Newdow yet again.....This time the inauguration

[Silicon]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=10&u=/ap/inauguration_prayer


SAN FRANCISCO - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed a suit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.


Michael Newdow notes that two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's first inaugural ceremony in 2001, and that plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

In a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Newdow says the use of a prayer is unconstitutional. The case is tentatively scheduled Jan. 14.


If I ever meet Newdow, I'm buying him a beer.

[Brown]

Actually, there will be religious talk at the begining of the ceremony and at the end, too. If this were a private ceremony, of course, it would be no big deal. But it is an official function of the United States.

Justice O'Connor has written most extensively in recent days about "ceremonial deism." In Justice O'Connor's view, it is perfectly all right to mention the name of the Almighty, and do so in a secular fashion, in some circumsatances (465 U.S. 668): "Moreover, these references are uniquely suited to serve such wholly secular purposes as solemnizing public occasions, or inspiring commitment to meet some national challenge in a manner that simply could not be fully served in our culture if government were limited to purely nonreligious phrases." As far as double-talk goes, this is pretty damn good double-talk. If there is an important public occasion (such as a presidential swearing in?) that needs to be solemnized, and we just can't do the job with non-religious phrases, then it's all right to use religious phrases.

It seems to me that anyone who can't do the job with non-religious phrases needs a better speechwriter. Bringing the Almighty's name into it is just plain lazy.

But Justice O'Connor also said, in the Pledge case: "[O]nly in the most extraordinary circumstances could actual worship or prayer be defended as ceremonial deism.... Any statement that has as its purpose placing the speaker or listener in a penitent state of mind, or that is intended to create a spiritual communion or invoke divine aid, strays from the legitimate secular purposes of solemnizing an event and recognizing a shared religious history." Although we don't know what the men of the cloth are planning to say at "King George's coronation," it's a pretty fair bet that they will offer statements statement that have as their purpose placing the speaker or listener in a penitent state of mind, or creating a spiritual communion, or (most likely) invoking divine aid.

So maybe Newdow has a point, legally speaking.

BTW, there is no problem with Bush saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of the oath. These words are not a part of the oath, and the Constitution specifically recognizes that the president-elect may choose to affirm OR swear.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Brown
BTW, there is no problem with Bush saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of the oath. These words are not a part of the oath, and the Constitution specifically recognizes that the president-elect may choose to affirm OR swear.

Not so fast Buster! Have you run your analysis past Shanek yet? Afterall, HE is our Constitutional expert. :rolleyes:

[Silicon]

Bad form, Central.

Dragging old unsettled scores from other threads into this thread tends to trash all discussions. You're taking the worst parts of other degenerated threads and seeding them into other threads.

This thread had no posts by Shanek, and you have added nothing on topic but rather dropped in to attack Shanek.

It's bad form, as it tends to REALLY ramp up the signal/noise ratio on message boards.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by Silicon
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&e=10&u=/ap/inauguration_prayer





If I ever meet Newdow, I'm buying him a beer.
I don't see what the big deal about this is. If Bush wants to say a prayer before his inaugeration, so be it. Now, if Congress tried to pass a law mandating such a prayer it would be a different story altogether.

[T'ai Chi]

Bingo.

[Skeptic]

I hate the phrase, but it is true that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

This phrase doesn't mean that there's no right to be an atheists. What it means is that while YOU have the right to practice any religion you want or no religion at all, you have no right to be "protected" from seeing OTHER people practice THEIR religion, even if they're elected officials.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the president from being a religious person (virtually all of them were, in fact), or from referring to God or from praying in public. What the president (and more generally the government) cannot do is force YOU to be a religious person, or to refer to God, or to pray.

If Bush only allowed Christians to attend his inaguration, or demanded that all those present must join him in prayer or else face punishment, that would have been a problem. But merely "it embarrases me when others pray" or "I would feel feel uncomfortable if Bush asks the crowd to join him in prayer" is no reason to bar it.

The whole "it hurts my sensitivities / it makes me uncomfortable / it creates a coersive enviorment" whinig against prayer is suspect, in my view. Can someone demand whites-only school because being next to black people makes him feel uncomfortable and coerced?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Brown
BTW, there is no problem with Bush saying "so help me God" at the conclusion of the oath. These words are not a part of the oath, and the Constitution specifically recognizes that the president-elect may choose to affirm OR swear.
I disagree. The constitution specifically defines the words to be used. It seems obvious to me that changing them is a violation of the constitution so Bush is in violation with his first act in office. Yeah, yeah, I know many others have done it, but it doesn't make it right.

Slippery slope argument: If we allow that change, what else is permissible?

Now if he wants to add some words after the official swearing in act, fine. And if he wants to wax religious at the same time, that's fine, too. THAT is protected speech. The oath itself is NOT.


Originally posted by Silicon
If I ever meet Newdow, I'm buying him a beer.
I have and I did. Very interesting guy. Turns out his real passion right now is family law because in his fight for equal access to his daughter, the laws of California favor the mother (he says). And he has to pay HER legal fees. Don't ask me why.

By the way, I started a Fund that you can make a tax-exempt donation to Mike (or other First Amendment cases - The fund is also supporting the FFRF's (http://www.ffrf.org) efforts to kill faith-based programs). I'm not sure how much I can flog it here (mods?) so PM me for more info.

ETA: Wrong name in second quote

[DialecticMaterialist]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I hate the phrase, but it is true that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

This phrase doesn't mean that there's no right to be an atheists. What it means is that while YOU have the right to practice any religion you want or no religion at all, you have no right to be "protected" from seeing OTHER people practice THEIR religion, even if they're elected officials.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids the president from being a religious person (virtually all of them were, in fact), or from referring to God or from praying in public. What the president (and more generally the government) cannot do is force YOU to be a religious person, or to refer to God, or to pray.

If Bush only allowed Christians to attend his inaguration, or demanded that all those present must join him in prayer or else face punishment, that would have been a problem. But merely "it embarrases me when others pray" or "I would feel feel uncomfortable if Bush asks the crowd to join him in prayer" is no reason to bar it.

The whole "it hurts my sensitivities / it makes me uncomfortable / it creates a coersive enviorment" whinig against prayer is suspect, in my view. Can someone demand whites-only school because being next to black people makes him feel uncomfortable and coerced?

If it can be seen as violating the Lemon's test, which does actually guarantee freedom from religion (according to the Supreme Court), then the oath can be seen as illegal.


The Constitution does indeed guarantee some freedom from religion, as the Establishment and Free Excercise claus were meant to promote Freedom of Conscience, not freedom for or from religion in paticular.

As for being near african americans in school, such can hardly be said to violate the Lemon Test, or freedom of conscience.

[Riddick]

Originally posted by SezMe
I disagree. The constitution specifically defines the words to be used. It seems obvious to me that changing them is a violation of the constitution so Bush is in violation with his first act in office. Yeah, yeah, I know many others have done it, but it doesn't make it right.

Slippery slope argument: If we allow that change, what else is permissible?

Now if he wants to add some words after the official swearing in act, fine. And if he wants to wax religious at the same time, that's fine, too. THAT is protected speech. The oath itself is NOT.



I have and I did. Very interesting guy. Turns out his real passion right now is family law because in his fight for equal access to his daughter, the laws of California favor the mother (he says). And he has to pay HER legal fees. Don't ask me why.

By the way, I started a Fund that you can make a tax-exempt donation to Mike (or other First Amendment cases - The fund is also supporting the FFRF's (http://www.ffrf.org) efforts to kill faith-based programs). I'm not sure how much I can flog it here (mods?) so PM me for more info.
Maybe Mike will convert to Christianity someday.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Riddick
Maybe Mike will convert to Christianity someday.
:D :D

[Art Vandelay]

I guess this comes down to whether Bush's actions should be considered government action. I think there's enough of a grey area that Newdow's suit is counterproductive; there isn't enough to justify it, and it just makes it harder for us to be taken seriously.

Originally posted by Skeptic
I hate the phrase, but it is true that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."

This phrase doesn't mean that there's no right to be an atheists. What it means is that while YOU have the right to practice any religion you want or no religion at all, you have no right to be "protected" from seeing OTHER people practice THEIR religion, even if they're elected officials.But that's not what freedom from religion means, any more than freedom from fear means that horror movies are illegal.

The whole "it hurts my sensitivities / it makes me uncomfortable / it creates a coersive enviorment" whinig against prayer is suspect, in my view. Can someone demand whites-only school because being next to black people makes him feel uncomfortable and coerced? That's not a very good analogy. Atheists aren't demanding atheist only schools. If the Pledge of Allegiance had a "ceremonial racist" phrase in it, there'd be no question that it should be removed. But religious based bigotry is accepted.

[Art Vandelay]

BTW, I found FFRF to be rather pompous and I don't like the idea of people like that speaking for atheists.

[WildCat]

I support Newdow fully in the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit. But the Bush inaugeration lawsuit I can't support. It's not like he's dragging children into a forced prayer like the POA. Traditionally, the President-elect can have an inaugeration as he sees fit. There's no prayers forced on the onlookers, after all. They can simply ignore them.

It's really no different than if the POTUS says a prayer before his dinner, is it?

And I say this all despite the fact I'm an atheist. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the POTUS can't practice his own religion.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by WildCat
I support Newdow fully in the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit. But the Bush inaugeration lawsuit I can't support. It's not like he's dragging children into a forced prayer like the POA. Traditionally, the President-elect can have an inaugeration as he sees fit. There's no prayers forced on the onlookers, after all. They can simply ignore them.

It's really no different than if the POTUS says a prayer before his dinner, is it?

And I say this all despite the fact I'm an atheist. Freedom of religion doesn't mean that the POTUS can't practice his own religion.

I agree. Newdow's efforts are starting to look less like an upstanding effort to demarcate religion and more like grandstanding. He's about this/close to crying wolf every time religion is mentioned. I'll bet "God" on currency is next.

This is not to trash his position, only his methods. I think he's beginning to enjoy the spotlight a bit too much... like Jesse Jackson, Ralph Nader and other self-apponted watchdogs that never accomplish anything tangible... except for themselves.

Don't get too excited congratulating the guy just yet. Wait till he actually achieves something positive.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Skeptic
I hate the phrase, but it is true that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."I don't agree that this is quite correct. The Constitution does guarantee freedom from government endorsed religion.

The Supreme Court has said, for example:
* The prohibition against governmental endorsement of religion precludes government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.
* Government may not favor religious belief over disbelief.
* The fullest realization of true religious liberty requires that government effect no favoritism among sects or between religion and nonreligion.

If the phrase is interpreted to mean that the Constitution does not guarantee freedom from religious expression by private individuals, then that is correct. Therefore (forgetting the "Clinton precedent" that a president has no private life), Bush is perfectly free to pray to his little heart's content, and no one has any cause to complain. Anyone who attends the inauguration can pray to his heart's content, too.

The concern is that the inauguration is an official state function, not a private function, and that invocation of divine guidance is planned as being an official part of that official function. The organized masses are expected to be led in some sort of appeal to the divine by one or more persons expressly chosen for such a purpose. It is true that no one in the masses has to participate in this appeal, but that does not solve the Constitutional problems. The Supreme Court has said that the government may not show favoritism.

By the way, it is very likely, however, that some sort of participation will be urged from all attendees, regardless of their religious beliefs. One will not be allowed to applaud or talk one's neighbor or sing, but will be urged to be silent during the appeal to the divine. Those who are seated may be urged to rise. Trival, you say? The Supreme Court has said that there is no such thing as a trivial constitutional violation.

[Silicon]

How is a religious invocation at the inauguration any different from a religious invocation at a high-school football game?

