| 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: "Anthropophagus" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 01:54:01 PM |
|
|
"Bulletproof Monk" <Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote in message
news:x9DGd.8511$C52.5914@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
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.
That's EXACTLY what it is.
"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.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MrPepper11" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 09:53:11 AM |
|
|
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:01:23 AM |
|
|
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
Jack 3:17
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:14:41 AM |
|
|
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:24:06 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 04:26:27 AM |
|
|
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ED7066.9DE9D2BA@all.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a *****
lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
Jack
Most people you see or hear on the network news are not journalists either.
In the U.K. they call such people "news readers."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:39:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:24:06 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
What's worse is they use the same Limbaugh-esque nastiness themselves
and imagine that lies used as ad hominems, demonisation of anybody who
isn't one of them, etc are "discussion".
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 12:05:52 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:24:06 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
What's worse is they use the same Limbaugh-esque nastiness themselves
and imagine that lies used as ad hominems, demonisation of anybody who
isn't one of them, etc are "discussion".
Right, notice the name calling when I suggest that Dems lose because
more of them fail to vote. They want to believe that 53% of this country
supports Bush. Only a "*****" would dare point out their
delusion.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zepp" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:58:38 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:39:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> mumbled:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:24:06 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
What's worse is they use the same Limbaugh-esque nastiness themselves
and imagine that lies used as ad hominems, demonisation of anybody who
isn't one of them, etc are "discussion".
Does your momma force you to use the words 'lies' and 'nastiness' at
least once in each of your insipid posts?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 03:05:15 PM |
|
|
"Zepp" <zep@zeppscomments.com> wrote in message
news:41ed784f.11095841@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
snip
Does your momma force you to use the words 'lies' and 'nastiness' at
least once in each of your insipid posts?
Does your momma know you're using her computer?
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 12:07:36 AM |
|
|
Zepp wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:39:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> mumbled:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:24:06 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
What's worse is they use the same Limbaugh-esque nastiness themselves
and imagine that lies used as ad hominems, demonisation of anybody who
isn't one of them, etc are "discussion".
Does your momma force you to use the words 'lies' and 'nastiness' at
least once in each of your insipid posts?
Does your lack of education cause you to wonder what somebody's "momma"
does? Come up with something new.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 04:53:55 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:39:43 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 13:24:06 -0700, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"nJb" <NoNHL@all.com> wrote in message news:41ECC253.AD5BB5C4@all.com...
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
The same morons who believe Dan Rather is an unbiased journalist or that
when Uncle Walter told them, "that's the way it is" that it really was.
No doubt Rather is biased. What's scary is that there are people who
think Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh are journalists. I'm not
bullshitting here, there really are.
What's worse is they use the same Limbaugh-esque nastiness themselves
and imagine that lies used as ad hominems, demonisation of anybody who
isn't one of them, etc are "discussion".
They wouldn't recognize discussion or honesty if either or both jumped
up and ripped their clits out.
--
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: "" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 01:18:26 PM |
|
|
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a *****
lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
Jack 3:17
===============================================
Silly, it should be the same (or very similar) percentage. Not "a much
larger percentage."
You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Ryd
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:20:44 PM |
|
|
wrote:
MrPepper11 wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a *****
lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
49% of those who voted. A much larger percentage think he's a *****
lying sack of *****.
Jack 3:17
===============================================
Silly, it should be the same (or very similar) percentage. Not "a much
larger percentage."
You're pretty stupid, aren't you?
Ryd
Sounds like you've never heard that republicans are much more likely to
vote than democrats. If voting was mandatory the republicans would never
crack 40%. Try reading a little bit. Now who's stupid.
Jack
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ryd" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:29:35 PM |
|
|
Sounds like you've never heard that republicans are much more likely
to
vote than democrats. If voting was mandatory the republicans would
never
crack 40%.
Jack
Jack
================================================
You dumb *****.
