| 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: "Liquid Grace" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 02:04:17 AM |
|
|
In article <9dGHd.30$be4.4517@news.uswest.net>, leapt
about on one foot, screaching...
"Sam" <srcarruth@yahoo.NO.SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:rdyHd.12505$wZ2.2169@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Tukla Ratte" <tukla_ratte@tukla.net> wrote in message
news:3550utF4gsolkU1@individual.net...
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
< snip >
Gandhi? You mean the guy who was on the side of the Nazis?
You're thinking of Grandpa Bush.
Another liberal lie.
then why was the man indicted for helping the nazis?
http://www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
Oh great! The lunatic aluminum helmet crowd is loose again. We never
should have let the liberals empty the mental hospitals.
Absolutely, then you'd be safely locked away and not spewing insanity
on Usenet.
Geez!
Grace
--
EAC Vile Harridan and Deranged Harpy
a.a. #1752, BAAWA Knight who Demands Shrubbery!
Lost In Oz....
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 10:13:45 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hg7mu0ljphfsva1c2bdcrm5q4ahos15ku6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:06:00 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Well, if that's the case, then that's the case. Unlike conservatives, I
refuse to surrender my integrity just to win.
Neocons had integrity to surrender? Where?
I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Or rather, I don't, but I do
anyway.
I have to assume that they had integrity but lost it at some point, and that
allowed them to become Neocons.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 03:26:49 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 22:13:45 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hg7mu0ljphfsva1c2bdcrm5q4ahos15ku6@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:06:00 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Well, if that's the case, then that's the case. Unlike conservatives, I
refuse to surrender my integrity just to win.
Neocons had integrity to surrender? Where?
I have to give them the benefit of the doubt. Or rather, I don't, but I do
anyway.
I have to assume that they had integrity but lost it at some point, and that
allowed them to become Neocons.
That was around the time the Dixiecrats formed, I think.
--
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand
why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 05:34:43 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
and the consitutional version I imagine
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Specter133" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 02:47:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:38:49 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
Actually, LoudButt, you'd prefer no pledge at all.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:04:20 PM |
|
|
"Specter133" <specter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gaku01kkocu4576nsb8vdu2fpdv45ai5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:38:49 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
Actually, LoudButt, you'd prefer no pledge at all.
Wow. Did you come in from recess to type that, or was it after the nap with
the milk and cookies?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Shrum" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 04:23:48 PM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Specter133" <specter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gaku01kkocu4576nsb8vdu2fpdv45ai5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:38:49 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
Actually, LoudButt, you'd prefer no pledge at all.
Wow. Did you come in from recess to type that, or was it after the
nap with
the milk and cookies?
Your answer confirms what he said.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 05:04:36 PM |
|
|
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105914228.722121.9180@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Specter133" <specter@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7gaku01kkocu4576nsb8vdu2fpdv45ai5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:38:49 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
Actually, LoudButt, you'd prefer no pledge at all.
Wow. Did you come in from recess to type that, or was it after the
nap with
the milk and cookies?
Your answer confirms what he said.
Please explain how a usenet flame confirms that a person would prefer there
to be no verbal pledge to one's nation.
Personally I see no connection, but I'm sure your explanation will make it
startlingly clear so that all readers will agree with you.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 10:48:20 AM |
|
|
Specter133 wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:38:49 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1105848910.270504.23480@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
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>
Yes, I'm traditional. I prefer the original version of the pledge.
Actually, LoudButt, you'd prefer no pledge at all.
And you know what his "real" preference is how, precisely?
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:43:21 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Hartung" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 03:12:20 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 09:08:20 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 09:39:04 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
Why do the idiots always get that part wrong. How many times do they
need that explained to them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 01:59:22 AM |
|
|
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
Why do the idiots always get that part wrong. How many times do they
need that explained to them?
Only once... if they would listen.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 03:38:46 PM |
|
|
On 17 Jan 2005 09:39:04 -0600, (Kate ) wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
Why do the idiots always get that part wrong.
Because they lack even one functioning neuron.
How many times do they need that explained to them?
Constantly, but it never hits their 'shift registers.'
--
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: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 03:37:26 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
Chris, you can't expect the poor ***** who only has a brain stem to
think.
--
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: "Lady Chatterly" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 07:14:20 PM |
|
|
In article <c390v0paj1mj111nd466mc4uj506tcffll@4ax.com>
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:08:20 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 09:12:20 GMT, "David Hartung"
<dhart1ng@quixnet.net> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:vl6ku0p40tgagrdbpivo9jtu1qa0go82e2@4ax.com...
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
Please explain how two words "establish" a state church.
Why don't you read the First amendment? It's RELIGION that is
established. Specifically those flavours that are monotheistic.
What the ***** do you imagine "under God" means?
Chris, you can't expect the poor ***** who only has a brain stem to
think.
Want to run the car in the past week 100 of your most disingenous
games yet.
--
Lady Chatterly
"I'm going to do you a favor, although you don't deserve one, before
you make too big a fool of yourself. Lady Chatterly is a computer
program. She--err, it -- seems to have latched onto you. You owe me,
Raxo." -- Offshore Eddie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 08:40:35 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
And what religion does it establish?
What is the penalty for not accepting the establish religion?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 10:07:29 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:40:35 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
And what religion does it establish?
What is the penalty for not accepting the establish religion?
Do you understand the difference between "religion" ie generic
religion, and "a religion" which is a specific religion?
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 09:41:36 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:40:35 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
And what religion does it establish?
What is the penalty for not accepting the establish religion?