Those are not allowed anymore.

[webfusion]

The POA case Newdow brought was not considered by the Supreme Court merely because he had no official standing in the case since he's not the legal guardian of his daughter --- SezMe alludes to this specific problem that Newdow is struggling with. I'm not sure if Newdow is grandstanding, but it certainly seems odd that he went to all the trouble of being a guinea-pig for this issue, while knowing that his legal situation was problematic!
Wasn't there anybody else in this nation who Newdow could have requested to go before the courts instead of him? It was unfortunate that someone with the proper 'credentials' as being officially a parent didn't bring the case (hopefully one day soon someone will).


Secondly, jocko says: I'll bet "God" on currency is next.
Why do we have the term "In God We Trust" on money?:
On July 11.1955, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed Public Law 140 making it mandatory that all coinage and paper currency display the motto "In God We Trust." The following year, Public Law 851 was enacted and signed, which officially replaced the national motto "E Pluribus Unum" with "In God We Trust."

All of this occurred at the height of cold war tension, when political divisions between the Soviet and western block was simplistically portrayed as a confrontation between Judeo-Christian civilization and the "godless" menace of communism. Indeed, the new national motto was only part of a broader effort to effectively 'religionize' civic ritual and symbols.

An effort that is stronger today than ever ...

==============================
This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot. -- Roger Ebert

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Jocko
I'll bet "God" on currency is next.What's wrong with challenging the idea that "true" Americans believe in God?

Don't get too excited congratulating the guy just yet. Wait till he actually achieves something positive. He's already exposed how exposed just how petty the government can be. Although perhaps some might view that as positive.

Silicon
How is a religious invocation at the inauguration any different from a religious invocation at a high-school football game?A graduation ceremony is a celebration held in honor of the entire graduating class, so every member of that class has the right to object to a religious invocation. An inauguration is a celebration held in honor of the president elect, so only the president has clear standing.

[SezMe]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by webfusion
The POA case Newdow brought was not considered by the Supreme Court merely because he had no official standing in the case since he's not the legal guardian of his daughter --- SezMe alludes to this specific problem that Newdow is struggling with. I'm not sure if Newdow is grandstanding, but it certainly seems odd that he went to all the trouble of being a guinea-pig for this issue, while knowing that his legal situation was problematic!
Wasn't there anybody else in this nation who Newdow could have requested to go before the courts instead of him? It was unfortunate that someone with the proper 'credentials' as being officially a parent didn't bring the case (hopefully one day soon someone will).[QUOTE]
I am not an expert in this matter but my understanding is that when the lower courts heard his case, he was considered to have standing. When the 9th Circuit Court ruled in his favor (when the real brouhaha began) they also accepted his standing. Finally, the Supreme Court rarely (sorry, can't quantify that) overrules on standing issues. So he was on solid ground in that regard going in.

The Supremes used that dodge to avoid ruling, IMO.

BTW, he is now gathering cases where this is simply not an issue at all in preparation for another go at it.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
BTW, I found FFRF to be rather pompous and I don't like the idea of people like that speaking for atheists.
Art, I consider these guys to the on the good side. I'd be interested in finding out what gave you the impression of "pompous." And if "like that" means something other than the pompous reference, what does it allude to?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by WildCat
I don't see what the big deal about this is. If Bush wants to say a prayer before his inaugeration, so be it.

In the unlikely event that I ever become president, I promise to invoke the Monkey Gods, Odin, and Satan in my oath.

I will also divert billions in funding to faith-based charities, but only if they are Santeria ones.

Vouchers for Buddhist schools.

"In Aphrodite We Trust" on the currency.

And the Pledge shall read "Under the gods, if any".

I've often wondered if the supporters of religion, ceremonial or not, in government would change their minds if the religion wasn't theirs? I'm betting they would, in which case I would tell them that they may have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion, and then I'd bless them in the name of Vishnu.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay
What's wrong with challenging the idea that "true" Americans believe in God?

And who, precisely, is saying that? Are you telling me they check your religious credentials before accepting your money?

As to what's wrong with "challenging" religious mentions en masse is that you're going to get a backlash, setting back your own cause. Is that what you want? Ask the gay marriage proponents how well a legal blitzkrieg works in the mid- to long-term.

Again, as I CLEARLY stated, I'm expressing no opinion on his position, merely his tactics and the way they strongly resemble the kind of people you're supposedly so worried about.

He's already exposed how exposed just how petty the government can be. Although perhaps some might view that as positive.

All he's "exposed" is that he's a piss-poor lawyer to not realize he had no standing to bring the pledge case in the first place. Unless the publicity was more important than the result...? Any light bulbs going off here?

Silicon
A graduation ceremony is a celebration held in honor of the entire graduating class, so every member of that class has the right to object to a religious invocation. An inauguration is a celebration held in honor of the president elect, so only the president has clear standing.

How is the president swearing an oath to the office in "his" honor? I don't quite see that. Seems more to me that it's in the Constitution's honor. Could you elaborate?

[corplinx]

I think Newdow is a great american. Challenging the status quo is a good thing (tm).

He may be dickweed, but at least he's dickweed that challenges authority.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think Newdow is a great american. Challenging the status quo is a good thing (tm).

He may be dickweed, but at least he's dickweed that challenges authority.

That's pretty bizarre. I think there needs to be something more to your argument.


My crazy uncle Joe is a great american. Instead of driving on the right side of the road, he drives on the left.

He may be a dickweed, but at least he's a dickweed that challenges authority.



It seems to me that one needs a cause worth fighting for (no doubt many believe Newdow's is) and an intelligent plan for fighting the battle.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think Newdow is a great american. Challenging the status quo is a good thing (tm).

He may be dickweed, but at least he's dickweed that challenges authority.