If the percentage of the population of non-voters who are anti-Bush
was, as you say, "much higher" than than the 49% who voted for Kerry,
then what does that say about Kerrry's campaign?
All he needed to do was get a small amount more non-voters to vote and
he would have won easily, you twit.
Now who's stupid.
Nothing's changed. You stupid *****.
Ryd
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 12:01:19 AM |
|
|
Ryd wrote:
Sounds like you've never heard that republicans are much more likely
to
vote than democrats. If voting was mandatory the republicans would
never
crack 40%.
Jack
Jack
================================================
You dumb *****.
If the percentage of the population of non-voters who are anti-Bush
was, as you say, "much higher" than than the 49% who voted for Kerry,
then what does that say about Kerrry's campaign?
All he needed to do was get a small amount more non-voters to vote and
he would have won easily, you twit.
Now who's stupid.
Nothing's changed. You stupid *****.
Ryd
It's beyond your comprehension. BTW, aren't you missing Hannity or do
you record it?
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 04:52:28 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2005 07:53:11 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
Which is demonstratably true.
--
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 |
20 Jan 2005 05:48:46 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:52:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005 07:53:11 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
Which is demonstratably true.
But his lies are OK. He can lie to get us into a war that is illegal
under international law, he can lie about upholding the Constitution,
he can lie about being a compassionate conservative, he can lie about
uniting the country, he can lie about the economy, etc.
All those are good lies.
Unlike saying you haven't had an affair when an "independent"
prosecutor has set you up for the lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 07:13:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 18:48:46 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:52:28 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005 07:53:11 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
Which is demonstratably true.
But his lies are OK. He can lie to get us into a war that is illegal
under international law, he can lie about upholding the Constitution,
he can lie about being a compassionate conservative, he can lie about
uniting the country, he can lie about the economy, etc.
All those are good lies.
Unlike saying you haven't had an affair when an "independent"
prosecutor has set you up for the lie.
Damned hypocrites.
--
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: "Randy Day" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 04:55:57 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005 07:53:11 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
Which is demonstratably true.
C'mon, stoney, this is a.a, remember?
We need EVIDENCE that he's goddamned! :)
--
R
Atheist Chair,
EAC Disciplinary Committee
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 07:12:59 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 16:55:57 -0600, Randy Day <ruthal@sasktel.nex>
wrote:
stoney wrote:
On 17 Jan 2005 07:53:11 -0800, "MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
"For America so loathes George W. Bush, 49% think he's a ***** lying
sack of *****." - Jack 3:16
Which is demonstratably true.
C'mon, stoney, this is a.a, remember?
We need EVIDENCE that he's goddamned! :)
Hehehehehheehehhee....the bible says so; so there!
(sticks out tongue) :D
--
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 06:31:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow. Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
Once again, it made the Democrats cry.
At the way the court bends over backwards to appease those who want to
establish religion.
Atheist gets whupassed by the court - Democrats are crying.
Nope.
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 12:16:40 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow. Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 03:48:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:16:40 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow. Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
"our country"???
Are you Navajo, Iriquoi, Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Cheyenne,
Lakhota, Miami, or some other native nation?
I'm glad to hear that you will fight to take your country back, and
support it.
Those Christian invaders, mercilessly slaughtered the owners of North
America, (and South, for that matter), whilst stealing money from the
taxpayers to expand their mafia-like empire., through exemption.
It continues today.
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
I'm glad to hear that you will continue, and amplify the "Leftist
secularists" in "continuing their jihad against...Judeo-Christian
heritage"
All power to you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthropophagus" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 02:13:38 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:m7mpu0hk2enfe5nemoa80p251o1uu73u1k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:16:40 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow.
Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
"our country"???
Are you Navajo, Iriquoi, Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Cheyenne,
Lakhota, Miami, or some other native nation?
I'm glad to hear that you will fight to take your country back, and
support it.
Those Christian invaders, mercilessly slaughtered the owners of North
America, (and South, for that matter), whilst stealing money from the
taxpayers to expand their mafia-like empire., through exemption.
