terpfan1980 terpfan1980

Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

▼

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
11,250 views 42 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #24 By: jeblackstar - 1/10/2005 5:06:02 PM
Actually, that is what it means.


Cheers



Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






2 entries found for nondenominational.
To select an entry, click on it.
nondenominationalnon-

Main Entry: non-
Pronunciation: (')nän also "n&n or 'n&n before '-stressed syllable, "nän also "n&n before "-stressed or unstressed syllable; the variant with & is also to be understood at pronounced entries, though not shown
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin non not, from Old Latin noenum, from ne- not + oinom, neuter of oinos one -- more at NO, ONE
1 : not : other than : reverse of : absence of
2 : of little or no consequence : unimportant : worthless


They would hardly lack the usual characteristics of the thing specified (IE: their particular religion)
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
non·de·nom·i·na·tion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nnd-nm-nsh-nl)
adj.
Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.

In acting in their official capacity as military chaplains, they match the above definition.

I like they way jeblackstar replied better though...
Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top

You gave me the definition for non-?  Seriously, I teach college History, I know what non- means.  However, it seems as if you do not konw what nondenominational means.  They are allowed to practice whatever faith they wish, the Chaplain Rabbi may hold services in Hebrew, the Catholic Chaplain may hold mass in Latin, but if a soldier comes to them seeking religious or faith based adviced, they must advise them based on the religious beliefs of the individual unless asked about their own faith.  I've known many Army, Navy, and Air Force Chaplains over the years and they all say the same thing.


Cheers

Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

Ockham's razor


Good Myr, he's got believe it now because Ockham was a man of God.


Of course, he'll probably claim the Catholics don't count...


Cheers

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #28 By: jeblackstar - 1/10/2005 5:13:11 PM
You gave me the definition for non-? Seriously, I teach college History, I know what non- means. However, it seems as if you do not konw what nondenominational means. They are allowed to practice whatever faith they wish, the Chaplain Rabbi may hold services in Hebrew, the Catholic Chaplain may hold mass in Latin, but if a soldier comes to them seeking religious or faith based adviced, they must advise them based on the religious beliefs of the individual unless asked about their own faith. I've known many Army, Navy, and Air Force Chaplains over the years and they all say the same thing.


However yourself. I guess you didn't read the whole thing did you? Here let me help.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary






2 entries found for nondenominational.
To select an entry, click on it.
nondenominationalnon-

Main Entry: non-
Pronunciation: (')nän also "n&n or 'n&n before '-stressed syllable, "nän also "n&n before "-stressed or unstressed syllable; the variant with & is also to be understood at pronounced entries, though not shown
Function: prefix
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin non not, from Old Latin noenum, from ne- not + oinom, neuter of oinos one -- more at NO, ONE
1 : not : other than : reverse of : absence of
2 : of little or no consequence : unimportant : worthless
3 : lacking the usual especially positive characteristics of the thing specified


Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top

Reply #27 By: Splateaux - 1/10/2005 5:12:49 PM
non·de·nom·i·na·tion·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nnd-nm-nsh-nl)
adj.
Not restricted to or associated with a religious denomination.

In acting in their official capacity as military chaplains, they match the above definition.


Following your line of thinking then they couldn't be called a rabbi or a catholic preist.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top


Well, I don't try to "convert" anyone to atheism. Might make them think it was a religion or something.

Then again, I get so much shit for being "politically correct" so I've been trying to just tell it like I see it.

Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top

drmiller you are incorrect, and you repeated yourself in your response to me. (correct way to use your by the way, it's a possive pronoun)  The advice that the chaplains give to the men and women in the forces must be nondenominational, regardless of the faith they preach at service, and the faith they believe in their hearts.


Chaplains are not encouraged, in fact forbidden, from actively seeking out and converting members of the armed forces.  The Army does not pay it's ministers to go on mission trips.  It pays them to offer comfort to people in a traumatic situation.  Yes, the advice is probably biased by their own personal beliefs, but you would be hard pressed to find someone who isn't.


