| 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: "Dale" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 09:16:51 PM |
|
|
"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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 09:48:17 AM |
|
|
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote
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.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is, and thus, for him to be an atheist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 09:54:33 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:48:17 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote
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.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is, and thus, for him to be an atheist.
Yet more deliberate lies and nastiness by another Limbaugh wannabe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "nobody" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 12:41:05 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:48:17 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is,
i.e.:
Yet more deliberate lies and nastiness by another Limbaugh wannabe.
and thus, for him to be an atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zepp" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 11:01:47 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:54:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> mumbled:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:48:17 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote
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.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is, and thus, for him to be an atheist.
Yet more deliberate lies and nastiness by another Limbaugh wannabe.
"Lies and nastiness" for Christopher A.:
Things he doesn't like to hear and truths about himself and his
beliefs which are unpleasant to him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthropophagus" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 12:07:06 PM |
|
|
"Zepp" <zep@zeppscomments.com> wrote in message
news:41ea9d94.13852799@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:54:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> mumbled:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:48:17 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote
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.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is, and thus, for him to be an atheist.
Yet more deliberate lies and nastiness by another Limbaugh wannabe.
"Lies and nastiness" for Christopher A.:
Things he doesn't like to hear and truths about himself and his
beliefs which are unpleasant to him.
You're the one to talk, you alcoholic drunkard...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Egbert Sousè" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:20:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 13:07:06 -0500, "Anthropophagus"
<fuck_you_stupid_mo-fos@cannibal.com> wrote:
"Zepp" <zep@zeppscomments.com> wrote in message
news:41ea9d94.13852799@newsgroups.bellsouth.net...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 10:54:33 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> mumbled:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 15:48:17 GMT, nobody <nobody@here.com> wrote:
"Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net> wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote
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.
I would have thought so too, except I keep noticing that some atheists
are idolizing him, so I guess it's quite possible for atheists to be
as dumb as he is, and thus, for him to be an atheist.
Yet more deliberate lies and nastiness by another Limbaugh wannabe.
"Lies and nastiness" for Christopher A.:
Things he doesn't like to hear and truths about himself and his
beliefs which are unpleasant to him.
You're the one to talk, you alcoholic drunkard...
....but you gotta' admit he is an expert on lies and nastiness.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 10:47:09 AM |
|
|
Dale 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.
Quite the contrary. Every time I have seen Dr. Newdow on TV he
has been calm, rational and polite, even when people are screaming
at him and calling him names. He always has facts and appropriate
quotes to back up his claims.
Maybe there have been occasions when he has behaved otherwise;
no one is perfect after all, but I haven't seen them.
I'm not sure I would have picked this particular hill to charge up,
but Newdow's legal and constitutional reasoning is perfectly sound.
The president is supposed to be the president of everyone,
not just of Christians. Why isn't dropping off at his church
to pray on the way to the inauguration sufficient? Besides
being constitutionally correct, it would be in keeping
with Christ's actual words on the subject of public
vs. private prayer (which teaching is, of course,
completely ignored by 99.999999% of the RRR).
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 09:50:44 PM |
|
|
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.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Claytibardfarst" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 12:35:14 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
I just think Newdow needs to pick his battles better! At the moment he's
taking the George Bush approach of firing full weapons at everything that
comes into his sight. Half the battle is public perception and alienating
those who make valuable allies isn't going to help our cause!
.
|
|
|
| User: "E.E.Bud Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 02:42:44 AM |
|
|
"Claytibardfarst" <cjfat@SPAMBLOCKphonymail.com> wrote in message
news:41ea0b52$0$21441$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
I just think Newdow needs to pick his battles better! At the moment he's
taking the George Bush approach of firing full weapons at everything that
comes into his sight. Half the battle is public perception and alienating
those who make valuable allies isn't going to help our cause!
Unfortunatly with folks like you truth is really unimportant it perseption
that really counts. What the hell makes you think that your perception of
Bush is true. It may be your opinion but that does not make it true.
Opinions are like assholes everybody has one.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 12:09:17 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
Not likely since that could in no way represent the establishment of
religion under the original intent of the constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 04:54:03 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:09:17 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
Not likely since that could in no way represent the establishment of
religion under the original intent of the constitution.
You don't have a clue what establishment of religion actually means do
you?
Once again, it means that nothing the government does should show any
support to any religion.
