Atheist sues to ban hand on Bible

[HagiaSophia]

Brad:

The time has long past where we need to take action to counteract this nonsense. No matter how non-sensical it is, it affects the law of the land, which affects perceptions, which affects society and religous belief. It is never a waste of time to combat these people as they will find judges that will affect your life and my life. It is the most useful thing we can do with out time in this day.

Isn’t there such a thing as a law against using the courts for frivolous lawsuits? Can’t someone sue him for a change?

Did I read this man is a doctor? I hope I’m wrong.

 

[Lisa_N]

HagiaSophia:

Isn’t there such a thing as a law against using the courts for frivolous lawsuits? Can’t someone sue him for a change?

Did I read this man is a doctor? I hope I’m wrong.

Doctor AND lawyer…be afraid be very afraid. You have to wonder at someone who likes school this much. Maybe a fear of actually living in reality?

Lisa N

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Lisa N:

Doctor AND lawyer…be afraid be very afraid. You have to wonder at someone who likes school this much. Maybe a fear of actually living in reality?

Lisa N

Maybe he is just doing this because he has now started an anti-ministry of sorts,and I am sure since he is the pastor he will get tax exempt status and make lots of money and pay off his student loans.Since he is obviously a miserably angry, he is getting a sick pleasure from needling the rest of us with this nonsense. Maybe we should sue him for our temporary rise in blood pressure every time he has pulled his anti-God stunts God Bless

 

[HagiaSophia]

Lisa N:

Doctor AND lawyer…be afraid be very afraid. You have to wonder at someone who likes school this much. Maybe a fear of actually living in reality?

Lisa N

Well if I were a patient, I’d be looking elsewhere for help - maybe he ought to try psychiatry next?

 

[quijote]

wisdom 3:5:

If George Bush was an athiest he would be within his rights to decide not to have a Bible while being sworn in. However, we all know that Mr. Bush **is **a practising Christian. Too bad this guy feels so threatened by Christianity that he feels the need to stomp it out wherever he encounters it.

Heard on the radio yesterday that the only president who did not use a Bible while being sworn in was Teddy Roosevelt. It was not specified why.

Cheers.

 

[Trelow]

aclj.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=1038
Jay’s on the job!

WorldNetDaily - Newdow’s Anti-Prayer Challenge “Legally Flawed”
Ê

Tuesday, January 11, 2005

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

California atheist Michael Newdow’s lawsuit to block prayer at President Bush’s inauguration has no merit, contends the American Center for Law and Justice, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief arguing the religious invocation is constitutional.

Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ, called Newdow’s challenge a “legally flawed” attempt to “remove a time-honored tradition going back to the nation’s first president.”

“The expression of prayer at the presidential inauguration is not only constitutional, but an important part of the history and heritage of this nation,” he said.

The official inauguration website indicates the president will chose a minister to “deliver an invocation” before he takes the oath of office Jan. 20.

Newdow brought a similiar challenge four years ago that was rejected by the courts, and Sekulow believes the current one will meet the same fate.

Last year, the ACLJ fought Newdow’s challenge to the Pledge of Allegiance, which the high court rejected because he did not have legal standing to represent his daughter, who is under sole custody of her mother.

Last Tuesday, Newdow filed a new Pledge complaint in federal court in Sacramento, Calif., with eight new co-plaintiffs, seeking to remove “under God” from the Pledge on the grounds it violates the so-called “separation of church and state.”

The ACLJ’s brief in the inaugural-prayer challenge – filed with the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in support of the Department of Justice – contends Newdow’s lawsuit is a “personal crusade” that “serves no purpose other than to waste judicial resources at a time in our nation’s history when those resources are needed in cases involving real threats to American liberties.”

The ACLJ points to the 1983 Supreme Court decision, Marsh vs. Chambers, which held that the “opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country.”

The high court also noted the first Congress “did not consider opening prayers as a proselytizing activity or as symbolically placing the government’s official seal of approval on one religious view.”

The ACLJ brief also states virtually every president since George Washington has evoked assistance of the Divine and asked for the blessing of the nation and its people.

In his first inaugural address, Washington proclaimed that “no people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States” because “every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

Doctor AND lawyer…be afraid be very afraid. You have to wonder at someone who likes school this much. Maybe a fear of actually living in reality?

Lisa N

 

[Faustina]

Newdow is trying to use the Bill of Right and the Constitution as an argument for this lawsuit. Something about how the President swearing an oath to God, is exclusive to those Americans that are atheists.

If you saw the movie Independence Day…remember how the aliens were using our satellites to relay messages to ships on the other side of the Earth. Along those same lines.

 

[Brad]

Faustina:

Newdow is trying to use the Bill of Right and the Constitution as an argument for this lawsuit. Something about how the President swearing an oath to God, is exclusive to those Americans that are atheists.

If you saw the movie Independence Day…remember how the aliens were using our satellites to relay messages to ships on the other side of the Earth. Along those same lines.

It seems rather alien but this could be a good thing.

I think he is paradoxically making the case for a Christian fouindation of government. It is exactly because our country was founded on Christian principles (which encourage Christianity but do not mandate Christianity) that Newdow and other non-Christians have rights in this country. If we were to remove this understanding from all of our leadership, anything is game - from persecuting atheists to torturing Christians.

This is why people like Newdow need a clue - they are fighting against themselves.