Cheers

Reply #34 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah, I can understand how you would see it as being bad for a religious person to look beyond they're own personal beliefs in order to try and help out a military member who is seeking spiritual guidance. What a bastard he would be!
Reply #35 from JoeUser Forums Top
Dang, my last comment was based upon DrMiller's original reponse to my post (something about being a Rabbi couldn't be called a Rabbi at that point), but now it makes no sense
Reply #37 from JoeUser Forums Top

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


Abso-friggin' lutely. It would however, be inacceptable to require ME to do it, and there we do have some common ground.

Reply #38 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"


the separation of church and state does not preclude those who serve in the government from practicing their own religion. It would be pointless to have a Christian President swear on the Koran, he may as well swear on X-Men issue # 1. Much like swearing in before testifying, the putting the hand on the bible is optional. If the President wants to swear the oath without the bible they could. They would probably take alot of heat for it if they were Christian. Not that it matters, but military chaplains are denominational, but they can point you to someone of your denomination if needed. Go to any post and you will see ceremonies performed for every type of religion in the community.
Reply #39 from JoeUser Forums Top

Maybe the president should place his hand on the constitution, after all it is the document upon which our government is founded.


Cheers

Reply #40 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #38 By: jeblackstar - 1/11/2005 3:39:04 PM
Maybe the president should place his hand on the constitution, after all it is the document upon which our government is founded.


And just maybe he should just go ahead and put his hand on the Bible anyway (he's supposedly a religious man) just to piss people off.
Reply #41 from JoeUser Forums Top

And just maybe he should just go ahead and put his hand on the Bible anyway (he's supposedly a religious man) just to piss people off.


Exactly. I am of the opinion that denying Bush the right to put his hand on the Bible and have a prayer at his inauguration is a restriction of President Bush's free speech. As far as I'm concerned, the President should be able to have the Grand PooBah of the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo up there if he wants to -- there should be SOME level of personal expression allowed there (although, as William Henry Harrisson would be quick to note, it's wise to wrap up your speech quickly if it be a blizzard).

Reply #42 from JoeUser Forums Top
the separation of church and state does not preclude those who serve in the government from practicing their own religion. It would be pointless to have a Christian President swear on the Koran, he may as well swear on X-Men issue # 1. Much like swearing in before testifying, the putting the hand on the bible is optional. If the President wants to swear the oath without the bible they could. They would probably take alot of heat for it if they were Christian. Not that it matters, but military chaplains are denominational, but they can point you to someone of your denomination if needed. Go to any post and you will see ceremonies performed for every type of religion in the community.


You get an insightful from me whoman. I agree with your statement. As it was noted above, President Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a bible in his swearing in. If I was elected, I would use the constitution myself.

I have been in the Military for over 17 years and never have had a chaplain try to convert me or even bring the subject up. When I have in the past asked to talk with one, they first asked what denomination I am, but that was to get a feeling of how to approach me. Even as an atheist I feel their main reason in the military is to be the unit physiologist or free bitch zone.

My present Chaplain is Mormon, the only reason I know that is because I seen his white under garment slipping above his brown t-shirt while eating with him over lunch. He then confirmed the fact after I casually asked him. To be honest I've only known the Religious faith of one other chaplain, just because he had worn the Star of David. I have inventoried many chaplain's kits in my service and could not tell what faith they were be their kits alone, and even noticed non-religious mental health pamphlets mixed in with the rest of the faith oriented ones. The training that these guys get from the military and the Regulations these guys uphold prevents them from trying to convert people and make them more approachable to give mental health assistance to all faiths as well as those that have no faith.

While I maybe against saying "Under God" in the pledge, I have no problem with allowing the President to place his hand on a Bible (or any other item), or the use of Chaplains in the military. (Please don't flame me for being hypocritical, because that would be a fully different post just to explain the differences in the separation of Church and State IMO).

I think Mr. Newdow has taken it too far past just preventing Government from endorsing/pushing religion and now wants to prevent people from exercising their religion.

That's My Two Cents