Now go apologize to your high school American History teacher.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 03:48:48 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:423492d8.942993234@news-west.newscene.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:09:17 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
Not likely since that could in no way represent the establishment of
religion under the original intent of the constitution.
You don't have a clue what establishment of religion actually means do
you?
Far more than you - unless, somehow, you have a better understanding of what
"establishment of religion" means that our founding fathers.
Once again, it means that nothing the government does should show any
support to any religion.
Right! That's why Thomas Jefferson (the atheists' favorite president)
appropriated federal tax money for Catholic priests to minister to the
Indians.
That's why three states continued to have offical sectarian churches,
supported by tax money, well into the 19th century.
The establishment clause means exactly one thing - no FEDERAL official
church like they had in England. It leaves everything else to the states.
And it in no way countenances the overt hostility to religion the
anti-religious bigots have promulgated - at great cost to our society.
Now go apologize to your high school American History teacher.
If that's what YOUR history teacher told you, s/he should be sued for
educational malpractice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 01:05:14 PM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:423492d8.942993234@news-west.newscene.com...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:09:17 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:l0pju01n4rm0qr7mv4r3iv5gm504cjcq4b@4ax.com...
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.
Not likely since that could in no way represent the establishment of
religion under the original intent of the constitution.
You don't have a clue what establishment of religion actually means do
you?
Far more than you - unless, somehow, you have a better understanding of what
"establishment of religion" means that our founding fathers.
Once again, it means that nothing the government does should show any
support to any religion.
Right! That's why Thomas Jefferson (the atheists' favorite president)
appropriated federal tax money for Catholic priests to minister to the
Indians.
That's why three states continued to have offical sectarian churches,
supported by tax money, well into the 19th century.
if thomas jefferson jumped off a bridge...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clay" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 09:57:21 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
-C-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
15 Jan 2005 10:49:51 PM |
|
|
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think. Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Unpleasant Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 12:39:28 AM |
|
|
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics.
Oh, great! Being lectured on truth and ethics by someone from the same left
wing political spectrum as Bill Clinton, who will go down in history for his
contribution to science - proving that pathological lying is contagious,
whom Christopher Hitchens named "the father of all lies," and in a similar -
but more humorous - vein, had the moniker, "Beelzebubba" bestowed on him by
Linda Bowles. In fact, even left wing historians rank him BELOW Richard
Nixon with respect to moral authority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 04:52:07 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 23:39:28 -0700, "Unpleasant Truth"
<no.one@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics.
Oh, great! Being lectured on truth and ethics by someone from the same left
wing political spectrum as Bill Clinton, who will go down in history for his
contribution to science - proving that pathological lying is contagious,
whom Christopher Hitchens named "the father of all lies," and in a similar -
but more humorous - vein, had the moniker, "Beelzebubba" bestowed on him by
Linda Bowles. In fact, even left wing historians rank him BELOW Richard
Nixon with respect to moral authority.
LOL you sure talk silly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nivlem" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
19 Jan 2005 12:05:39 AM |
|
|
Unpleasant Truth wrote:
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics.
Oh, great! Being lectured on truth and ethics by someone from the same left
wing political spectrum as Bill Clinton, who will go down in history for his
contribution to science - proving that pathological lying is contagious,
whom Christopher Hitchens named "the father of all lies," and in a similar -
but more humorous - vein, had the moniker, "Beelzebubba" bestowed on him by
Linda Bowles. In fact, even left wing historians rank him BELOW Richard
Nixon with respect to moral authority.
Whatever. Did Clinton set up a secret police force without Congressional
authority? No, Nixon did. Did Clinton have Republican Party headquarters
burglarized? Bzzt. Nixon. Watergate? Remember that, stupid? Did Clinton
compile an enemies list and target the people on it for IRS harassment?
Nope. Nixon. Secret war in Cambodia? Nixon. Overthrowing the legally
elected if a bit radically left government of Chile as a favor to Coca
Cola? Nixon. The abuses of power Nixon lied about were vastly more
important than a jizz-stained dress. The only place Clinton gets
anywhere near Nixon is in the realm of campaign financing and the
sleaziness of his last minute pardons. Remember how chummy Nixon was
with Robert Vesco and various bagmen from ITT? Although it can't be
conclusively proven, Nixon almost certainly cut a deal with Ford to get
a pardon on his way out in exchange for Ford being granted the
presidency. All your "left-wing historians" prove is that there are as
many stupid people among academics as there are among the people who
collect your trash.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "E.E.Bud Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 AM |
|
|
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think. Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are correct or
religious folks are correct. Solid reasoning tells us that none knows for
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 01:45:28 AM |
|
|
"E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:edmdnc_SHcwhjHfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think. Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are correct
About what? We're not making a claim.
or religious folks are correct.
