Kate wrote:

On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

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-

Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>

*snicker*

-C-

LOL, all the legal experts are reporting that it is indeed a breach of
the first amendment.

Apparently you like putting down small children every day.

I heard one theist announce on the radio tonight that GWB's inauguration
is indeed a good reason to pray. I love it.

Jack

Kate wrote:

On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote:

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

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-

Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>

*snicker*

-C-

LOL, all the legal experts are reporting that it is indeed a breach of
the first amendment.

Apparently you like putting down small children every day.

I heard one theist announce on the radio tonight that GWB's inauguration
is indeed a good reason to pray. I love it.

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.