| Are you glad at this victory? |
| Yes. We must keep our traditions and our historical ideals from the beginning of the United States strong. |
|
37% |
[ 6 ] |
| Somewhat. |
|
18% |
[ 3 ] |
| No. Religion has NO place in government. |
|
43% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 16 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:12 pm Victory for Traditionalists, Defeat for Secularists! |
|
 wrote: | Court Rejects Challenge to Inaugural Prayer
Friday, January 14, 2005
WASHINGTON � A federal judge on Friday rejected a challenge brought by atheist Michael Newdow's to stop the invocation prayer at President Bush's second inauguration.
On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.
Newdow became famous in 2002 for his unsuccessful attempt to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Two years earlier, he also tried to stop the prayer in Bush's first inauguration, but lost in two federal courts.
The government had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (search) to dismiss the current lawsuit, saying the invocation had been widely accepted for more than 200 years old.
Two ministers delivered Christian invocations at Bush's inaugural ceremony in 2001, and plans call for a minister to do the same before Bush takes the oath of office again next week.
In court, Newdow argued that the prayers violate the constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.
"I am going to be standing there having this imposed on me," Newdow told the court by phone on Thursday. "They will be telling me I'm an outsider at that particular moment."
Newdow also argued that taxpayer-financed inaugural ceremonies cannot be a platform for "the coercive imposition of religious dogma," adding that the president intended to "use the machinery of the state to advocate his religious beliefs."
Judge Bates questioned both sides vigorously at Thursday's two-hour hearing, but said he doubted a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.
"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.
Bates also questioned whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (search) ruled last year that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first inauguration.
Newdow said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. He said being there live is different than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.
Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.
In an interview published in Wednesday's Washington Times, Bush, who converted from Episcopalianism to Methodism and prays daily, tried to dispel perceptions that he is advocating his beliefs or imposing them on anyone.
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. I've never said that. I've never acted like that," he said.
Inaugural references to God date back to George Washington's inauguration in 1789. Christian prayers within the ceremony began with Franklin Delano Roosevelt's second inauguration in 1937.
Government attorneys defending the continued use of prayer said in court papers that "there is no reason to reverse course and abandon a widely accepted, noncontroversial aspect of the inaugural ceremony."
In court Thursday, they added that Supreme Court precedent allows state legislatures and Congress to open each workday with prayer.
Newdow countered that legislative sessions are quite different from taxpayer-financed public ceremonies.
A large part of next week's inaugural ceremonies is being paid for with private donations, though the federal government is picking up the tab for construction of the viewing stands and security.
In 2002, the 9th Circuit ruled in Newdow's favor concerning the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance. It agreed that the phrase, added to the Pledge in 1954, was an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
In June 2004, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the decision on a technicality, essentially sidestepping the core issue.
It said Newdow could not lawfully sue on behalf of his elementary school-aged daughter because he did not have custody of the girl and because the girl's mother objected to the suit.
Newdow re-filed the Pledge suit in Sacramento federal court earlier this month, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.
FOX News' Major Garrett and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Source
This is a great victory! |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:34 pm |
|
The constitution protects us from a state established religion, meaning there will be no persecution of one religion over any other. It does not mean that religious symbols need to separate from the government, that is a myth.
That same clause in the constitution also protects free practice of religion. Meaning; if the President wants to have HIS inaguration HIS way, HE can choose to do that. It's up to the man behind the bible, to choose whether or not the bible is there.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:38 pm |
|
| LightningBoy wrote: | The constitution protects us from a state established religion, meaning there will be no persecution of one religion over any other. It does not mean that religious symbols need to separate from the government, that is a myth.
That same clause in the constitution also protects free practice of religion. Meaning; if the President wants to have HIS inaguration HIS way, HE can choose to do that. It's up to the man behind the bible, to choose whether or not the bible is there. |
Exactly. Good point.
Now, yes. Separation of Church and State didn't happen until 1942, really. Yes, it's not in the Constitution, but for some reason people, tending to be left-wing secularists (although some are on the right, saddly) It IS a myth.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:02 pm |
|
Wow, thats total bull. That is absolutely outrageous that they would allow prayer at the inaguaration. This should definetly be stopped.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:06 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Wow, thats total bull. That is absolutely outrageous that they would allow prayer at the inaguaration. This should definetly be stopped. |
Why? And this has happened SINCE WASHINGTON! He did it, Lincoln did it, FDR did it, Truman did it, Carter did it, Reagan did it, Clinton did it, Bush did it. The Supreme Court opens every day with a prayer, as does the Congress. Our currency says "in God we trust." Our Declaration of Independence says, "endowed by our creator." Our Pledge of Allegiance says "Under God." Why does all of this have to change?
