Yep...that sounds about right!!!
Posted on 01/08/2005 2:24:34 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at fresnobee.com ...
"It would be interesting to know if a Member of Congress gave him one in order to facilitate the lawsuit."
Yes, of course, to give him "standing". This is a pertinant question that deserves an answer.
This guy is wasting public resources ALL THE TIME. He needs to be dubbed a "vexatious litigant" and barred from bringing such issues before the Federal Courts.
Let him count his blessings, in a lot of other countries he'd just be shot or beheaded.
He's a complete loon, and I heard he's an emergency room doctor, how'd you like to have this obessesive nut setting your broken arm?
Newdow provides the almost perfect example of how, for decades, America's law schools failed to expose their students to the ideas and principles explained in the prolific writings of the founding generation.
For years, those of his ilk got away with these claims, because most people did not have access to a library stocked with the volumes of the Founders' own words, nor to the Supreme Court and Congressional documents that would prove them wrong.
Thankfully, the Internet has changed all that! Any who wish to challenge Newdow and the other secularists' claims may do so in the actual words of the people who sat in Independence Hall and who signed our documents of liberty, or those who helped to ratify the Constitution in the various states, and the subsequent 18th and 19th Century judges, legislators and presidents who explained the foundations of our liberty. Many excellent resources are available to any who own a computer. One is:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=24
Even the presidential oath presupposes a Higher Authority (or 'religious obligation'), as referenced by George Washington in his Farewell Address: "Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?"
It is time for citizens to ask, as did the Judiciary Committee which, in 1852, considered the matter of Chaplains: WHO IS MORE LIKELY TO UNDERSTAND THE CONSTITUTION, THE PEOPLE WHO FRAMED IT or the "useful idiots" who, today, attempt to undermine its principles?
Here is an excerpt from that Judiciary Committee Meeting in 1852:
"On January 19, 1853, the Senate Judiciary Committee delivered its report: "The whole view of the petitioners seems founded upon mistaken conceptions of the meaning of the Constitution. . . . If [the use of chaplains] had been a violation of the Constitution, why was not its character seen by the great and good men who were coeval with the government, who were in Congress and in the Presidency when this constitutional amendment was adopted? They, if any one did, understood the true purport of the amendment, and were bound, by their duty and their oath, to resist the introduction or continuance of chaplains, if the views of the petitioners were correct. But they did no such thing; and therefore we have the strongest reason to suppose the notion of the petitioner to be unfounded. . . . They had no fear or jealousy of religion itself, nor did they wish to see us an irreligious people; they did not intend to prohibit a just expression of religious devotion by the legislators of the nation, even in their public character as legislators; they did not intend to spread over all the public authorities and the whole public action of the nation the dead and revolting spectacle of atheistical apathy."
I think we might need a, "MOAB" to excavate a hole big enough for that (FMF).NSNR
We can probably work with Democrats like you. Too bad your leadership has to pander to the whackos.
1917 was an eventful year including the appearance of the Virgin Mary in Fatima. Christians need to review the messages given Lucia.
He is divorced from her mother, the little girl lives with her mother, and the girl and her mother disagree with his position and AFAIK are Christians.
Good explanation of their psychosis.
It's as though they think they are God. Whatever cause they espouse is Good. Whatever cause they disavow is Bad. Nothing else matters.
Close call.
Atheism is a religion as much as Christianity and I will not have my rights to religious expression trounced.
Atheists who deny others their religious freedoms (like public prayer) are forcing their own "no God" religion on us.
Agnosticism says "don't know", atheism says, "I have faith/beliefs that there is absolutely no god".
The Rise of Moral Relativism will the death knell for America - courteousy of The Democratic Socialist Party of America . .
This is Nancy Pearcey in the Public Square
How did September 11 change America? Our hopes went up when polls showed a spike in church attendance, but that has fallen off. The lasting change may be bleaker, says pollster George Barna.
The number of Americans who say they believe in unchanging, absolute moral truths dropped from 38 percent before the attacks to only 22 percent after.
We’ve heard the slogan, time and again, that the enemy is not Islam, it’s intolerance. And Americans seem to be taking that to heart—defining tolerance as fuzzy relativism.
