• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Silicon

Graduate Poster
S
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
1,644
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.
Click to expand...


If I ever meet Newdow, I'm buying him a beer.
 
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.
 
Brown said:
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.
Click to expand...

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


Silicon said:
If I ever meet Newdow, I'm buying him a beer.
Click to expand...
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 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
 
Skeptic said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
SezMe said:
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 efforts to kill faith-based programs). I'm not sure how much I can flog it here (mods?) so PM me for more info.
Click to expand...
Maybe Mike will convert to Christianity someday.
 
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.

Skeptic said:
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
BTW, I found FFRF to be rather pompous and I don't like the idea of people like that speaking for atheists.
 
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.
 
WildCat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Skeptic said:
I hate the phrase, but it is true that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion, not freedom from religion."
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
two quick things --

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
 
Jocko said:
I'll bet "God" on currency is next.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
Re: two quick things --

webfusion said:
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).
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom