supreme Court precedent allows state
legislatures and Congress to open each workday with prayer.
Newdow countered that legislative sessions are quite different from
taxpayer-financed public ceremonies.
A large part of next week's inaugural ceremonies is being paid for with
private donations, though the federal government is picking up the tab
for construction of the viewing stands and security.
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.
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.
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 04:58:19 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:53:43 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
"E.E.Bud Keith" wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3k7mu0lnrrhmr59u5dnl92pp14cnqel214@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn
sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation. Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
any law establishing a state runreligion. Think of it in the context of the
time it was written, When those who came from England had to belong to the
religion dictated by the King(state)
So now please explain to me how having two different minsters from two
different religions establishs a single state religion, The liberal
seperation of church and state is pure bll *****.
It's the 1st amendment and "state run religion" is not to be found. Try
reading and think about what it says.
It can't.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 03:35:24 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:28:59 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation.
A government-sponsored one? No. Read the Constitution.
Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
Since they have no right to hear it (they can hear it, but they have
no government-given "right" to hear it), he shouldn't even have to
bring the matter to court.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
any law establishing a state runreligion.
No, it says the government shall not make any law regarding (about)
the establishment of religion. Stop being dishonest.
Making a law allowing a prayer during an official government function
is "making a law regarding the establishment of religion". It
establishes religion. The Constitution doesn't prohibit establishing
a particular state religion - the SC has been over and over that - and
has ruled against your interpretation every time.
Think of it in the context of the
time it was written, When those who came from England had to belong to the
religion dictated by the King(state)
And those who wrote the Constitution were, for the most part,
unchurched and almost all who were churched were *NOT* Christian.
(Deism isn't a form of Christianity - in fact Deists despised
Christianity. Read the writings of some of the founding fathers
regarding Christianity. Adams called it the worst thing that ever
happened to humanity.)
So now please explain to me how having two different minsters from two
different religions establishs a single state religion
It doesn't, but thank you for the straw man.
The liberal seperation of church and state is pure bll *****.
Jefferson was a liberal? "Wall of separation" is his phrase. It's
what the founding fathers believed. "Any religion as long as the
state doesn't establish a state religion" is neocon ***** - the
founding fathers NEVER came even close to that opinion.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Arturo Magidin" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 03:50:15 PM |
|
|
In article <3dbou058m4d7u2u9v64eqgub7183l2iqnr@4ax.com>,
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:28:59 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
[.snip.]
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
any law establishing a state runreligion.
No, it says the government shall not make any law regarding (about)
the establishment of religion. Stop being dishonest.
Actually, the second amendment states that, since a well regulated militia
is necessary for the well being of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Establishment Clause (not amendment) is part of the First
Amendment. In fact, it is the very first clause of this amendment,
which states that Congress "shall make no law" (in order of appearance)
(i) respecting an establishment of religion;
(ii) prohibiting the free exercise of religion;
(iii) abridging the freedom of speech;
(iv) abridging the freedom of the press;
(v) abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble and
petition the Government for redress of grievances.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin@math.berkeley.edu
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 08:14:48 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:28:59 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3k7mu0lnrrhmr59u5dnl92pp14cnqel214@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn
sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation. Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
No, moron - the FIRST amendment (can you count?) says that it shall
not establish religion. It doesn't say "a religion". But religion per
se.
You can hear a religious invocation in your church or your home.
You cannot hear one from the government - or from an agent of the
government.
I suggest you also look up "tyranny of the majority", and the reasons
this country was set up based on the freedom of the indiviadual.
any law establishing a state runreligion. Think of it in the context of the
time it was written, When those who came from England had to belong to the
religion dictated by the King(state)
Why don't YOU think about it in the context when it was written (can
you think?) - the framers had seen the evils of religious
establishment at first hand both in Europe and the colonies.
So now please explain to me how having two different minsters from two
different religions establishs a single state religion, The liberal
seperation of church and state is pure bll *****.
It's your ***** - it establishes religion over non-religion. When
the constitution makes the government keep its hands off.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor
immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and
theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulletproof Monk" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 08:21:15 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:0mhnu09id8q0ksmor010squ14hksgeer5t@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:28:59 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3k7mu0lnrrhmr59u5dnl92pp14cnqel214@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn
sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999
can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If
he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated
to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation. Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not
make
No, moron - the FIRST amendment (can you count?) says that it shall
not establish religion. It doesn't say "a religion". But religion per
se.
You can hear a religious invocation in your church or your home.
You cannot hear one from the government - or from an agent of the
government.