It continues today.
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
Tell ya what, why don't you give all your land back to kemosabe and we'll
call it a day....
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 01:02:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:13:38 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<let's_eat@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:m7mpu0hk2enfe5nemoa80p251o1uu73u1k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:16:40 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow.
Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
"our country"???
Are you Navajo, Iriquoi, Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Cheyenne,
Lakhota, Miami, or some other native nation?
I'm glad to hear that you will fight to take your country back, and
support it.
Those Christian invaders, mercilessly slaughtered the owners of North
America, (and South, for that matter), whilst stealing money from the
taxpayers to expand their mafia-like empire., through exemption.
It continues today.
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
Tell ya what, why don't you give all your land back to kemosabe and we'll
call it a day....
I don't own any land at all.
Now what day will will we call it?
How about a national holiday to celebrate the day that you ate humble
pie?
"our country", indeed!
What a thouroughly and dangerously deluded megalomaniacal fantasy.
Mind you, you can't expect much more from any adult that is confident
that they can get great stuff by talking at a non-existent sky-pixie.
(BTW: You never answered my question.
What are you doing about past and current christian crimes?
I hope you are not ignoring them.
They won't go away.
While the church gets my tax dollars stolen from me, I feel it's my
duty to hound you lot until you perform in the manner that you SHOULD)
It's no wonder that you are too cowardly to use your real name.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 09:14:04 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:13:38 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<let's_eat@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:m7mpu0hk2enfe5nemoa80p251o1uu73u1k@4ax.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:16:40 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow.
Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
"our country"???
Are you Navajo, Iriquoi, Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche, Cheyenne,
Lakhota, Miami, or some other native nation?
I'm glad to hear that you will fight to take your country back, and
support it.
Those Christian invaders, mercilessly slaughtered the owners of North
America, (and South, for that matter), whilst stealing money from the
taxpayers to expand their mafia-like empire., through exemption.
It continues today.
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
Tell ya what, why don't you give all your land back to kemosabe and we'll
call it a day....
Uh, 'keemosabe' was the lone ranger.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 09:16:44 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:423f788e.1001799500@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:13:38 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<let's_eat@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:m7mpu0hk2enfe5nemoa80p251o1uu73u1k@4ax.com...
snip
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
Tell ya what, why don't you give all your land back to kemosabe and we'll
call it a day....
Uh, 'keemosabe' was the lone ranger.
LOL! What a maroon ;)
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 03:45:39 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:16:44 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:423f788e.1001799500@news-west.newscene.com...
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 15:13:38 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<let's_eat@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:m7mpu0hk2enfe5nemoa80p251o1uu73u1k@4ax.com...
snip
There is much blood on the Judeo-Christian bible.
Native American Blood.
Tell ya what, why don't you give all your land back to kemosabe and we'll
call it a day....
Uh, 'keemosabe' was the lone ranger.
LOL! What a maroon ;)
It isn't that advanced.
--
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: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 03:30:36 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:16:40 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:en1mu0hc61nicsdksk0dt1285m42v3kmg6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 23:55:09 GMT, "Bulletproof Monk"
<Tioga@MonksOnTheProwl.com> wrote:
Take the pitiful and hopelessly-confused atheist Michael Newdow. Just
another Atheist Democrat whupassed by the court.
No. Read what I wrote and address it, instead of lying.
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.
The supreme court had to hunt for an excuse not to rule on it.
Because the 9th Circuit's reasoning was impeccable.
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 .
Which is clearly unconstitutional.
You are so full of crap it isn't even funny. I guess George Washington
didn't realize he was violating the constitution when he took his oath of
office (the second time) while placing his hand on the Bible. And what
about chaplains - paid for with tax dollars?
Leftist secularists are just continuing their jihad against our
Judeo-Christian heritage. But we will fight to take our country back.
It was never your country to begin with.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
