Atheist sues to prevent prayer at Bush inauguration

Fresnobee.com ^ | Updated Thursday, January 6, 2005 | The Associated Press

[trussell]

Atheist sues to prevent prayer at Bush inauguration

The Associated Press

(Updated Thursday, January 6, 2005, 4:45 PM)

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is now filing a suit to bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

Michael Newdow, of Sacramento, notes that two ministers, the Reverend Franklin Graham and the Reverend Kirbyjon Caldwell, delivered Christian invocations at Bush's first inaugural ceremony in 2001.

[MeekOneGOP]

I figured it must be this jerk!

Well, Madeleine Murray O'Hare died and someone had to pick up the torch.

And I like the URL name this guy used for Newdow! haha!:

http://www.all-encompassingly.com/archives/images/newdow_constitution_misinterpreter_dork_buffoon.jpg

[MeekOneGOP]

Jesse Jackster

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/user-posts?name=Jesse+Jackster

"He's dead, Jim!"

[Arrowhead1952]

I'm still looking for "separation of church and state" in my copy of the Constitution. I probably won't find it, BECAUSE IT IS'NT FRICKIN IN THERE!!!

Atheists, especially Newdow, aren't anything but trouble-makers. The thing that gets me, is that his daughter DIDN"T MIND the words "under God" in the Pledge. He did. What a butthole.

[Stretch]

I hope the desert hole is big enough to hold the other "michael".... you know, as in "moore"

[SirLurkedalot]

The only place atheists will succeed in removing God from is their own future. I pity them.

[Wilhelm Tell]

The left used to be pretty consistent about the First Amendment, but that has all changed since the advent of political correctness. I daresay that now there are a lot of conservatives who are closer to being absolutists on the First Amendment than are self-styled "progressives." Many on the left have only a half-hearted support for freedom of speech.

I hate the way a lot of leftists throw around the word "offensive." On the one hand, if an idea offends people who have mainstream to traditional values, the fact that the idea is "offensive" proves it is good and must be protected. People who are offended need to grow up and accept that our society is "diverse." Being "offensive" is the greatest good imaginable, and the fact that someone found an idea offensive is proof that the idea should be protected by the First Amendment.

On the other hand, anything that runs counter to some "progressive" pet cause is automatically "offensive" and not protected by the First Amendment. The fact that a traditional idea offends someone with "progressive" values is proof that the "offensive" idea is evil and ought to be banned. People who express "offensive" ideas need to grow up and accept that in our "diverse" society there are an increasing number of ideas that should not be expressed because they might "offend" someone. Now suddenly being "offensive" is the greatest evil imaginable, and the fact that someone found an idea offensive is somehow proof that the idea should not be protected by the First Amendment.

[Jimmy Valentine's brother]

This guy needs to get a life. His 15 minutes were used up a long time ago.

[sphinx]

My inquiring mind wants to know: HOW THE HELL DID THIS GUY GET A TICKET TO THE INAUGURATION?!?!?!?!?!

It would be interesting to know if a Member of Congress gave him one in order to facilitate the lawsuit.

[Gorzaloon]

Aren't there provisions for vexatious litigation?

[Musket]

This guy seriously needs a new hobby.

[Skooz]

If you've ever seen him interviewed on TV, or even just listen to him in a radio interview, I swear Michael Newdow has a psyco/gone postal qualitiy about him.

Definitely. The dude is seriously deranged.

[Reform4Bush]

Will he sue me if I pray for him?

[yoe]

Do you ever wonder who funds this man or why the MSM & MSP always have space for him? Michael Newdow like Madeline Murray O'Hare before him, are pitiful people who aren't happy unless they are attacking the status quo. Newdow's mind is twisted plus he is a liar - tried to use his daughter to further his agenda. “”ACLU's founder, Roger Baldwin, who said: "We are for socialism, disarmament, and ... We seek the social ownership of property, the abolition of the propertied class, and the sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal." Is this Mr. Newdow’s agenda?

It must be a slow day for the media when this nut can get coverage for his hateful campaign to remove the Almighty from view, thought or word.

[joesnuffy]

An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God"

Considering his daughter and estranged wife are born again Christians who attend Calvary Chapel...he cannot honestly say he is doing this for his daughter's sake...she is in complete disagreement with him on this issue.

[Russ]

I have two questions:

1. Where does this guy get all the money he needs to fly all over the country being interviewed and filing lawsuits?

2. The inauguration is being funded entirely by private donations, isn't it? So what's the problem???

[Vote 4 Nixon]

If I were Bush I would be salivating over this. I would let the idiot bring his suit and pray that a liberal judge went along with it and then go ahead and have the prayers anyway, send it all the way to the supreme court and force a reckoning at last. Let that a$$hole have all the rope he needs to hang himself along with all the other commie Godless scum that have damn near wrecked this country.

[GrannyAnnie]

I'll play the clarinet

[raybbr]

From amiannoying.com

Atheist

The Resume

Won the removal of 'one nation under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance (June 26, 2002)
Upset by the term 'in God we trust' on US currency

Why he might be annoying

He received death threats from people who believe in God.
Some think he is forcing his beliefs on them.
After the ruling, congress recited the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'Under God.'
The case will most likely go to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If it is ruled that 'in God we trust' must come off U.S. currency, it will cost a fortune to replace all current currency.
His daughter's mother (he never married her) has custody of his child and doesn't agree with his efforts.

Why he might not be annoying

He believes people have a right to believe in God if they want to but don't have the right to force it on other people.
He stands up for what he believes in.
He wants to add words that are non gender specific such as 're' to replace 'he/she,' 'rees' to replace 'his/hers' and 'erm' to replace 'him/her.'

Go vote against him if you want.

[iconoclast]

Michael Newdow and Jane Fonda would have you believe that we're something quite different.

I thought Jane got religion (best part, it really pissed Ted off!).

Has she fallen away?

[TexasTaysor]

He needs to be sued for harrassment by a group of Christians, his actions are offensive