On the contrary, you CAN hear one from the government. That's the whole
point of that Atheist Faith fool getting his ***** whupped by the court, you
see. He had claimed it was "unconstitutional" to hear a religious
invocation from the government. He filed suit on that basis. The Court
kicked his Atheist Faith ***** outta town. Told that Atheist fool he was
WRONG, that is is constitutional to hear a religious invocation from the
government, and that hearing a religious invocation from the government did
NOT constitute the government "establishing a religion".
So you lose, Chris.
Just like that member of the Atheist Faith lost, Chris.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 03:36:46 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 14:21:15 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> said in alt.atheism:
On the contrary, you CAN hear one from the government.
You can, but the Constitution says that the government may not.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clay" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 10:24:19 PM |
|
|
Nivlem wrote:
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to
make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The
9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent
was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead
liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think.
Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my
fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
And you guys are seriously considering have Howard Dean as DNC
chairman. What's the difference?
<LOL>
-C-
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tukla Ratte" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 11:47:07 AM |
|
|
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
< snip >
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Nice of you admit that the conservatives are in power because, unlike
liberals, they don't mind violating the Constitution.
Keep it up, Clay. I'm enjoying this unexpected burst of honesty.
--
Tukla, Eater of Theists, Squeaker of Chew Toys
Official Mascot of Alt.Atheism, aa 1347
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 05:28:22 AM |
|
|
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:3550ctF4j5aegU1@individual.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
< snip >
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Nice of you admit that the conservatives are in power because, unlike
liberals, they don't mind violating the Constitution.
This would be hilarious if it were not so sad that you actually believe it.
The liberals' official policies systematically violate the constitution:
Massive centralized government spending on social welfare programs for which
there is no constitutional authority.
The attempt to socialize all health care (HillaryCare).
Gun control/confiscation.
Federal control (mostly via judges) over local schools.
Racial quotas in clear violation of the 14th Amendment (of course, they
don't call it that, they call it "affirmative action" or, more recently,
"diversity").
Using international law as the basis for interpreting the constitution (a
relatively recent leftist perversion).
Confiscation of private property without compensation under the guise of
"environmental protection."
Abortion (not that abortion per se violates the constitution, although one
could make a good argument that infanticide - a.k.a. "partial birth
abortion" - does, but that the left wing activist ruling which took abortion
laws away from the states where they properly belong clearly violated the
10th Amendment, as have so many other left wing activist rulings in the past
50 years).
Federal suppression of the free exercise of religion.
McCain - Feingold (yes, I know some idiot Republicans supported this, and
Bush was an ***** for signing it, but it was clearly a liberal initiative
and was a gross violation of the 1st Amendment).
Repeated attempts to use contrived constitutional grounds to abolish the
death penalty, which is explicitly provided for in the constitution.
Statehood for Washington, DC
Raising the minimum wage.
Continually increasing federal regulations on private businesses on whom
they must hire, whom they can't fire, etc.
Note: I will concede that Republicans/conservatives are also guilty of
federalizing too many issues that should be left to the states, but for the
most part they are forced to play on the field the left has chosen. I would
be more than glad to return all appropriate powers back to the states as
originally intended in the constitution and modified by its amendments, even
if that means losing some "federal protection" for some of my pet issues.
So don't try your predictable argument from purity - my point still stands:
it is overwhelmingly the liberals who undermine (what's left of) the
constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 10:23:16 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:b8Odne8_JubPaHPcRVn-hA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <rvrHd.7$JK6.248@news.uswest.net>, Unpleasant Truth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
Note: I will concede that Republicans/conservatives are also guilty of
federalizing too many issues that should be left to the states, but for
the most part they are forced to play on the field the left has chosen.
Cute. The Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the
White House but running big deficits, pushing through the biggest
expansion of the welfare state in forty years,
Disgusting, but a sign the Republicans have become far too liberal.
Since you seem to agree, I presume you will join in advocating abolishing
Medicare and Social Security?
increasing spending faster
than Clinton (as much as *three *times faster), and embarking on military
adventurism is all the fault of the party out of power.
Those Democrats. They got *magical *powers they do!
Yes they do. It's called "entitlements" and "baseline budgeting." That
means social welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security grow
automatically every year and there's nothing that can be done. 20 years
from now the programs will go bankrupt and I have made sure my children
understand they are under no moral obligation to pay for bailing out a
corrupt Ponzi scheme they had no voice in creating. (Taxation without
representation and all that...)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 06:12:30 AM |
|
|
In our last episode <TmGHd.31$be4.4836@news.uswest.net>, Unpleasant Truth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:b8Odne8_JubPaHPcRVn-hA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <rvrHd.7$JK6.248@news.uswest.net>, Unpleasant Truth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
Note: I will concede that Republicans/conservatives are also guilty of
federalizing too many issues that should be left to the states, but
for the most part they are forced to play on the field the left has
chosen.