Well, is the challenge more important than the result? Because his efforts are becoming increasingly self-defeating. I'd rather see justice brought about by some anonymous person with a decent head on his shoulders than a feel-good existential protest that earns one man notoriety but produces no result... except to potentially galvanize the opposition.

Strictly from a pragmatic perspective, I think Newdow has the potential to cause more harm than good in this area. Whether he's right or not is immaterial, IMHO.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
That's pretty bizarre. I think there needs to be something more to your argument.


My crazy uncle Joe is a great american. Instead of driving on the right side of the road, he drives on the left.

He may be a dickweed, but at least he's a dickweed that challenges authority.



It seems to me that one needs a cause worth fighting for (no doubt many believe Newdow's is) and an intelligent plan for fighting the battle.

Well, congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. Now, we accept that this principal of church/state seperation needs to be followed in spirit as well as in letter.

Someone needs to occasionally ask "where is the line?" Prayer at a presidential inauguration certainly falls within the letter of the law but does it fall outside the spirit of it?

Someone needs to be the guy who asks us to re-examine these sorts of issues.

[SezMe]

Originally posted by Jocko
All he's "exposed" is that he's a piss-poor lawyer to not realize he had no standing to bring the pledge case in the first place. Unless the publicity was more important than the result...? Any light bulbs going off here?
Yes, that you can't read. As my post above notes, THREE different courts found that he had standing. The supremes took the cowards way out by invoking this silliness rather than addressing the issue.

Regarding, "piss-poor" I can clearly remember numerous commentaries about his presentation to the supremes. All said he did an amazingly good job. Even the government lawyer said he presented an excellent case. There is, therefore, wide-spread evidence that your opinion has no basis, in fact.

Look, Jocko, you may be right about his tactics being wrong. It's a judgement call. But I'd be more persuaded by your arguments if you got your facts right.

ETA: Hey, I had this thought. The Supremes took this case because they thought it was going to be a slam dunk for god. Then they sealed their idea by allowing an exception to the rules by allowing a junior, snot-nosed punk to argue his own case. But, ooops, he made one helluva case, and they had to take a powder.

No, I have NO evidence for this scenario. Just food for thought.

[Silicon]

I don't buy it, Sez.

The Court doesn't seem to want to weigh in on the God question. It wanted and found a way out of the ban, by judging it based on standing.


We'll see what happens when Newdow's second try comes up, where he has people without standing questions.



In the meanwhile, Brown, you're our resident Court watcher. What do you say about my question about the difference between an invocation at a HS football game vs. at the inauguration?

Is the football game or a graduation a problem because the honorees must listen, like Art says? And therefore the President is the only one who could complain. I don't think that was the precident. It was promotion of the religion that was the problem IIRC.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Silicon
In the meanwhile, Brown, you're our resident Court watcher. What do you say about my question about the difference between an invocation at a HS football game vs. at the inauguration?

Is the football game or a graduation a problem because the honorees must listen, like Art says? And therefore the President is the only one who could complain. I don't think that was the precident. It was promotion of the religion that was the problem IIRC. I'm getting ready for TAM3 and regret that I don't have the time to give the question the discussion it deserves. For those interested in the 1992 graduation prayer case, Lee v. Weisman, you can read the opinion here. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=505&invol=577) Justice Thomas, in the Pledge case, asserted that Lee should be overruled:I believe, however, that Lee was wrongly decided. Lee depended on a notion of "coercion" that, as I discuss below, has no basis in law or reason. The kind of coercion implicated by the Religion Clauses is that accomplished "by force of law and threat of penalty."

[Silicon]

Thanks Brown. Found it in Lee:


(e) Inherent differences between the public school system and a session of a state legislature distinguish this case from Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 , which condoned a prayer exercise. The atmosphere at a state legislature's opening, where adults are free to enter and leave with little comment and for any number of reasons, cannot compare with the constraining potential of the one school event most important for the student to attend. Pp. 596-598.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=505&invol=577

It's the constraining potential that's the issue, just as Art said.

And in Lee, they continute to hold that a prayer at a state legislature's opening didn't apply.

So I think Bush's prayer is safe.

[SezMe]

An update (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1105364080429)

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by corplinx
I think Newdow is a great american. Challenging the status quo is a good thing (tm).

He may be dickweed, but at least he's dickweed that challenges authority.

He's also a dickweed who's going to cost taxpayers a lot of money over a non-issue that will be thrown out of court (again).
... Unless it's the 9th circuit, then the Supreme Court will have to overturn (again).

With all the problems facing the US right now I wish this guy would just go get himself laid or something and get off this dumb crusade.

[Skeptic]

I've often wondered if the supporters of religion, ceremonial or not, in government would change their minds if the religion wasn't theirs?

Not necessarily. Many jews, for instance, oppose the "secularization" of the American public square despite the fact that the religion in the public square is usually Christianity.

I'm betting they would, in which case I would tell them that they may have freedom of religion, but not freedom from religion, and then I'd bless them in the name of Vishnu.

Well, there ARE Hindus in the USA (quite a few, actually). Would it really offend you that a religious procession honoring Vishnu is walking down the street to the local Hindu temple?

And if it DID, would you have the right to stop the procession under the claim that you have the right not to see religious ceremonies if you don't want to?

I think Newdow is a great american. Challenging the status quo is a good thing (tm).

He may be dickweed, but at least he's dickweed that challenges authority.

Ah, yes, the T-shirt mentality: "Question Authority" (except that of whatever philosophy is "cool" at the moment).

What about questioning whether women have the right to vote, or whether blacks are actually human beings and not apes? Shouldn't we QUESTION such assumptions?

Mill's argument--that it is GOOD to question authority for its own sake as this would force authority to respond with better arguments to truth's benefit--had been disproven by history over and over again. In many cases, the result of "questioning authority" had merely been the continual weakening of the social fabric and morality to no good effect.

Surely, whether it is good or not to question authority depends on WHAT you are questioning. Just because authority says so doesn't mean it's wrong.

