You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
Atheist Sues to Thwart Inauguration Prayer
2005-01-07
Hey! It's ME again!! Everybody look at ME!!!
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. Last year, the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals tossed the same lawsuit, saying Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury." But the decision did not bar him from filing the challenge in a different circuit.
Mike, could you go bother some other judges please?
Newdow is best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. He won that case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God. In June, however, the Supreme Court said Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter, on whose behalf he sued, and because the girl's mother objected to the suit.
But what about ME!
Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this week, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.
...and ME! I'M doing it too! ME! I am! ME!
Posted by:tu3031

#7  One of these times could a bailiff's gun "accidentally" go off or something?
Posted by: jackal   2005-01-07 7:43:26 PM  

#6  I think badanov summed this clown, and his ilk, up nicely: they aren't atheists, they're antitheists.

He's a sick, twisted, fucked up, raving looney. He does NOT speak for me or anyone else I know personally.

I'm not at war with anyone except Islam (ists).
Posted by: .com   2005-01-07 7:01:50 PM  

#5  This is an 'unemployed' Doctor/Lawyer that should tell you everything you want to know. I would hazard a guess he is being bankrolled by one of the many LLL groups. Also (and this is just my observation) he reminds me of someone who is not taking their medication or not taking the right dosage.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-01-07 6:32:37 PM  

#4  You are probably right DB. It is this particular guy that is trying to get as much mileage out of the issue as possible. I have seen him interviewed. He used his daughter to push his agenda and his daughter really didn't care all that much for his agenda. The guy is both an attorney and a doctor. He is probably conflicted between different parts of his anatomy.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2005-01-07 5:28:56 PM  

#3  John Q, most atheists really don't care if someone prays. This guy just wants to get someone, anyone to pay attention to him.
Posted by: Desert Blondie   2005-01-07 5:14:32 PM  

#2  The atheists are like annoying gnats, they just gnaw away. I wonder if there is a hell for atheists? Their argument is like Groundhog's Day--it just keeps repeating itself over and over--ad nauseum. The atheists probably prefer Camus' existentialist Myth of Sisyphus analogy instead of Groundhog's Day.
Posted by: John Q. Citizen   2005-01-07 5:07:47 PM  

#1  Talk about pushing views on others! Tell this guy to shutup and stay home!
Posted by: Unagum Whaimp3886   2005-01-07 4:20:09 PM  

00:00