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

[SezMe]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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

 

[peptoabysmal]

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]

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

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.

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]

precedent for the president

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]

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

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]

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.]

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.