The concern is that the inauguration is an official state function, not a private function, and that invocation of divine guidance is planned as being an official part of that official function.

Sure--but the same can be said of numerous speeches and official procalamations by Washington, Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and, well, just about any American president. Were they all acting unconstitutionally?

Or how about the official Chaplain of Congress? There is official prayer there, too. Is it illegal?

It seems unlikely that all of them had "misinterpreted' the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment deals with what CONGRESS can or cannot do WITH THE LAWS IT PASSES: "Congress shall make no law...", etc. It doesn't say a damn thing about the PRESIDENT can or cannot mention God (the president does not make the law, although he can veto it), nor, for that matter, about what Congressmen can or cannot do in the building itself.

The idea that the 1st amendment is intended to--in effect--forbid ALL mentions or religion by ALL government officials would have seemed absolutely absurd to the founders, or, for that matter, to anybody before the 1960s.

It's just not what the Constitution says.

[rikzilla]

What he said. :D

Newdow's efforts ring hollow to me because they're so....small. C'mon, who the hell really cares whether or not GWB says one, or is prayed for? Would a successful injunction against inaugural prayer make atheists more powerful? Well liked? Admired? Prettier?? No.

It's penny-ante BS grandstanding. If anything Newdow's success would end up making life harder on professed atheists, not better.

He had a small, inconsequential point about the POA...he has no point at all on this.

-z

[webfusion]

Prayers at presidential inaugurals and legislative sessions go back to 1789, the government said, in response to the lawsuit

Yeah, so did slavery exist in 1789.
Lame argument.

I still think the issue is one of vertical prayer vesus horizontal prayer, in general, and this one innaugural event is symptomatic of the public displays of Christian Prayer to God (aka Jesus)nationwide up to and including the POA.


=============================
Huge Banner Sign on County Office Building:
"God Bless Our Troops"

Response when I asked the County Attorney if it wouldn't have been better to say We Support Our Troops -- "hey, if it bothers you, try and sue the government"
Great, just great.

[crimresearch]

"...Yes, that you can't read. As my post above notes, THREE different courts found that he had standing. The supremes took the cowards way out by invoking this silliness rather than addressing the issue."


Uhhhmmm... I think if we do a little checking, we will find out that the Supreme Court is pretty much in the business of overturning cases that lower courts have agreed on, and this wouldn't be the first time they turned down a flawed case, and waited for one in which they could deliver a more definitive verdict.

As I recall, the current standard is that ceremonial observations of religion like inaugural prayers are OK with the Court.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Surely, whether it is good or not to question authority depends on WHAT you are questioning. Just because authority says so doesn't mean it's wrong.


I think you and pepto are doing my arguement a disservice since I fleshed it out later by saying:

Well, congress shall make no law establishing a state religion. Now, we accept that this principal of church/state seperation needs to be followed in spirit as well as in letter.

Someone needs to occasionally ask "where is the line?" Prayer at a presidential inauguration certainly falls within the letter of the law but does it fall outside the spirit of it?

Someone needs to be the guy who asks us to re-examine these sorts of issues.

His lawsuit is provocative and I think its good for having us re-examine the horizontal versus vertical prayer issue.

Mind you, I THINK HE IS WRONG but I think its an arguement worth having.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Brown
The concern is that the inauguration is an official state function, not a private function, and that invocation of divine guidance is planned as being an official part of that official function. The organized masses are expected to be led in some sort of appeal to the divine by one or more persons expressly chosen for such a purpose. It is true that no one in the masses has to participate in this appeal, but that does not solve the Constitutional problems. The Supreme Court has said that the government may not show favoritism.




Is anyone there who is actually obligated to be there? Aren't those the only people who could complain? It seems to me that if one found the whole thing so offensive they could just not go.

While I am an atheist, I find a lot of the bitching and moaning about religion to be little more than just bitching and moaning.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Ed
Is anyone there who is actually obligated to be there? Aren't those the only people who could complain? It seems to me that if one found the whole thing so offensive they could just not go.
No one is obligated to be there, but don't you know that you're obligated to pay for it!? It's tax money that is funding this crap.
Originally posted by Ed
While I am an atheist, I find a lot of the bitching and moaning about religion to be little more than just bitching and moaning.
Any attempt to eradicate something so destructive to human society is good in my book.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.

Any attempt to eradicate something so destructive to human society is good in my book.

It can be motivation for bad, but also good. Think Martin Luther King, for example.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by jzs
It can be motivation for bad, but also good. Think Martin Luther King, for example.
Martin Luther King was just a good person. He would have done what he did without religion too.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
No one is obligated to be there, but don't you know that you're obligated to pay for it!? It's tax money that is funding this crap.

So I am obligated to pay for the inauguration of the President of the United States. So? From my standpoint, the more in your face it is, the better. Are you suggesting that he should sorta slink off somewhere after the oath? Again, so what?

Any attempt to eradicate something so destructive to human society is good in my book.

It won't happen. Not during any number of lifetimes. You might try looking for some fights that can be won.[/QUOTE]

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
He would have done what he did without religion too.

While I don't really disagree with that, that is speculation.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by SezMe
Art, I consider these guys to the on the good side. I'd be interested in finding out what gave you the impression of "pompous." And if "like that" means something other than the pompous reference, what does it allude to? Mostly it was the tone of their "Bible Quiz". The general feeling I got from that was "Look at how awful Christianity is". If they really want to present arguments for that, they should do so, instead of hiding behind a "quiz" and the implicit claim that their answers are the "right ones".

