Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

from JoeUser Forums
Report in Washington Times, Link here: 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..


... more at linked article

Yup, same guy as noted in prior articles. (Such as: Atheist Files New Suit, with Parents, Over 'Under God')

I've reached the fairly firm conclusion that this guy is nothing more than a publicity seeking egomaniac. I think he sincerely wants to be "the guy" that gets God banned from life in the U.S.

I guess God is so disgusted with this guy that he doesn't even want to do us the favor of putting him out of our misery. We can hope though.
politics
11,249 views 42 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
Just curious. Has this guy won any of his suits or even had them brought to court? I know the guy is a doctor and lawyer but who is financing these suits?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm all for the acceptance and coexistance of multiple religions, but this guy is a nut.

I agree, he wants to be THE man that eliminates God from all public life.
Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

I guess God is so disgusted with this guy that he doesn't even want to do us the favor of putting him out of our misery. We can hope though


hope for what?  someone will read this and decide to do god's work for him?  or do us the favor of killing him?  maybe god doesnt want bloody hands on his book?  or maybe....

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder if anyone has ever told this nutjob just what an idiot he is? What was posted earlier is true. This case needs to be slapped down *hard* so this nonsense is but to rest.
Reply #5 from PolMach Forums Top
Would it be acceptable if a President put his hand on the Koran?

If you think it is ok for the President to put his hand on the bible....you better make it ok for him to put it on any other religious document.

Perhaps people who understand the importance of a seperation between church and state shouldn't be classified as "nutjobs"
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #5 By: oligarchy314 - 1/10/2005 12:09:39 AM
Would it be acceptable if a President put his hand on the Koran?

If you think it is ok for the President to put his hand on the bible....you better make it ok for him to put it on any other religious document.

Perhaps people who understand the importance of a seperation between church and state shouldn't be classified as "nutjobs"


You don't seem to get it. The presidents hand on the bible is not something new! This is something that's been since the beginning. The guy is *still* a nutjob. And I'm not the only one who thinks that!
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top

This is something that's been since the beginning.


well....except for teddy roosevelt.


The guy is *still* a nutjob. And I'm not the only one who thinks that!


a lotta people thought the world was flat and that eating tomatoes would kill ya.

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

Would it be acceptable if a President put his hand on the Koran?


give that man an insightful!

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would it be acceptable if a President put his hand on the Koran?

If you think it is ok for the President to put his hand on the bible....you better make it ok for him to put it on any other religious document.

Perhaps people who understand the importance of a seperation between church and state shouldn't be classified as "nutjobs"


I think the president needs to swear on something important to him, be it the Bible, Koran, or Moby Dick. It should be the discretion of the president to use the bible, or what not, it is his moment. The best of men (and hopefully someday women) will only, ever, be able to be innagurated twice at most in their lives, it is an accomplishment that they feel they need to atribute to the (insert religious deity here) they feel gave them the strength and itegrity to get there, and hopefully the knowledge to do the job well. I would hope that a president of any (or no) religious background would do the same (metiphoricly speaking, since Atheists do not belive in any god). It's the one chance the president really gets to openly thank their god, and the people for allowing them to have the job.

If we completely remove religion from state, we must also remove religous advisers from the military? Disallow Goverment employees from attending church services? Create a Goverment of Atheists to run the country so that religin is never a factor in creating laws, since any person with a religin is going to question the creation of the law versis their religous beliefs (Ie. abortion, stem cell research, death sentence, etc.). I'm don't think it would work, considering the majority of the population does belive in a religin. But that's just my opinion.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
, we must also remove religious advisers from the military?


Well, military religious advisors, Chaplains, are non-denominational. They'll freely "advise" and help you with in seeking guidance in whatever religion, or lack of religion, that you like.

I'm not going to jump any farther into this conversation though, because in my opinion this is one of those arguments that ends up being nothing more than: "Yeah huh!", "Nuh uh!", "You're dumb!", "Nuh uh! You're a religious freak!"

"Christians" seem to think that only people who are either inspired by the devil, or "nutjobs" want to have a government that is separated from any specific religious group.

While people who want this separation see the above people as religious zealots who are two steps away from wanting to start going to war because "God says so."

It's just one of those arguments, like most religious ones, where neither side is ever going to be dissuaded from their bigoted views.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would it be acceptable if a President put his hand on the Koran?


