Atheist loses bid to halt Bush's faith references

Sacramento Bee ^ | May 25, 2002 | Denny Walsh

[Cultural Jihad]

A Sacramento atheist's legal attempt to make President Bush stop mixing politics and his Christian faith has been tossed out of federal court.

U. S. Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows recommended in March that the lawsuit be dismissed, finding that the courts have no authority to restrain a president from acting in a particular fashion.

[Cultural Jihad]

Apparently some people want to thwart the 1st Amendment right of anyone in government to the free exercise of their religion.

[farmfriend]

You know, there are some real idiots here in Sac.

[TheDon]

So true. Tolerance doesn't seem to apply to everyone.

[belleoftheball414]

"Newdow, 49, complained that permitting any prayer at a presidential inauguration violated the First Amendment's establishment clause."

The last time I checked, the First Amendment was created to guarantee that no citizen could be prosecuted for his or her faith. This guy has way too much time on his hands.

*belle

[JCG]

Looks like Dr. Newdow is a busy boy. Here's a case he filed against Congress, BKlinton, et. al. over a similar matter. He even gave his e-address: FirstAmendmist@cs.com

Case Here

America's Fifth Column ... watch PBS documentary JIHAD! In America
Download 8 Mb zip file here (60 minute video)

[yendu bwam]

This guy has a fundamental misunderstanding of the First Amendment. The president, as a citizen, can speak about his religion and religious beliefs any time he wants. And I bet he'll be reelected by a landslide.

[hc87]

This is a perfect example of why we need loser-pays rules and a willingness by the courts to enforce them. If this guy is an attorney, he should face Rule 11 sactions for bringing a frivilous suit. He clearly did not do his research on seperation of powers and is not advancing a "novel" new theory of the law.

[hc87]

Make that "separation of powers."

[LarryLied]

Newdow, 49, complained that permitting any prayer at a presidential inauguration violated the First Amendment's establishment clause.

From past inaugural addresses:

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."-- George Washington

"We humbly ask the blessing of God. May He protect each and every one of us. May He guide me in the days to come"....FDR

"We believe that all men are created equal because they are created in the image of God."--Harry Truman

"The rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God"-- John F. Kennedy

"He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God." (Micah 6:8)---Jimmy Carter

[LaineyDee]

an emergency room physician with a law degree

I wonder if he implements medical practice with the same competence and ideology he uses to decipher the constitution? Scary thought.

[gcruse]

 
Religion in Governmental Observances.--The practice of opening legislative sessions with prayers by paid chaplains was
upheld in Marsh v. Chambers,161 a case involving prayers in the Nebraska Legislature. The Court relied almost entirely on
historical practice. Congress had paid a chaplain and opened sessions with prayers for almost 200 years; the fact that Congress
had continued the practice after considering constitutional objections in the Court's view strengthened rather than weakened the
historical argument. Similarly, the practice was well rooted in Nebraska and in most other states. Most importantly, the First
Amendment had been drafted in the First Congress with an awareness of the chaplaincy practice, and this practice was not
prohibited or discontinued.

[sirchtruth]

The prayer made him feel like an "outsider," he added.

In this country YOU chose to be who you are, the POTUS claims to be Christian, if that makes the intolerant Dr. feel like an "outsider" then that's his ignorance or misunderstanding.

Jesus invites "Whosoever" to come to him - If the selfish Dr. doesn't want to participate then that's his Freedom of Choice...Bush acted on his.

[petuniasevan]

This doctor/lawyer/whatever wants to redefine the First Amendment by his own narrow set of rules.
Hey, Dr. Newdow, that dog won't hunt.

The prayer made him feel like an "outsider," he added
Oho! He feels "excluded", so others have to give up their rights so he can feel better!
Everyone has to conform to his standards. For an atheist, this guy sure believes in a god - himself.

By the way, Dr. Newdow, that "feel like an outsider" sense - that's GUILT. It bothers you, so you try to get rid of it by control of others. Try to understand that guilt occurs because YOU are at fault. Can't see it, can you?

[IoCaster]

"Dr. Michael A. Newdow, an emergency room physician with a law degree who is acting as his own attorney, could not be reached for comment Friday. However, he vowed last year to appeal a related ruling."

Heh...I sure hope he's a competent doctor. He definitely sucks at being a lawyer.

[Djarum]

This fellow is not an atheist. Prayer bothers him because he is a nihilist. An atheist wouldn't care whether someone was praying to a god they didn't recognize.

[hinckley buzzard]

I'm trying to imagine taking a loved one to an ER and finding that her life will be in the hands of this soul-dead piece of filth.

[Libertina]

further excluded theistic non-Christians
This sorry guy has excluded HIMSELF in ways he doesn't even comprehend.

[sourcery]

The First Ammendment only indirectly limits the power of the President, because it says, "Congress shall make no law..."

The President has the same rights as any other individual and citizen. In addition, he has those powers delegated to him in the Constitution, which includes the power to implement/enforce laws enacted by Congress. The President's power is indirectly limited by the constraints on the laws that Congress may Constitutuionally pass--including laws that raise taxes and fund government programs and operations.

The Constitution empowers the Federal Judiciary to decide "all cases in Law or Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls..." So the Federal Courts are explicitly authorized to hear and decide cases involving the conduct of any Federal official or agency, whether such conduct is personal (because the law applies to everyone) or official (because official acts would involve issues "arising under this Constitution, [and/or] the Laws of the United States." The idea that "that neither the legislative nor executive branches can be restrained by the judicial branch" is of course laughable. If that were true, no suit against the government could ever succeed, no laws could ever be declared Unconstitutional, and no injunction or writ of mandamus against the Executive Branch could ever be issued. Such is obviously not the case, since all such things obviously happen from time to time.

Although the Constitution does not delegate any authority to the President to have religious officials say prayers at official functions, it also does not prohibit it, provided that any payment made to the religious official(s) for their religious services was not established by a law (statute) enacted by Congress. Since the President has the same right to religious liberty as any other individual, he is free to practice his religion as he sees fit, provided he does not use Federal funds for that purpose--according to the current interpretation of the First Ammendment by the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think it is Constitutional for the President to use funds allocated by Congress for the operation of the Office of the President for the purpose of having prayers recited at official functions, provided Congress has no say in whether this happens, or what religion(s) are involved. The reasons are that a) the President has the right to exercise his religion, b) no one's rights are violated when someone voluntarily excercises his religion, as long as no one is being coerced to either adopt or relinquish any particular faith, and c) the law passed by Congress that funds the operation of the Office of the President is religiously neutral, as required by the First Ammendment.

[Cultural Jihad]

That doctor should have consulted with you first.