The most egregious example is the one about bats:
Biblical biology rates an 'F.' Bats are mammals, not birds. This is another good reason to keep bibles out of science classes.
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture . . . And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." (Leviticus 11:13-19, where "fowl" is oph. Repeated in Deuteronomy 14:11-20, calling the same list "birds" [tsippor] and "fowls" [oph])
The biblical writers did not understand the classification of animals, and the concept of "mammal" is absent from their writings. The bible was clearly not inspired by an all-knowing god.
What, do they think the Bible was written in English? A word which was translated into English as "bird" was used to refer to a word that was translated into English as "bat". Who are we to tells Jews what their words should mean? There is nothing "scientific" about putting bats and birds into separate categories; that is simply a cultural choice. Saying that they did not understand the classification of animals is silly; it's like saying that they didn't understand the classification of books because they didn't follow the Dewey decimal system. The scientific system of nomenclature is not the One True Classification System, and not following it does not denote a failure to understand "the" classification of animals. These people just make atheists look like jackasses who cannot even imagine that there might be other cultures.

They also have questionable parsing skills. After quoting the Bible as saying
And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.
they claim that "he" refers to God, when it clearly refers to Judah.

Other "evidence" against Christianity include interbreeding between angles and humans, referring to the heart as the source of thoughts, and grasshoppers being kosher (more cultural chauvanism).

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Jocko
And who, precisely, is saying that?
Whoever it is that insists that "we" trust in God. If "we" trust in God, then surely anyone who does not trust in God cannot possibly be part of this "we", no?

As to what's wrong with "challenging" religious mentions en masse is that you're going to get a backlash, setting back your own cause.
What is our cause, if not to oppose blatant bigotry? Should we let injustice slide, because opposing it will make things worse?

All he's "exposed" is that he's a piss-poor lawyer to not realize he had no standing to bring the pledge case in the first place.So were all those judges who agreed with him that he had standing also "piss-poor" lawyers?

How is the president swearing an oath to the office in "his" honor? I don't quite see that. Seems more to me that it's in the Constitution's honor. Could you elaborate? I didn't say the swearing in is in his honor. I said that the ceremony surrounding it is in his honor. All the consitution requires is the oath "I do solemnly swear..." I timed myself, and it took me less than twelve seconds to say it. Do you think on Inauguration Day, Bush will get up, run through the oath, then say "okay, that's done, let's all go home"?

peptoabysmal
He's also a dickweed who's going to cost taxpayers a lot of money over a non-issue that will be thrown out of court (again).
... Unless it's the 9th circuit, then the Supreme Court will have to overturn (again).If you're talking about the inaguaration, I don't see how the 9th circuit could possibly have jurisdiction. If you're talking about the pledge, this is most certainly not a "non-issue". And complaining about the cost is blaming the victim; if taxpayers didn't insist on violating our rights, they could save themselves the cost of the suit. Oh, and the Supreme Court never overturned the 9th circuit decision that this is unconstitutional; if they had, that would be another way for those poor taxpayers to save their precious money.

SkepticWhat about questioning whether women have the right to vote, or whether blacks are actually human beings and not apes? Shouldn't we QUESTION such assumptions?I don't see anything wrong with it.

It seems unlikely that all of them had "misinterpreted' the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment deals with what CONGRESS can or cannot do WITH THE LAWS IT PASSES: "Congress shall make no law...", etc. It doesn't say a damn thing about the PRESIDENT can or cannot mention God (the president does not make the law, although he can veto it), nor, for that matter, about what Congressmen can or cannot do in the building itself.
And there are absolutely no laws that deal with the inauguration? I suppose it would be okay for the army to arrest every nonChristian in the country, as long Congress didn't actually pass a law authorizing it. Every government act can be traced back to an act of congress; that's what makes it a government act.

Batman Jr.No one is obligated to be there, but don't you know that you're obligated to pay for it!? It's tax money that is funding this crap.Even if the ceremony is funded by tax money, is the invocation specifically so funded?

[T'ai Chi]

How does Newdow get harmed by hearing a prayer?

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Ed
So I am obligated to pay for the inauguration of the President of the United States. So? From my standpoint, the more in your face it is, the better. Are you suggesting that he should sorta slink off somewhere after the oath? Again, so what?

He shouldn't be endorsing any one religion in a publicly funded ceremony. That’s what I'm suggesting. He should at least do the oath sans the prayers. He can pursue his religion on his own time and on his own money.

Ideally, I don't think he should be making the inauguration into such a spectacle in the first place when I look at what a sorry state our budget is in. Talking about places to "curb" spending, don't you think stupid, nonutilitarian social functions like the inaugural ball ought to be scrapped before anything else? And then aside from my pragmatic leanings, I find it distasteful for the President to indulge himself in the kind of saturnalia involved in those sorts of things in a time of such solemnity, and a solemnity—i.e. that which was brought on by the distressing war in Iraq—that he himself had helped needlessly to champion at that.
Originally posted by Ed
It won't happen. Not during any number of lifetimes. You might try looking for some fights that can be won.
The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.
Originally posted by Art Vandelay
Even if the ceremony is funded by tax money, is the invocation specifically so funded?
I think that's irrelevant. In either case, the vehicle for its presentation is taxpayer-funded.

[Jocko]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
He shouldn't be endorsing any one religion in a publicly funded ceremony. That’s what I'm suggesting. He should at least do the oath sans the prayers. He can pursue his religion on his own time and on his own money.

Er, if you mean those religions that propose the existence of a God, then I guess I have to ask... what does that leave? BTW, Wicca is not a religion. It's parent punishment.

Ideally, I don't think he should be making the inauguration into such a spectacle in the first place when I look at what a sorry state our budget is in. Talking about places to "curb" spending, don't you think stupid, nonutilitarian social functions like the inaugural ball ought to be scrapped before anything else? And then aside from my pragmatic leanings, I find it distasteful for the President to indulge himself in the kind of saturnalia involved in those sorts of things in a time of such solemnity, and a solemnity—i.e. that which was brought on by the distressing war in Iraq—that he himself had helped needlessly to champion at that.

Okay, how many years have we run a surplus? 16? 18? So do you condemn all the other spendthrifts, Democrat, Republican, Federalist, Whig, etc. who did the same thing?