Cute. The Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the
White House but running big deficits, pushing through the biggest
expansion of the welfare state in forty years,
Disgusting, but a sign the Republicans have become far too liberal.
Since you seem to agree, I presume you will join in advocating abolishing
Medicare and Social Security?
Join? You probably joined me. I was calling them the biggest scams of US
history over twenty years ago.
increasing spending faster
than Clinton (as much as *three *times faster), and embarking on
military adventurism is all the fault of the party out of power.
Those Democrats. They got *magical *powers they do!
Yes they do. It's called "entitlements" and "baseline budgeting." That
means social welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security grow
automatically every year and there's nothing that can be done.
Nonsense. The Republicans don't *want to. They *like being in power and
they've jettisoned every single principle they ever believed in because
they'd rather be in power. Loved watching Bush smooching Ted Kennedy over
the "No Child Left Without Federal Oversight" bill. <snork>
Now he's out to build the worker's paradise with big, state brokerage
firms. Ah, comrade! Why not just nationalize Wall Street and be done with
it? Why all the mincing around?
20 years
from now the programs will go bankrupt and I have made sure my children
understand they are under no moral obligation to pay for bailing out a
corrupt Ponzi scheme they had no voice in creating. (Taxation without
representation and all that...)
That's cute. Why don't we all just decide if we didn't personally agree to
something, we don't have to adhere to it. Hell, I didn't agree to all
these "laws."
Oh, don't worry, both parties are driving us straight at a brick wall and
it's not like there'll be a federal government left for your kids to
ignore. Like Russian kids don't exactly have to bother ignoring the USSR
do they now?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
22 Jan 2005 02:45:47 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:caqdnYKnDZdqA3LcRVn-iw@megapath.net...
In our last episode <TmGHd.31$be4.4836@news.uswest.net>, Unpleasant Truth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:b8Odne8_JubPaHPcRVn-hA@megapath.net...
In our last episode <rvrHd.7$JK6.248@news.uswest.net>, Unpleasant Truth
lept out of the bushes shouting:
Note: I will concede that Republicans/conservatives are also guilty
of
federalizing too many issues that should be left to the states, but
for the most part they are forced to play on the field the left has
chosen.
Cute. The Republicans are in control of the House, the Senate, and the
White House but running big deficits, pushing through the biggest
expansion of the welfare state in forty years,
Disgusting, but a sign the Republicans have become far too liberal.
Since you seem to agree, I presume you will join in advocating
abolishing
Medicare and Social Security?
Join? You probably joined me. I was calling them the biggest scams of US
history over twenty years ago.
OK. So was I. And what party stuck us with them? We used to have a
conservative party.
increasing spending faster
than Clinton (as much as *three *times faster), and embarking on
military adventurism is all the fault of the party out of power.
Those Democrats. They got *magical *powers they do!
Yes they do. It's called "entitlements" and "baseline budgeting." That
means social welfare programs like Medicare and Social Security grow
automatically every year and there's nothing that can be done.
Nonsense. The Republicans don't *want to. They *like being in power and
they've jettisoned every single principle they ever believed in because
they'd rather be in power. Loved watching Bush smooching Ted Kennedy over
the "No Child Left Without Federal Oversight" bill. <snork>
So do. But you obviously have difficulty dealing with political reality
(I'm getting suspicious you're a "losertarian"). You don't accomplish
anything if you're out of power.
Unfortunately, the game is rigged in favor of "bringing home the bacon."
Walter Williams has written eloquently on this problem.
Now he's out to build the worker's paradise with big, state brokerage
firms. Ah, comrade! Why not just nationalize Wall Street and be done with
it? Why all the mincing around?
Again, what party tried to nationalize our entire health care system? And
what party blocked it?
For all his faults, Bush has passed major tax cuts, as did Reagan before
him. Liberals never cut taxes. Defunding the left is probably the only
hope we have of fixing the system short of revolution.
20 years
from now the programs will go bankrupt and I have made sure my children
understand they are under no moral obligation to pay for bailing out a
corrupt Ponzi scheme they had no voice in creating. (Taxation without
representation and all that...)
That's cute. Why don't we all just decide if we didn't personally agree to
something, we don't have to adhere to it. Hell, I didn't agree to all
these "laws."