Do you understand the difference between "religion" ie generic
religion, and "a religion" which is a specific religion?
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 09:59:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:41:36 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:40:35 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
And what religion does it establish?
What is the penalty for not accepting the establish religion?
Do you understand the difference between "religion" ie generic
religion, and "a religion" which is a specific religion?
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
When you have learned to read, read the First Amendment, tell me
exactly what the establishment clause says, and that you understand
the difference between "religion" and "a religion".
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 08:04:22 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:41:36 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 14:40:35 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Douglas Berry <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On 15 Jan 2005 20:15:10 -0800, "Clay" <clayonline@lycos.com> drained
his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
Are you arguing that "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge?
<whisper> Please say yes... please </whisper>
Yes. Because it was not part of the original pledge, and violates the
establishment of religion clause.
And what religion does it establish?
What is the penalty for not accepting the establish religion?
Do you understand the difference between "religion" ie generic
religion, and "a religion" which is a specific religion?
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
When you have learned to read, read the First Amendment, tell me
exactly what the establishment clause says, and that you understand
the difference between "religion" and "a religion".
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
20 Jan 2005 08:22:46 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
It also tells people from non-monotheistic religions and no religion
at all, that whetever they may or may not believe, the country is
"under the monotheist's deity". In other words a theocracy even if in
practice it hasn't been until recently.
When you have learned to read, read the First Amendment, tell me
exactly what the establishment clause says, and that you understand
the difference between "religion" and "a religion".
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 08:30:33 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 14:04:22 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Once again I ask...what religion does it establish and what is the
penalty for not accepting this establishment?
Duh. It establishes GENERIC MONOETHEISTIC religion.
How does it establish this generic mon[e]theistic religion?
What in the nature of the "establishment" does it harm the free
exercise of religion by anyone?
How is the establishment of this generic religion give it superiority
over another non-established religion?
Are you really this stupid or just pretending?
IT ESTABLISHES GENERIC MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION. Not "a" religion. It
gives it government preference over both non-monotheistic religion and
non-religion.
How if this preference expressed in law?
It also tells people from non-monotheistic religions and no religion
at all, that whetever they may or may not believe, the country is
"under the monotheist's deity". In other words a theocracy even if in
practice it hasn't been until recently.
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
You're doing a very good job on not answering direct questions.
JSL
When you have learned to read, read the First Amendment, tell me
exactly what the establishment clause says, and that you understand
the difference between "religion" and "a religion".
And which one the First Amendment uses?
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
21 Jan 2005 12:44:28 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 08:02:46 AM |
|
|
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 09:00:32 PM |
|
|
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Jack
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not your
kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children are
cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Jack
.
|
|
|
| User: "BTR1701" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
24 Jan 2005 09:28:24 PM |
|
|
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not your
kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children are
cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
25 Jan 2005 03:12:01 AM |
|
|
"BTR1701" <BTR1702@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:BTR1702-D80AB4.22313024012005@news.east.earthlink.net...
In article <41F5B650.647A308F@all.com>, nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
nJb <NoNHL@all.com> wrote:
Jeffrey Scott Linder wrote:
It is a theocracy? What religious test does it use? What is the
penalty for not citing the pledge or omitting the offending phrase?
Being ostracized by your classmates. Pretty serious for a grade
schooler.
Oh dear.
Just as I thought your answer would be It's OK as long as it's not your
kid, eh?. Try living in a theocratic society such as Utah. Children are
cruel, that's nothing new. Suppose your 4th grader was the only one in
class to say "under god" what would your feelings be then?
Life is full of trade offs. I personally would think it would be a good
life lesson for my kid to decide what she thinks is more important:
social acceptance or her core beliefs.
This idea that we can all glide through life without ever experiencing a
negative situation or having to make a hard/unpleasant choice is not
only ridiculous but ultimately more harmful to kids than the perceived
"wrongs" the libs are trying to correct could ever be.
There's a VERY simple solution to this - school choice. Religious parents
(and even non-religious parents who want their kids to actually get an
education) can CHOOSE to send their kids to religious schools.
Anti-religious parents can send their kids to the *****-poor atheist public
schools where "under God" will be forbidden and even the Declaration of
Independence will be banned because it not only mentions God, it ascribes
all our rights to Him. In fact, they won't be able to read most of our
founding fathers' public speeches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
25 Jan 2005 04:36:51 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 02:12:01 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
:
There's a VERY simple solution to this - school choice. Religious parents
(and even non-religious parents who want their kids to actually get an
education) can CHOOSE to send their kids to religious schools.
Anti-religious parents can send their kids to the *****-poor atheist public
schools where "under God" will be forbidden and even the Declaration of
Independence will be banned because it not only mentions God, it ascribes
all our rights to Him. In fact, they won't be able to read most of our
founding fathers' public speeches.
Where did you go to school, Miss "Unpleasant Truth"?
(If, in fact, you attended any sort of school)
Your very revealing and admirably honest email address gives me a
clue, but should like to hear it from your own seething keyboard.
It would serve as a valuable 'object lesson' for parents across the
U.S., that they would then be able to make a more informed choice:
based on your response, coupled with their judgement of the quality of
the education that has shaped your 'intellect', such as it is.
Please punch a hole in the appropriate box:
(Hanging chads will count as a Republican Vote as per the usual
payment)
Miss Unpleasant acheived her highest academic level at:
[_] A "*****-poor" atheistic public school.
[_] Some sort of 'religious' school. (No Scientologists)
[_] An institution for the terminally delusional.
[_] The George W. Bush Memorial Kindergarten. (No Arabs)
Now wash your hands.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