If that was his religion, then sure, it would be ok....

I think the president needs to swear on something important to him, be it the Bible, Koran, or Moby Dick. It should be the discretion of the president to use the bible, or what not, it is his moment. The best of men (and hopefully someday women) will only, ever, be able to be innagurated twice at most in their lives, it is an accomplishment that they feel they need to atribute to the (insert religious deity here) they feel gave them the strength and itegrity to get there, and hopefully the knowledge to do the job well. I would hope that a president of any (or no) religious background would do the same (metiphoricly speaking, since Atheists do not belive in any god). It's the one chance the president really gets to openly thank their god, and the people for allowing them to have the job.

If we completely remove religion from state, we must also remove religous advisers from the military? Disallow Goverment employees from attending church services? Create a Goverment of Atheists to run the country so that religin is never a factor in creating laws, since any person with a religin is going to question the creation of the law versis their religous beliefs (Ie. abortion, stem cell research, death sentence, etc.). I'm don't think it would work, considering the majority of the population does belive in a religin. But that's just my opinion.


I will go even further....if govt. is going to remove any and all references to the Christian religion....then I want my mail delivered on sundays....i want all govt. offices open on Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter.....Congress needs to be in session during those times also....if we are going to let the left eliminate it, then we need to eliminate it all....not just half-assed. Like I said, have the post office deliver mail on sundays, thanksgiving, christmas, easter.....

Let only the ppl that celebrate those days for the purposes that they were for (Christian holidays), make the the ppl that are against any form of religion anywhere, let them work, let them deliver the mail.....let the lawmakers that are taking away the rights of Christians, let them have their sessions in congress during those times.

This guy is an idiot. Wether ppl want to believe it or not, wether they want to accept it as fact or not...athiesm is a form of a religion...it is a belief system. This guy is forcing his beliefs upon everyone else....And what the hell is a "Minister of Atheism" anyhow??????
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
I always thought that the Bible thing was optional. It is here in Arkansas, anyway, you can swear an oath to tell the truth w/o a Bible or a "so help me God" as long as you swear it in front of a judge.

This makes me pretty angry with my fellow atheists, we should be devoting our efforts to different things.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
.....let the lawmakers that are taking away the rights of Christians, let them have their sessions in congress during those times


This guy is an idiot.


Nobody is "taking away the rights of Christians." Since you feel it's alright to call this guy an idiot for what he believes, I think it's perfectly alright for me to point out what an idiot you are.

Wether ppl want to believe it or not, wether they want to accept it as fact or not...athiesm is a form of a religion...it is a belief system.


5 entries found for religion.
re•li•gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Since it fits none of the above definitions, Atheism is not a form of religion. I'm basically agnostic by the way.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
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.




Oh, but wait....it does sound as though he is "trying to take the rights away from Christians"....he is legally trying to prevent Bush from doing what every other president before him had the option to do.

But, now, for your definitions....would you agree that atheism is the belief that there is no God? Would that not be a "belief system"....in the fact of NOT believing in a God, or.....Beleiving that there is no God?

And as far as this guy being an "idiot"....yeah, he is....this yahoo is even getting on Myrr's bad side....that has to tell you something....unless, of course...you choose not to read.
oh, and one more thing...you seem to have missed part of the definition: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. I got that from dictionary.com I know...you probably won't accept it, since it isn't labeled "Definition defined by CBS".....


Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is based on rational, scientific thought. Religion is based on faith. Religion refuses to admit when something in it has been proven wrong. Atheists don't mind when scientific idea is changed, because it all serves to heighten our understanding.

Sorry that atheism doesn't fit your little paradigm.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
But Atheism is based on faith...you BELIEVE there is no God....doesn't matter what "rational scientific thought" you think you have....you still BELIEVE there is no God.

oh, and nice little dig there, Myrr....you are an athiest, so you use logic and perfect reasoning....but me? I am a Christian, so I must be utterly stupid and beyond the hope of understanding?

Nice, but that is a no-go
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

It's not a belief exactly, belief requires something that is unprovable.  Atheists, and on the same hand, though diametrically opposed, evangelical christians, don't have belief, they have knowledge.  This may be knowledge that others claim is incorrect, but it is not belief in the strictist definition.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I got that from dictionary.com I know...you probably won't accept it, since it isn't labeled "Definition defined by CBS".....


hahaha. Before you point out what I wouldn't accept, actually read what I wrote. I had already included your definition in the definition that I also got from www.dictionary.com.