Ah, they ARE making a claim, and offer nothing at all to back it up.
Solid reasoning tells us that none knows for sure and that there is only
one way to find out.
If the theists don't know for sure that their claims are true, then they
should shut up until they do.
So if you are so damn sure of yourself
About what?
go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
The theists make a claim about life after death, I simply don't believe
them.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999
can not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended,
If he is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be
subjigated to those of one NUT.
The nut in question is the Constitution of the United States.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Anthropophagus" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 10:57:58 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:KY2dnZ6K7OwFhnfcRVn-oQ@io.com...
"E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:edmdnc_SHcwhjHfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message
news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The 9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason, or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think. Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my
fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are
correct
About what? We're not making a claim.
or religious folks are correct.
Ah, they ARE making a claim, and offer nothing at all to back it up.
Solid reasoning tells us that none knows for sure and that there is only
one way to find out.
If the theists don't know for sure that their claims are true, then they
should shut up until they do.
So if you are so damn sure of yourself
About what?
go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
The theists make a claim about life after death, I simply don't believe
them.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the
4999
can not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended,
If he is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be
subjigated to those of one NUT.
The nut in question is the Constitution of the United States.
No it's not. It's Michael Newdow.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Shrum" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 03:06:08 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:edmdnc_SHcwhjHfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message
news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation
prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to
make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The
9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent
was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead
liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason,
or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think.
Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my
fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are
correct
About what? We're not making a claim.
or religious folks are correct.
Ah, they ARE making a claim, and offer nothing at all to back it up.
Certainly nothing you're willing to hear.
Solid reasoning tells us that none knows for sure and that there is
only
one way to find out.
If the theists don't know for sure that their claims are true, then
they
should shut up until they do.
No, they should not shut up.
So if you are so damn sure of yourself
About what?
Your previous statements and your following ones, e.g.
go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
The theists make a claim about life after death, I simply don't
believe
them.
That's your privilege. Of course, if THEY are wrong they've lost
nothing. If YOU are wrong, on the other hand.....
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of
them
does not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that
the 4999
can not hear what is on the program because one man says he is
offended,
If he is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be
subjigated to those of one NUT.
The nut in question is the Constitution of the United States.
The nut in question is you and Mr. Newdow.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 09:46:05 AM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005 01:06:08 -0800, "Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"E.E.Bud Keith" <budk101@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:edmdnc_SHcwhjHfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
"Nivlem" <mlml@svn.net> wrote in message
news:41E9F26F.9000207@svn.net...
Clay wrote:
Christopher A. Lee loves giving liberals douche-chills:
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 03:16:51 GMT, "Dale"
<dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1105842704.742325.296150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Saturday, January 15, 2005
WASHINGTON - A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge
brought
by atheist Michael Newdow (search) to stop the invocation
prayer
at
President Bush's second inauguration.
Michael Newdow is actually a fundamentalist christian trying to
make
atheists look bad.
The only people he has made look bad are the Supreme Court, who
hunted
for a technicality to avoid the only ruling they could make. The
9th
Circuit's ruling had been impeccable.
Given Eisenhower's own words as he signed it into law, the intent
was
a deliberate breach of the First Amendment.
Yep... it's thinking like that that will keep you spongehead
liberals
out-of-power for a generation.
Keep up the good work.
*snicker*
Ah, yes. Power is all that matters. Never mind truth, or reason,
or
ethics. No wonder you guys are taking Newt Gingrich seriously as a
presidential candidate for '08. This does have limits, I think.
Running
a cretin like Newt would probably breach them. So I'm keeping my
fingers
crossed. Newtie for Pres. in '08!
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are
correct
About what? We're not making a claim.
or religious folks are correct.
Ah, they ARE making a claim, and offer nothing at all to back it up.
Certainly nothing you're willing to hear.
Solid reasoning tells us that none knows for sure and that there is
only
one way to find out.
If the theists don't know for sure that their claims are true, then
they
should shut up until they do.
No, they should not shut up.
So if you are so damn sure of yourself
About what?
Your previous statements and your following ones, e.g.
go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
The theists make a claim about life after death, I simply don't
believe
them.