The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.

You fail to calculate the cost of the backlash caused by a grandstanding spotlight hog. As I said before, such people often do more harm than good. Look at Nader in 2000 if you need an example.

I think that's irrelevant. In either case, the vehicle for its presentation is taxpayer-funded.

And how much is the incremental taxpayer cost for the inclusion of "God" in the text? Care to parse the expense by the word? Sheesh.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
The fight doesn't have to be "won" for progress to be made. Stimulating the public discourse will be enough for what Newdow is doing to do good.



Good? How? By making atheists look petty? By suggesting that all that can or should be done is Quixotic? By suggesting that the serious issues of the establishment clause are bumper stickers? This is not a big one and the inauguration of the American President is a big deal and no one with an once of PR sense would touch it with a ten foot pole. The only thing more stupid would be for him (or anyone) to have made a stink over prayers at Reagens funeral service. No one will remember this idiot crusade 5 minutes after it is rendered irrelevant. And for what precisely?

This will go over like a turd in a punchbowl.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Jocko
Er, if you mean those religions that propose the existence of a God, then I guess I have to ask... what does that leave? BTW, Wicca is not a religion. It's parent punishment.
When did I ever refer to the religions as being just those which include God? I mean that religion shouldn't play a part in the proceedings, period. I don't know what is with you people.
Originally posted by Jocko
Okay, how many years have we run a surplus? 16? 18? So do you condemn all the other spendthrifts, Democrat, Republican, Federalist, Whig, etc. who did the same thing?
Of course I do. I'm surprised at you, Jocko, the supposed arch-conservative. It's okay for the government to spend money on lavish nonsense but socialist programs trying to satisfy the most basic needs of the less fortunate are out of the question?
Originally posted by Jocko
You fail to calculate the cost of the backlash caused by a grandstanding spotlight hog. As I said before, such people often do more harm than good. Look at Nader in 2000 if you need an example.
How does this compare to Nader? We're talking about a candidate splitting the vote in an election as opposed to a guy bringing a case to court. The two situations are incompatible.

There's always going to be backlash when we deal with institutions of such consequence and controversy. You're always going to have the reactionaries. But you can never make any progress if you're going to let yourself be bated by them.
Originally posted by Jocko
And how much is the incremental taxpayer cost for the inclusion of "God" in the text? Care to parse the expense by the word? Sheesh.
Even if it were free, for it to be given audience at a publicly-funded gathering makes the issue important.
Originally posted by Ed
Good? How? By making atheists look petty? By suggesting that all that can or should be done is Quixotic? By suggesting that the serious issues of the establishment clause are bumper stickers? This is not a big one and the inauguration of the American President is a big deal and no one with an once of PR sense would touch it with a ten foot pole. The only thing more stupid would be for him (or anyone) to have made a stink over prayers at Reagens funeral service. No one will remember this idiot crusade 5 minutes after it is rendered irrelevant. And for what precisely?

This will go over like a turd in a punchbowl.
I don't see how the government's endorsement of a particular religion is a "bumper sticker." Many religious people feel just as anxious as Newdow about mentions of God being purged from public proceedings. No one is going to look at this as being petty.

[T'ai Chi]

I'll repeat:

Originally posted by jzs
How does Newdow get harmed by hearing a prayer?

Would he get just as 'harmed' if a person of office wore a visible cross, for example, or brought a Bible to work?

[T'ai Chi]

check out the music samples at

http://www.restorethepledge.com/store/

lol

[Ed]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
I don't see how the government's endorsement of a particular religion is a "bumper sticker." Many religious people feel just as anxious as Newdow about mentions of God being purged from public proceedings. No one is going to look at this as being petty.

It is not clear that a mention of god serves as an endorcement of anything important. It hardly indicates that the government is establishing a religion. The bumper sticker aspect is the word or words during the inauguration.

"Purging mentions of God" sounds rather Kymer Rougeish. Certainly there is a free speech element too, is there not? And what happens if someone mentions "god"? Does he go to the slammer? Does this mean that clergy cannot outwardly wear religious simbols on the podium? Would you be outraged if a Cardinal crossed himself?

This is taking on the appearence of the looniness of the people from the right who see satan in every form of entertainment and complain to the FCC on a regular basis. Some of their complaints may have some merit but it ends up looking like these folks have too much time on their hands and thus marginalizes any valid points that they may have.

[hammegk]

Karl Rove et al could not have manufactured a better boogeyman than Newdow is providing at no charge. (Assuming he is at "no charge" ... :D )

[Ed]

Originally posted by hammegk
Karl Rove et al could not have manufactured a better boogeyman than Newdow is providing at no charge. (Assuming he is at "no charge" ... :D )

Yeah, like the people who chained themselves up in protest against the iraq war in SF. I am sure they received the accolades of their peers whilst sipping lo-cal demi lattes later that evening.

[Batman Jr.]

Originally posted by Ed
It is not clear that a mention of god serves as an endorcement of anything important. It hardly indicates that the government is establishing a religion. The bumper sticker aspect is the word or words during the inauguration.
What, so they have to read the entire Bible to you for you to get their message? A mention of God is sufficient to express religious conviction just as a simple "zieg heil" will tell you that a person is a Nazi.
Originally posted by Ed
"Purging mentions of God" sounds rather Kymer Rougeish. Certainly there is a free speech element too, is there not? And what happens if someone mentions "god"? Does he go to the slammer? Does this mean that clergy cannot outwardly wear religious simbols on the podium? Would you be outraged if a Cardinal crossed himself?
This isn't about disallowing religion. This is about keeping religion out of government and making people realize why the two institutions can't mix.
Originally posted by Ed
This is taking on the appearence of the looniness of the people from the right who see satan in every form of entertainment and complain to the FCC on a regular basis. Some of their complaints may have some merit but it ends up looking like these folks have too much time on their hands and thus marginalizes any valid points that they may have.
Now those people are trying to limit freedom of speech. They are attacking the messages of a private industry and attempting to get them censored. I'm attacking the messages of the government for which every citizen of this country holds a very important responsibility. When money out of our own pockets goes toward the proliferation of a message we don't like, then it is very much our business whether or not that message is allowed.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Batman Jr.
When money out of our own pockets goes toward the proliferation of a message we don't like, then it is very much our business whether or not that message is allowed.
Umm, like teaching schoolkids that homo=hetero? Or that man-man or woman-woman pairs are a marriage equal in all regards to man-woman marriage? Or that referring to baby-killers as people who Choose makes it ok?

