Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer

[5stringJeff]

I don't know what this guy's deal is... but one has to conclude from his actions that he would rather there were no mention of God in public at all.

-------------------------
Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush (news - web sites)'s inauguration.

Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation is a personal choice the court has no power to prevent.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_prayer

 

[freeandfun1]

I don't know what this guy's deal is... but one has to conclude from his actions that he would rather there were no mention of God in public at all.

-------------------------
Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer
By SAM HANANEL, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush (news - web sites)'s inauguration.

Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation is a personal choice the court has no power to prevent.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...p/20050114/ap_on_go_pr_wh/inauguration_prayer

Actually, I think he keeps doing this stuff cuz he likes the attention.

He looks like the type that was picked on all the time as a kid.

 

[dmp]

my comment to Militant Atheists:
Said in love...

 

[theim]

Actually, I think he keeps doing this stuff cuz he likes the attention.

He looks like the type that was picked on all the time as a kid.

Agreed. If this were anyone else I would say they were just bitching because the country is 90 Christian. But Newdow is just an attention whore.

 

[Avatar4321]

Look we all know he hates Bush anyway and didnt vote for him so he wont be watching innaguration so how will this offend him? He wants to live in an anti religious society then lets send him to north Korea He will love it there.

 

[Shattered]

Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

...as opposed to what? An overtly Athiest prayer?

This is where I think someone has gone off their rocker... This is also one of the people that I, personally, don't believe is a true Athiest, but does it more for "shock value" than any real belief that his personal space is being invaded...

I'm going to imagine that an inauguration is not something where you can casually step inside, and outside while attending, for various security reasons.. So, either don't go if you're that opposed, or take ear plugs. This isn't something you're being forced to attend for one reason or another...

 

[no1tovote4]

...as opposed to what? An overtly Athiest prayer?

This is where I think someone has gone off their rocker... This is also one of the people that I, personally, don't believe is a true Athiest, but does it more for "shock value" than any real belief that his personal space is being invaded...

I'm going to imagine that an inauguration is not something where you can casually step inside, and outside while attending, for various security reasons.. So, either don't go if you're that opposed, or take ear plugs. This isn't something you're being forced to attend for one reason or another...

There is nothing in the Constitution about being "forced" to accept beliefs. There is a clause that allows the President Free Expression but nothing that I have ever read that protects you from being offended by somebody else's free expression of their religion.