Updated:Newdow targets use of clergy
from 
JoeUser Forums
JoeUser Forums
Updating this article: Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible and earlier articles ref. the same individual, an updated article that gives more "from the other side".
From The Washington Times, link here: Newdow targets use of clergy
By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
California atheist Michael Newdow said yesterday that his legal attack on "Christian religious acts" in this year's presidential inauguration specifically targets only those performed by clergymen.
"I have never sued to have anyone keep his or her hand off of a Bible," Mr. Newdow said in response to yesterday's story published in The Washington Times regarding his lawsuit. "As my prayer for relief and judgment specifies, I sought only the prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."
Mr. Newdow filed his 16-page complaint Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"The demands of strict scrutiny have not been met and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious activities," the lawsuit states.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday.
The lawsuit also states: "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 also said yesterday he sought "only the respect and equal protection that the Constitution requires from our government."
Mr. Newdow, 50, a doctor, lawyer and licensed minister of atheism, says Christian ministers praying publicly at the inauguration violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
At President Bush's 2001 inauguration, two ministers, the Rev. Franklin Graham and the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, delivered Christian invocations. Inauguration organizers have yet to announce who will pray this year, but confirmed there will be an invocation and a benediction by ministers chosen by the president.
Such prayers turn non-Christians "into second-class citizens and create division on the basis of religion," Mr. Newdow said Friday.
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 clergy at the inauguration is based on the establishment of chaplains in Congress at its inception, before the Bill of Rights was passed including a prohibition of any "law respecting an establishment of religion."
When the presence of chaplains in the Nebraska 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 tradition to have government-paid chaplains.
"The Supreme Court has given its constitutional blessing, so to speak," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a District-based public-interest law firm. "We should not lose our history and the religious underpinnings it is founded on."
Mr. Newdow filed a similar suit in San Francisco's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court threw out the suit, calling it "futile" and saying that Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury," the Associated Press reported.
... more at linked article
Note the bolded and italicized sections above.
I'd like to sue the individual for the mis-use of the word prayer and title "minister."
I'm heartened that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had the sense enough to toss out his earlier suit. If we had real tort reform -- including loser pays -- this clown would have (hopefully) faced a stiff financial penalty that would have discouraged additional frivilous suits like this. As the court said: Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury,"
I sincerely wish that the Supreme Court of the U.S. would step in and help to decide these issues once and for all. There are (to my knowledge) two "church and state" related issues before the court currently, which I was amazed they actually seemed to reach for, after previously "punting" the decision on Newdow and his now non-custodial daughter. See this link: and scroll down to: McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al. No. 03-1693 for one example case, where the subject is: First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display.
There's also: Van Orden v. Perry subject: Challenge to a Ten Commandments granite monument displayed on the grounds of Texas Capitol since 1961.
Be watching for these decisions, and depending on which way the decision comes down, watch for an uproar after.
From The Washington Times, link here: Newdow targets use of clergy
By Jon Ward
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
California atheist Michael Newdow said yesterday that his legal attack on "Christian religious acts" in this year's presidential inauguration specifically targets only those performed by clergymen.
"I have never sued to have anyone keep his or her hand off of a Bible," Mr. Newdow said in response to yesterday's story published in The Washington Times regarding his lawsuit. "As my prayer for relief and judgment specifies, I sought only the prohibition of using clergymen to further religion."
Mr. Newdow filed his 16-page complaint Dec. 17 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
"The demands of strict scrutiny have not been met and defendants must be enjoined from their planned religious activities," the lawsuit states.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Thursday.
The lawsuit also states: "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 also said yesterday he sought "only the respect and equal protection that the Constitution requires from our government."
Mr. Newdow, 50, a doctor, lawyer and licensed minister of atheism, says Christian ministers praying publicly at the inauguration violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
At President Bush's 2001 inauguration, two ministers, the Rev. Franklin Graham and the Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell, delivered Christian invocations. Inauguration organizers have yet to announce who will pray this year, but confirmed there will be an invocation and a benediction by ministers chosen by the president.
Such prayers turn non-Christians "into second-class citizens and create division on the basis of religion," Mr. Newdow said Friday.
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 clergy at the inauguration is based on the establishment of chaplains in Congress at its inception, before the Bill of Rights was passed including a prohibition of any "law respecting an establishment of religion."
When the presence of chaplains in the Nebraska 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 tradition to have government-paid chaplains.
"The Supreme Court has given its constitutional blessing, so to speak," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice, a District-based public-interest law firm. "We should not lose our history and the religious underpinnings it is founded on."
Mr. Newdow filed a similar suit in San Francisco's 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last year. The court threw out the suit, calling it "futile" and saying that Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury," the Associated Press reported.
... more at linked article
Note the bolded and italicized sections above.
I'd like to sue the individual for the mis-use of the word prayer and title "minister."
I'm heartened that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had the sense enough to toss out his earlier suit. If we had real tort reform -- including loser pays -- this clown would have (hopefully) faced a stiff financial penalty that would have discouraged additional frivilous suits like this. As the court said: Mr. Newdow had not suffered "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury,"
I sincerely wish that the Supreme Court of the U.S. would step in and help to decide these issues once and for all. There are (to my knowledge) two "church and state" related issues before the court currently, which I was amazed they actually seemed to reach for, after previously "punting" the decision on Newdow and his now non-custodial daughter. See this link: and scroll down to: McCreary County, Kentucky, et al. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, et al. No. 03-1693 for one example case, where the subject is: First Amendment, Establishment Clause, Religion, Ten Commandments Display.
There's also: Van Orden v. Perry subject: Challenge to a Ten Commandments granite monument displayed on the grounds of Texas Capitol since 1961.
Be watching for these decisions, and depending on which way the decision comes down, watch for an uproar after.