Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create
division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God"

from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President
Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his
inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has
filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer
and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers
who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the
swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the
Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed
from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President
Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his
inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has
filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer
and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers
who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the
swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the
Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create
division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.
"It is an offense of the highest magnitude that the leader of our
nation - while swearing to uphold the Constitution - publicly violates
that very document upon taking his oath of office," Mr. Newdow wrote
in his Dec. 17 filing. "The demands of strict scrutiny have not been
met, and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious
activities."
The Constitution does not require the new president to place his
hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept
since George Washington - with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt,
who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William
McKinley's 1901 assassination.
The Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell delivered
Christian invocations at President Bush's 2001 inauguration. Inaugural
organizers have yet to announce who will pray this year, but they
confirmed there will be an invocation and a benediction by ministers
chosen by the president.
The White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which is
one of three inaugural organizational bodies, declined to comment on
Mr. Newdow's actions but a response to his filing was due yesterday.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday, Mr. Newdow said.
Mr. Newdow's efforts are "part of a march toward removing every
vestige of religion from American public life," said Jay Sekulow,
chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a
D.C.-based public interest law firm.
"There is a progressive move toward secularism that we've got to
combat pretty aggressively," he said.
The center is filing an amicus brief in support of the defendants
in this case..
The legal debate centers on two Supreme Court cases - Marsh v.
Chambers in 1983 and Lee v. Weisman in 1992.
The argument in favor of prayer at the inauguration is based on
the establishment of chaplains in Congress at its inception, before
the Bill of Rights was passed prohibiting any "law respecting an
establishment of religion."
When the presence of chaplains in the Nebraska state legislature
was legally challenged in 1983 by Ernest Chambers, a Nebraska
lawmaker, the Supreme Court ruled against him, saying the practice had
a "special nook" because it was a long-standing practice to have
government-paid chaplains.
"The Supreme Court has given its constitutional blessing, so to
speak," said Mr. Sekulow. "We should not lose our history and the
religious underpinnings it is founded on."
However, Mr. Newdow makes a distinction between prayer in
government chambers and prayer at a presidential inauguration.
"This is the most important public ceremony we have in our public
existence, the inauguration," he said. "This is public, not just for"
lawmakers.
The presence of Christian influence and prayer, Mr. Newdow said,
have forced him to contemplate not using his ticket to the
inauguration because he does not want to feel like "an outsider."
Mr. Newdow filed a similar suit in the San-Francisco-based 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court threw out the suit,
calling it "futile" and said that Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a
sufficiently concrete and specific injury," the Associated Press
reported.
Mr. Newdow first became a national figure when he argued before
the Supreme Court last March to remove the phrase "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance. The court dismissed his case on the grounds that
he could not represent his 10-year-old daughter, who is in the custody
of his ex-wife and believes in God.
In addition to his quest to remove Christian activities from the
inauguration, Mr. Newdow has renewed his quest to remove "under God"
from the pledge by filing a new suit in California federal court on
behalf of eight other parents.
Mr. Newdow is a licensed minister of atheism, though he says he
and members of his Internet church worship nobody. He says church
members instead encourage a way of thinking.
"Question everything," said Mr. Newdow, summing up his worldview.
"Be honest. Do what's right. Stand up for principle."
When asked how to determine what is right, Mr. Newdow said, "I use
my brain."
Mr. Newdow states in his complaint that he "sincerely believes
that there is no such thing as god, or God, or any supernatural
force." On the contrary, he believes "supernatural" is an oxymoron.
"Thus, plaintiff denies the existence of God."
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values
Coalition, said Mr. Newdow's filing marks "the day we have been
warning America would come."
"Mr. Newdow should be ashamed for seeking this injunction against
his fellow citizens," he said. "We, as Americans, need to awaken and
deal with these threats to religious liberty, cynically disguised as
'civil liberties' defense."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed
from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President
Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his
inauguration.