Please Ed, if only Newdow marries a (male) gay pedophile & they adopt lots of kids ..... then make snuff films starring them. Maybe the Dems have found the perfect candidate?

[varwoche]

Originally posted by hammegk
Umm, like teaching schoolkids that homo=hetero? Or that man-man or woman-woman pairs are a marriage equal in all regards to man-woman marriage? Or that referring to baby-killers as people who Choose makes it ok?

Please Ed, if only Newdow marries a (male) gay pedophile & they adopt lots of kids ..... then make snuff films starring them. Maybe the Dems have found the perfect candidate? Can you cite a public school textbook/cirriculum that teaches "homo=hetero"? If schoolkids are being taught this, it would be incredibly stupid. But it wouldn't violate the constitution.

As to the baby-killers comment, need I remind you that legal abortion is the of the land? Are you suggesting that schools keep this fact secret?

[thaiboxerken]

Hammy really does bring up some idiotic points. It's like his entire estate is full of strawmen that he just wants to share with the entire world.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by varwoche
Can you cite a public school textbook/cirriculum that teaches "homo=hetero"?
Nope. Would you care to aver that any public school teaches homo=aberant behavior?


As to the baby-killers comment, need I remind you that legal abortion is the of the land? Are you suggesting that schools keep this fact secret?
The Dred Scott decision was also once the law of the land.

[hgc]

Originally posted by hammegk
...
The Dred Scott decision was also once the law of the land. hammy, looks like you listened well to Bush, your favorite political philosopher, in the debates. I am so glad that he's not going to appoint any justices that would have voted for the Dred Scott decision.

I'm also glad that he's not going to let those darned Kaklamanians invade our pristine shores.

[hammegk]

My favorite political philosopher is Machiavelli. :)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by hammegk
My favorite political philosopher is Machiavelli. :)

I would have thought it was the Scarecrow from The Wizard of Oz.


You know, no brains, but plenty of straw.

[hammegk]

Sounds more like you, Silli.

[thaiboxerken]

I'd say he's more like the Wizard, hoping no one will see past his curtain.

[webfusion]

The case was dismissed yesterday.

Reason given: Newdow has no standing.

[thaiboxerken]

The real reason is that the courts would rather not get bullied by Congress and the White House on such issues again. 9th district courts got their pee-pee stomped for trying to uphold the Constition already.

[Ladyhawk]

Originally posted by Ed
Is anyone there who is actually obligated to be there? Aren't those the only people who could complain? It seems to me that if one found the whole thing so offensive they could just not go.

While I am an atheist, I find a lot of the bitching and moaning about religion to be little more than just bitching and moaning.

As I understand it, Newdow somehow got himself invited to the Inauguaration. He was on H&C the other night. As one guest pointed out, Newdow probably wrangled the invite so that he could complain.

I've seen Newdow on only a few occasions on H&C and other shows. He doesn't seem like a crackpot to me. He's actually quite calm and pretty logical when arguing the language of the Constitution and how it differs from the language of the DOI eleven years prior. Up until this recent stint, I'd admired his efforts to draw the public's attention to how the government, intentionally or not, embraces the Judaeo-Christian faith. But, this last effort seems to be so insignificant, in comparison, that I fear the more important issues will get lost in the shuffle.

Newdow takes a lot of heat and I respect anyone who tolerates that kind of ...uh....intolerance, whether he's grandstanding or not. Personally, I'm far more concerned about the words "under God" in the POA and "In God We Trust" on our currency. I wish he'd focus more on that and less on some trite little incantation at Dubya's coming-back party...:rolleyes:

[SezMe]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Uhhhmmm... I think if we do a little checking, we will find out that the Supreme Court is pretty much in the business of overturning cases that lower courts have agreed on, and this wouldn't be the first time they turned down a flawed case, and waited for one in which they could deliver a more definitive verdict.
I agree. But the issue of standing rarely makes or breaks the quality of a case. Thus my statement that the Supremes rarely reject a case based on standing. Again, I agree with you that they often reject cases for other reasons, however.

I admit to no expertise here. Maybe Brown can help out when he is back.

[SezMe]

I must admit I reluctantly agree with Ladyhawk. This inaugeration suit is a distraction - maybe even a serious distractioin. He has at least 8 good, solid litigants lined up for his next go at the Pledge issue. I do think the Pledge issue is a valuable one but it (and he) will be taken less seriously because of this current affair.

BTW, regarding a previous post about money, Newdow has clear, stated plans to go after "In God We Trust" after he wins the Pledge case. Anyway, that is the way he puts it.

[T'ai Chi]

I watched some of the innaguration... I must say, I felt like an outsider when I was forced to watched it, like a second class citizen, whenever a mention of god, or the bible, or the koran, or blessing, or anything even having the letters r, e, l, i, g, o, and n in it came on for that .001% of the time.

...

Sorry, was channelling newdoo for a second there.

I don't beleve in any gods, and wasn't particularly threatened or upset at all with it.

[Dorian Gray]

Newdow must not have known that the swearing in ceremony is done by the President placing his hand on the Bible of his choosing.

[BrianW.]

What about Newdow as a possible speaker at TAM 4 next year?

[Kopji]

Seemed like a 16 minute sermon, and Newdow was fretting about the 'amen' at the end.