Thomas Jefferson said that intergenerational taxation was immoral. I agree.
Let me ask you, when 20 million workers between the ages of 25 and 40 look
at the 30% Social Security taxes they're being asked to pay for a system
they know will NEVER pay them a dime, and they refuse to pay, what will the
government do? Arrest them? Don't forget - so long as we don't let the
fascist Democrats back into power, they will be armed.
Oh, don't worry, both parties are driving us straight at a brick wall and
it's not like there'll be a federal government left for your kids to
ignore. Like Russian kids don't exactly have to bother ignoring the USSR
do they now?
We have two choices - fix the system now (i.e., privatize it) or face a
(hopefully peaceful, but nonetheless very painful) revolution in 20 years
(long overdue by Jefferson's reckonings).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:31:10 AM |
|
|
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think this is
all just a big game?
*********************************************
"Don't look now, I'm just a friendly reminder!" Homsar from the HR website
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:46:33 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote in message
news:20050116023110.16659.00000039@mb-m16.aol.com...
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives
respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think
this is
all just a big game?
Yup, to them it's all just a big game, and they want their side to win no
matter how awful it is for the country.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 05:01:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:46:33 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Nick" <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote in message
news:20050116023110.16659.00000039@mb-m16.aol.com...
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives
respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think
this is
all just a big game?
Yup, to them it's all just a big game, and they want their side to win no
matter how awful it is for the country.
But it isn't *their* side. They're just as screwed as everyone else.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 08:41:11 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r0e0v0tvsukt0cdsrf1l5gvqtddh6lir19@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:46:33 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Nick" <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote in message
news:20050116023110.16659.00000039@mb-m16.aol.com...
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives
respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think
this is
all just a big game?
Yup, to them it's all just a big game, and they want their side to win no
matter how awful it is for the country.
But it isn't *their* side. They're just as screwed as everyone else.
No kidding.
One of them was crowing that the powerful prevailed, and shall rule, while I
press my nose against the glass and look in from the outside. When I pointed
out that he's not one of the powerful, and that I'll save a space for him at
the window, the thread stopped.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 07:14:50 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:41:11 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:r0e0v0tvsukt0cdsrf1l5gvqtddh6lir19@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:46:33 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Nick" <mysteriox9000@aol.computron> wrote in message
news:20050116023110.16659.00000039@mb-m16.aol.com...
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives
respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think
this is
all just a big game?
Yup, to them it's all just a big game, and they want their side to win no
matter how awful it is for the country.
But it isn't *their* side. They're just as screwed as everyone else.
No kidding.
One of them was crowing that the powerful prevailed, and shall rule, while I
press my nose against the glass and look in from the outside. When I pointed
out that he's not one of the powerful, and that I'll save a space for him at
the window, the thread stopped.
I saw that, and laughed my ***** off. I guess the resounding "DUH!" was
too much for the braindead.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 09:02:49 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005 07:31:10 GMT, mysteriox9000@aol.computron (Nick) wrote:
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think this is
all just a big game?
Of course not. He's a redneck fundamentalist. Who understands neither
the Constitution not history.
He gets told what to think, and also gets his "technique" from Rush
Limbaugh. Falsehood upon falsehood with his nastiness a smokescreen
for not being able to address corrections.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 05:01:40 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:02:49 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 16 Jan 2005 07:31:10 GMT, mysteriox9000@aol.computron (Nick) wrote:
Clay wrote:
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Does it even matter to you whether or not our political representatives respect
the Constitution, the very foundation of our country? Or do you think this is
all just a big game?
Of course not. He's a redneck fundamentalist. Who understands neither
the Constitution not history.
He gets told what to think, and also gets his "technique" from Rush
Limbaugh. Falsehood upon falsehood with his nastiness a smokescreen
for not being able to address corrections.
Christian morality.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 08:07:28 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
So you'd rather be president than right. We understand now.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 182
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "E.E.Bud Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 02:36:16 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ae7mu05fv2h6gl39rhdbupsb2k0fpebgdr@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
So you'd rather be president than right. We understand now.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 182
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Klein old pal it's the same old story from people like you who make the
assumption that they are the only people in the world who are rightous. What
you are saying is millinons of people for the last at least 2000 years are
wrong and you few atheists are right. Everybody in the world is out of step
but you. I would suggest that anyone who thinks like that has a phobia or
two, in plain english you are a nut case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 01:55:11 AM |
|
|
"E.E.Bud Keith" wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ae7mu05fv2h6gl39rhdbupsb2k0fpebgdr@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
So you'd rather be president than right. We understand now.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 182
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Klein old pal it's the same old story from people like you who make the
assumption that they are the only people in the world who are rightous. What
you are saying is millinons of people for the last at least 2000 years are
wrong and you few atheists are right. Everybody in the world is out of step
but you. I would suggest that anyone who thinks like that has a phobia or
two, in plain english you are a nut case.