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES <snip>

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed
from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President
Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his
inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has
filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer
and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers
who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the
swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the
Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create
division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.
"It is an offense of the highest magnitude that the leader of our
nation - while swearing to uphold the Constitution - publicly violates
that very document upon taking his oath of office," Mr. Newdow wrote
in his Dec. 17 filing. "The demands of strict scrutiny have not been
met, and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious
activities."
The Constitution does not require the new president to place his
hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept
since George Washington - with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt,
who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William
McKinley's 1901 assassination.
The Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell delivered
Christian invocations at President Bush's 2001 inauguration. Inaugural
organizers have yet to announce who will pray this year, but they
confirmed there will be an invocation and a benediction by ministers
chosen by the president.
The White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which is
one of three inaugural organizational bodies, declined to comment on
Mr. Newdow's actions but a response to his filing was due yesterday.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday, Mr. Newdow said.
Mr. Newdow's efforts are "part of a march toward removing every
vestige of religion from American public life," said Jay Sekulow,
chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a
D.C.-based public interest law firm.
"There is a progressive move toward secularism that we've got to
combat pretty aggressively," he said.
The center is filing an amicus brief in support of the defendants
in this case..
The legal debate centers on two Supreme Court cases - Marsh v.
Chambers in 1983 and Lee v. Weisman in 1992.
The argument in favor of prayer at the inauguration is based on
the establishment of chaplains in Congress at its inception, before
the Bill of Rights was passed prohibiting any "law respecting an
establishment of religion."
When the presence of chaplains in the Nebraska state legislature
was legally challenged in 1983 by Ernest Chambers, a Nebraska
lawmaker, the Supreme Court ruled against him, saying the practice had
a "special nook" because it was a long-standing practice to have
government-paid chaplains.
"The Supreme Court has given its constitutional blessing, so to
speak," said Mr. Sekulow. "We should not lose our history and the
religious underpinnings it is founded on."
However, Mr. Newdow makes a distinction between prayer in
government chambers and prayer at a presidential inauguration.
"This is the most important public ceremony we have in our public
existence, the inauguration," he said. "This is public, not just for"
lawmakers.
The presence of Christian influence and prayer, Mr. Newdow said,
have forced him to contemplate not using his ticket to the
inauguration because he does not want to feel like "an outsider."
Mr. Newdow filed a similar suit in the San-Francisco-based 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court threw out the suit,
calling it "futile" and said that Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a
sufficiently concrete and specific injury," the Associated Press
reported.
Mr. Newdow first became a national figure when he argued before
the Supreme Court last March to remove the phrase "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance. The court dismissed his case on the grounds that
he could not represent his 10-year-old daughter, who is in the custody
of his ex-wife and believes in God.
In addition to his quest to remove Christian activities from the
inauguration, Mr. Newdow has renewed his quest to remove "under God"
from the pledge by filing a new suit in California federal court on
behalf of eight other parents.
Mr. Newdow is a licensed minister of atheism, though he says he
and members of his Internet church worship nobody. He says church
members instead encourage a way of thinking.
"Question everything," said Mr. Newdow, summing up his worldview.
"Be honest. Do what's right. Stand up for principle."
When asked how to determine what is right, Mr. Newdow said, "I use
my brain."
Mr. Newdow states in his complaint that he "sincerely believes
that there is no such thing as god, or God, or any supernatural
force." On the contrary, he believes "supernatural" is an oxymoron.
"Thus, plaintiff denies the existence of God."
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values
Coalition, said Mr. Newdow's filing marks "the day we have been
warning America would come."
"Mr. Newdow should be ashamed for seeking this injunction against
his fellow citizens," he said. "We, as Americans, need to awaken and
deal with these threats to religious liberty, cynically disguised as
'civil liberties' defense."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase "under God" removed
from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President
Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his
inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has
filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer
and all "Christian religious acts" from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers
who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the
swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the
Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
Such practices turn people "into second-class citizens and create
division on the basis of religion," he said yesterday.
"It is an offense of the highest magnitude that the leader of our
nation - while swearing to uphold the Constitution - publicly violates
that very document upon taking his oath of office," Mr. Newdow wrote
in his Dec. 17 filing. "The demands of strict scrutiny have not been
met, and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious
activities."
The Constitution does not require the new president to place his
hand on a Bible while repeating the oath. The tradition has been kept
since George Washington - with the exception of Theodore Roosevelt,
who did not use a Bible when he took the oath after President William
McKinley's 1901 assassination.
The Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell delivered
Christian invocations at President Bush's 2001 inauguration. Inaugural
organizers have yet to announce who will pray this year, but they
confirmed there will be an invocation and a benediction by ministers
chosen by the president.
The White House and the Presidential Inaugural Committee, which is
one of three inaugural organizational bodies, declined to comment on
Mr. Newdow's actions but a response to his filing was due yesterday.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday, Mr. Newdow said.
Mr. Newdow's efforts are "part of a march toward removing every
vestige of religion from American public life," said Jay Sekulow,
chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a
D.C.-based public interest law firm.
"There is a progressive move toward secularism that we've got to
combat pretty aggressively," he said.
The center is filing an amicus brief in support of the defendants
in this case..
The legal debate centers on two Supreme Court cases - Marsh v.
Chambers in 1983 and Lee v. Weisman in 1992.
The argument in favor of prayer at the inauguration is based on
the establishment of chaplains in Congress at its inception, before
the Bill of Rights was passed prohibiting any "law respecting an
establishment of religion."
When the presence of chaplains in the Nebraska state legislature
was legally challenged in 1983 by Ernest Chambers, a Nebraska
lawmaker, the Supreme Court ruled against him, saying the practice had
a "special nook" because it was a long-standing practice to have
government-paid chaplains.
"The Supreme Court has given its constitutional blessing, so to
speak," said Mr. Sekulow. "We should not lose our history and the
religious underpinnings it is founded on."
However, Mr. Newdow makes a distinction between prayer in
government chambers and prayer at a presidential inauguration.
"This is the most important public ceremony we have in our public
existence, the inauguration," he said. "This is public, not just for"
lawmakers.
The presence of Christian influence and prayer, Mr. Newdow said,
have forced him to contemplate not using his ticket to the
inauguration because he does not want to feel like "an outsider."
Mr. Newdow filed a similar suit in the San-Francisco-based 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court threw out the suit,
calling it "futile" and said that Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a
sufficiently concrete and specific injury," the Associated Press
reported.
Mr. Newdow first became a national figure when he argued before
the Supreme Court last March to remove the phrase "under God" from the
Pledge of Allegiance. The court dismissed his case on the grounds that
he could not represent his 10-year-old daughter, who is in the custody
of his ex-wife and believes in God.
In addition to his quest to remove Christian activities from the
inauguration, Mr. Newdow has renewed his quest to remove "under God"
from the pledge by filing a new suit in California federal court on
behalf of eight other parents.
Mr. Newdow is a licensed minister of atheism, though he says he
and members of his Internet church worship nobody. He says church
members instead encourage a way of thinking.
"Question everything," said Mr. Newdow, summing up his worldview.
"Be honest. Do what's right. Stand up for principle."
When asked how to determine what is right, Mr. Newdow said, "I use
my brain."
Mr. Newdow states in his complaint that he "sincerely believes
that there is no such thing as god, or God, or any supernatural
force." On the contrary, he believes "supernatural" is an oxymoron.
"Thus, plaintiff denies the existence of God."
The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman of the Traditional Values
Coalition, said Mr. Newdow's filing marks "the day we have been
warning America would come."
"Mr. Newdow should be ashamed for seeking this injunction against
his fellow citizens," he said. "We, as Americans, need to awaken and
deal with these threats to religious liberty, cynically disguised as
'civil liberties' defense."


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Why would I listen to losers?" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

"Long term commitment in relationships is only necessary because it takes
so damn long to raise children. Marriage may well be some kind of trick
to keep the males around beyond sexual satiation." -- Captain Compassion

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.
--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net