I still don't think that definition would include atheism. (which is why I used it first )

What exactly is this "cause, principle, or activity" that these atheists pursue, "with zeal or conscientious devotion." Most atheists I know of mostly just say, "Yeah, there's no proof that your God exists, so why should I believe in him?" Again though, I'm not atheist. I'm a firm believer in my ignorance, and thus I don't think that anyone really knows the "truth of it all" yet.

Oh, but wait....it does sound as though he is "trying to take the rights away from Christians"....he is legally trying to prevent Bush from doing what every other president before him had the option to do.


With this logic, you would consider the outlawing of slavery to be "taking rights away from white land-owners"? <--- You could insert a million other analogies that would be just as ridiculous, but accurate. Just because something has been done for a long time, doesn't make it right.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #10 By: Splateaux - 1/10/2005 9:51:21 AM
, we must also remove religious advisers from the military?


Well, military religious advisors, Chaplains, are non-denominational


Wrong answer.
Link

Link

Link

These are just the first 3 from google search page.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nice job of taking part of what I said, and proving it wrong.

Here's what I actually said:

Well, military religious advisors, Chaplains, are non-denominational. They'll freely "advise" and help you with in seeking guidance in whatever religion, or lack of religion, that you like.


What I meant by them being non-denominational is that in practicing their job, they don't promote one religion over another. Just like any other military member, they're free to have whatever religious belief that they like, but their actual job entails them helping out whomever seeks spiritual guidance. Here's some more links if you're into that sort of thing:

Link
Active duty and Reserve chaplains are responsible for supporting both directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion for all members of the Military Services, their dependents, and other authorized persons. (Referenced from DOD 1304.19)


Link
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #20 By: Splateaux - 1/10/2005 4:31:35 PM
Nice job of taking part of what I said, and proving it wrong.

Here's what I actually said:

Well, military religious advisors, Chaplains, are non-denominational. They'll freely "advise" and help you with in seeking guidance in whatever religion, or lack of religion, that you like.


What I meant by them being non-denominational is that in practicing their job, they don't promote one religion over another. Just like any other military member, they're free to have whatever religious belief that they like, but their actual job entails them helping out whomever seeks spiritual guidance. Here's some more links if you're into that sort of thing:

Link
Active duty and Reserve chaplains are responsible for supporting both directly and indirectly the free exercise of religion for all members of the Military Services, their dependents, and other authorized persons. (Referenced from DOD 1304.19)


Maybe you should go check *this* link provided by your own references. And then tell me again how they are non-denominational.
On top of that, the last link *I* provided talked about a USN chaplain Rabbi. Now want to tell me how someone that is refered to as a *Rabbi* can be non-denominational? And just an FYI, request a military fueneral. The very first thing they'll ask is "what denomination was the deceased"?
Link
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe you should try actually reading what I have said a couple times now.

What I meant by them being non-denominational is that in practicing their job, they don't promote one religion over another. Just like any other military member, they're free to have whatever religious belief that they like, but their actual job entails them helping out whomever seeks spiritual guidance.


I can repeat this over and over again, but this is really getting off the main subject of the post.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #22 By: Splateaux - 1/10/2005 5:00:48 PM
Maybe you should try actually reading what I have said a couple times now.

What I meant by them being non-denominational is that in practicing their job, they don't promote one religion over another. Just like any other military member, they're free to have whatever religious belief that they like, but their actual job entails them helping out whomever seeks spiritual guidance.


I can repeat this over and over again, but this is really getting off the main subject of the post.


Then stop using the word non-denominational because that's not what it means. While everything you said is true, chaplains are most definetly denominational. Nuff said.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
oh, and nice little dig there, Myrr....you are an athiest, so you use logic and perfect reasoning....but me? I am a Christian, so I must be utterly stupid and beyond the hope of understanding?


yeah, that sums it up. I'm not the one talking to the man in the moon, a big sky fairy, a man who rose from the dead, or a still, small voice.

Ockham's razor is your new homework assignment. Go read about it.

p.s. I'm against this frivolous lawsuit. Doesn't make Christians any less delusional, though.