That's your privilege. Of course, if THEY are wrong they've lost
nothing. If YOU are wrong, on the other hand.....
LOL, if the only reason you say you believe in your god is because you
are afraid that it might be true, you still don't get to go to heaven.
So that's a loss either way.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of
them
does not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that
the 4999
can not hear what is on the program because one man says he is
offended,
If he is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be
subjigated to those of one NUT.
The nut in question is the Constitution of the United States.
The nut in question is you and Mr. Newdow.
Mr Newdow won the respect of all the legal experts the last time he
stood up and spoke his case. All of the experts maintained he was
exactly right and the even the supreme court had to wimp out to not
take him on.
He's right again and again the supreme court had to wimp out to not
take him on.
That's the problem with being right against the neo cons who want to
market to you foolish conservative theists. They just go around the
law and since they've managed to fool their way into power, they don't
hold themselves to the law.
Aren't you lucky. You get to be fucked with the rest of us and watch
as they pass the treasury out to the big corporations and take away
all your rights and benefits of living in this now no longer great
country.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 08:12:55 PM |
|
|
On 16 Jan 2005 01:06:08 -0800, "Bob Shrum" <rcman777@excite.com> said
in alt.atheism:
That's your privilege. Of course, if THEY are wrong they've lost
nothing. If YOU are wrong, on the other hand.....
1) Pascal's Wager is bankrupt.
2) It's also VERY wrong. (But I won't spoil the surprise for you.)
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 06:43:44 PM |
|
|
E.E.Bud Keith wrote:
How about we have a little discussion on truth or reason.
First you can not prove to anyones satisfaction that atheists are
correct or
religious folks are correct. Solid reasoning tells us that none knows
for
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so
damn sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the
facts.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of
them does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999
can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended,
If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be
subjigated to
those of one NUT.
Interesting question. Let's change it so it isn't so full of Christian
vs. atheist emotional baggage. Let's say you have a school full of
Caucasian students and an African descendant student wishes to attend.
The majority of the "white" students don't want him to and they say
"How can you violate our rights to not have a ***** in our school?
There are 500 of us that don't want him, and he is only one."
Obviously their desire to exclude a student because of his race is not
a "right". The black student has the right to attend the public
school, but the other students don't have a right to exclude him. They
would just prefer to do so.
Just because the majority prefers to throw Christianity in our faces
all the time does not mean they have a "right" to do it. You cannot
deny our right to a secular government, even if you have a majority
that wants to.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
16 Jan 2005 08:11:34 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "E.E.Bud Keith" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
17 Jan 2005 02:28:59 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3k7mu0lnrrhmr59u5dnl92pp14cnqel214@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn
sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation. Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
any law establishing a state runreligion. Think of it in the context of the
time it was written, When those who came from England had to belong to the
religion dictated by the King(state)
So now please explain to me how having two different minsters from two
different religions establishs a single state religion, The liberal
seperation of church and state is pure bll *****.
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor
immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and
theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "nJb" |
|
| Title: Re: !Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer |
18 Jan 2005 01:53:43 AM |
|
|
"E.E.Bud Keith" wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:3k7mu0lnrrhmr59u5dnl92pp14cnqel214@4ax.com...
On Sun, 16 Jan 2005 01:03:25 -0600, "E.E.Bud Keith"
<budk101@comcast.net> said in alt.atheism:
sure and that there is only one way to find out. So if you are so damn
sure
of yourself go ahead and die and then come back and tell us the facts.
BTDT. Big yawn for an atheist. Not so for a Christian.
And in the second place 5000 people go to and inauguration one of them
does
not want to hear a prayer or invocation. You are saying that the 4999 can
not hear what is on the program because one man says he is offended, If he
is tell him not to listen, why should the rights of 4999 be subjigated to
those of one NUT.
The 4999 don't have any right to a government-sponsored religious
invocation, so it's not an issue of rights.
Bull *****, the exact question is, do I have the right to hear a religous
invocation. Or lets put it the other way around
does the nut have a right to keep 4999 people from hearing and invocation.
The second amentmend or establishemnt amendment says the gov shall not make
any law establishing a state runreligion. Think of it in the context of the
time it was written, When those who came from England had to belong to the
religion dictated by the King(state)
So now please explain to me how having two different minsters from two
different religions establishs a single state religion, The liberal
seperation of church and state is pure bll *****.
It's the 1st amendment and "state run religion" is not to be found. Try
reading and think about what it says.
Jack
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