The number of people believing something has no bearing on the
correctness of the belief.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 11:47:18 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 00:55:11 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> said in
alt.atheism:
The number of people believing something has no bearing on the
correctness of the belief.
If Christians REALLY believed it did they'd convert to Islam.
--
"Creationists are the best evidence we have that there is no intelligent design."
-Josef Balluch
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 09:46:55 AM |
|
|
"E.E.Bud Keith" wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ae7mu05fv2h6gl39rhdbupsb2k0fpebgdr@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> said in
alt.atheism:
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
So you'd rather be president than right. We understand now.
--
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds
are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her
tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the
existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of
the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
- Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 182
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
Klein old pal it's the same old story from people like you who make the
assumption that they are the only people in the world who are rightous. What
you are saying is millinons of people for the last at least 2000 years are
wrong and you few atheists are right. Everybody in the world is out of step
but you. I would suggest that anyone who thinks like that has a phobia or
two, in plain english you are a nut case.
Truth isn't determined by popular vote. For a long time most people thought
the
earth was flat, and was at the center of a rather small universe. Their
thinking
it didn't make it so. Nor are diseases caused by demon possession, just
because lots of people used to believe it.
You do realize that Christians are in the minority in the world? For a long
time,
they were a very, very small minority, "out of step" with practically everyone
else in the world. Although not in the majority, atheists outnumber both
Catholics
(by a small percentage) and Protestants (by a huge margin) in the Czech
Republic.
(See xhttp://reference.allrefer.com/world/facts/religions.html) Is atheism
true there,
but Catholicism true in Poland?
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 03:38:26 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:36:16 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Klein old pal it's the same old story from people like you who make the
assumption that they are the only people in the world who are rightous. What
you are saying is millinons of people for the last at least 2000 years are
wrong
Fallacy of argumentum ad numeram. What you are saying is millions of
people for the last at least 3,500 years are wrong - or are you
planning to convert to Judaism?
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 05:02:41 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:38:26 GMT, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid>
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 02:36:16 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
Klein old pal it's the same old story from people like you who make the
assumption that they are the only people in the world who are rightous. What
you are saying is millinons of people for the last at least 2000 years are
wrong
Fallacy of argumentum ad numeram. What you are saying is millions of
people for the last at least 3,500 years are wrong - or are you
planning to convert to Judaism?
/bud
*drool*
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 10:11:02 PM |
|
|
fOn 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
The bigoted nastiness of the Limbaugh wannabe's response because he's
scared of the facts.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
-C-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthropophagus" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 10:55:06 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p6qju0hogd57ak0o3okra2ndi1vemvhmf0@4ax.com...
fOn 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
The bigoted nastiness of the Limbaugh wannabe's response because he's
scared of the facts.
What facts? That you lost?
Sounds like you're the one that's scared.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 05:47:11 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 11:55:06 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<fuck_you_stupid_mo-fos@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:p6qju0hogd57ak0o3okra2ndi1vemvhmf0@4ax.com...
fOn 15 Jan 2005 19:57:21 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
The bigoted nastiness of the Limbaugh wannabe's response because he's
scared of the facts.
What facts? That you lost?
The facts cited above that you and the previous poster ignored:
"The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make.
The 9th Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
"Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment."
Sounds like you're the one that's scared.
Scared of the facts I cited above? No, those are the ignorant redneck
Limbaugh wannabes whose only response to facts are nastiness and lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bulletproof Monk" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 05:55:09 PM |
|
|
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow. Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
His failed bid to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance last year
was his first big defeat, and that made the Democrats cry.
Then today Atheist Newdow lost his bid to ban a Christian minister from
being allowed to recite the invocation in devout Christian prayer at at the
President's inauguration .
Once again, it made the Democrats cry.
Atheist gets whupassed by the court - Democrats are crying.
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:t2vlu0d0kdcegcjnuqslhqi6jltbsda6fr@4ax.com...
The facts cited above that you and the previous poster ignored:
"The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make.
The 9th Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
"Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment."
Sounds like you're the one that's scared.
Scared of the facts I cited above? No, those are the ignorant redneck
Limbaugh wannabes whose only response to facts are nastiness and lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