Barna’s research also shows that some 64 percent of Americans agree with the statement, “It does not matter what religious faith you follow”—and that “Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims and all others pray to the same God.”This growing relativism may be the greatest challenge facing Christians in America after 9/11. The very idea of truth has been put on trial. I’m Nancy Pearcey.
From The Access Research Network, Nancy Pearcey
Relativism, Religion, and the First Amendment
By Jan Ireland
To launch the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known, America’s Founding Fathers must have possessed freedom in their very DNA. But nature apparently passes along those freedom genes sparingly, since nothing like America has occurred before or since. It is not unexpected that freedom-hating forces, so rampant in the world, would do their best to chip away at America. Relativism, the idea that individuals decide according to their own personal judgments what is good or bad, is one of the greatest aggressors. A return to the public presence of religion, under the auspices of the First Amendment, may be needed to combat Relativism’s erosive societal effects.
Relativism is perhaps the prettiest of all freedom-haters. It’s a slow, insidious takeover. Its sinuous insertion into society can occupy decades. When rebuffed, it simply keeps trying, until for society t’s easier not to fight.
Relativism plays to America’s fairness. It purports to give equal weight to all systems of thought, all systems of belief. And it claims to empower the individual, by urging self-reliance. Who could argue with such a surface? Isn’t that the reason America was founded, after all? Isn’t that what the phrase in the Declaration of Independence says?
Actually, no. And here is where Relativism pulls its greatest bait and switch.
America was not founded to makes all things equal. America was founded to give freedom to all. The phrase in the Declaration that ‘all men are created equal’ means just that. It does not say that they will then be equal in all ways at all times, throughout their lives, and in all their endeavors. That this idea virtually pervades American society today shows that semi-sages have misquoted and mangled our historical heritage for decades.
The surface arguments of Relativism pose another very real danger. Giving equal weight to all systems o belief or thinking, causes legitimate right thinking to be shunted aside. It’s the ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’ argument. That all societies, or even all within a society, don’t agree on definitions does not mean the values themselves don’t exist. And it is possible to determine which side in a fight is the terrorist, and which is the freedom fighter.
Relativism’s favorite target is of course religion, since religion is its antithesis. Liberals whipping up a furor to expunge any vestige of God from the public square now are operating from the extreme of Relativism. The seemingly benign tenets of Relativism are actually an attempt to foist the liberals’ beliefs, in effect their own ‘religion’, onto society. This is why liberals constantly assert that there is a ‘separation of church and state’ in the constitution, though the phrase does not appear there. It comes from a phrase in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, a full decade after the Bill of Rights were ratified. The reater trap for America, also, is that Relativism is so handily aided by political correctness.
Relativism often hides behind the ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ argument, and that argument has some validity. But the revolving door of offend/forgive/reoffend, a ‘get out of trouble free’ card for everyone from pop singers to ex-presidents, has shown this argument’s unsuitability to moral standard.
It is incongruous that we daily exhort society to heed medical advice, yet invite screaming banshees if we dare suggest that society seek spiritual advice. Just as advocating what works medically makes our society healthier, advocating what works spiritually could make our society happier. Some seem not to want integrity and ethical behavior to return to America.
The First Amendment says about religion, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” The murky minds of liberals and atheists have played the child’s game of Twistr with those words, so that they have become an unrecognizable screed. They construe them as a phony mandate to systematically remove every smidgen of the evidence of the Christian God.
Relativism is allowing them to do it.
The best defense is America’s return to the public expression of religion. It is not prohibited by the Constitution. It does not exclude anyone. And a careful reading of our history shows that it is what the Founding Fathers had in mind.
Relativism, Religion, and the First Amendment
What a moron!
"Maybe he needs to disappear and be found several decades from now in the desert"
We could tell Newdow and his ilk to go to hell, but they already have reservations.
He's just clueless! Only thinks about himself...that's what's bad about the leftish community anymore...nobody matters but them. Very selfish!!
Yep...that sounds about right!!!
I found a heart beat Meek!! It's not dead yet!!
haha!Speaking of Kerry and God (church):
As Grampa Dave says:
Mastah Kerry, the Devil has impregnated you with one of Je$$e
HyJack$on's love children! After you give birth to Je$$e's love
child, it will call you MaMa!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