And how is a prayer being said at the Inaguration bad for people? You DON'T have to participate, nor should you prevent this President from being able to express his religion. We're not forcing you to say it, or respond to it. 
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:10 pm |
|
Just because it happens, doesnt make it right. Seperation of Church and State. It needs to end.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:18 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Just because it happens, doesnt make it right. Seperation of Church and State. It needs to end. |
Not in the Constitution. It's a myth.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:19 pm |
|
Then the constitution is wrong. You are imposing your beliefs upon others, and that is the worst thing I can think of to do. You have your right to practice any beliefs you wish, but not to force them upon others.
|
|
|
Pah-Wraith
Sheikh
Joined: 30 Nov 2001
Posts: 6012
Location: Londonistan.
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:20 pm |
|
I personally defend America's right to have Religious content in their politics, even if it is Judeo-Christian in content (as that is the main religion in America). The majority of people in America are Christian and therefore religion cannot really be seperated from state, it is also a main part of George W. Bush's life, I say that unless the American Government says something that offends Atheists or any other religions then there is nothing wrong with having religion play a role in government be it how minor it is.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:20 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Then the constitution is wrong. You are imposing your beliefs upon others, and that is the worst thing I can think of to do. You have your right to practice any beliefs you wish, but not to force them upon others. |
Uh....no. We are not forcing them upon others! You can choose whether or not to accept them! Forcing them upon you is going to your house and saying, "Believe in this!" or establishing a state religion. How are beliefs being FORCED upon someone?
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:23 pm |
|
Because I have to sit and listen to some preacher talk about something I dont believe in. And you should do it at all, if its not what EVERYONE believes in. Its seperatism.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:24 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | Because I have to sit and listen to some preacher talk about something I dont believe in. And you should do it at all, if its not what EVERYONE believes in. Its seperatism. |
No, it's not. And it aknowledges our historical background, anyway.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:25 pm |
|
And? We had civil war, slavery, and tons of stupid things we did in the past. Why dont we start slavery up again? It acknowledges our historical background, right?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:27 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | | And? We had civil war, slavery, and tons of stupid things we did in the past. Why dont we start slavery up again? It acknowledges our historical background, right? |
This is DIFFERENT.
"We are talking, as in our founding document, of a creator." --Sean Hannity
We are NOT saying "One Nation Under Jesus, etc! It's ONE NATION UNDER GOD! It encompasses ALL RELIGIONS!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:32 pm |
|
I don't care if you worship a PLATE as a God! Sure, I failed to acknowledge religions like Buddhism there, yes, but still. It's basically a REFERENCE TO OUR HISTORY, and talking about religion. [EDIT]God is Christian God. God is Yahwe (sorry if I spelt that wrong). God is Allah.[/EDIT] God could just be your faith, too. And if you fail to discuss religion at all in government, are you not discriminating against the 90+% of religious Americans?
Last edited by Republican_Man on Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:33 pm; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:33 pm |
|
NO, IT MOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT. Show me where that encompasses my religion. Go right ahead and show me.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:34 pm |
|
Read my post that I posted just before you posted.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:36 pm |
|
Yeah, way to edit. 
Anyways, youre still wrong. Religion has no place in government. It really makes me mad that religion is driving what we do now. Religion does not run countries, politics does. We need to get religion out of government, especially since ITS THE LAW.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:36 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | We are NOT saying "One Nation Under Jesus, etc! It's ONE NATION UNDER GOD! It encompasses ALL RELIGIONS! |
That assumes that one has a religion, also that one has a religion with a central deity or one deity in particular. Although I have not met any polytheists, I'm sure they're out there, and atheists are definitely around.
In this case, however, I agree that the prayer should not be removed. To use a terrible analogy, I will bring up the subject of weddings. One might have a wedding where one invokes God (or a religious equivalent). There could be a few atheists in the crowd . . . one doesn't have to get rid of the invocation of God during the wedding because people sitting there will be forced to listen to it.
As long as people don't have to actually pray themselves, this is nothing more than a harmless tradition. We've got 'God' in our national anthem as it is, I see nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:37 pm |
|
| Defiant wrote: | Yeah, way to edit.
Anyways, youre still wrong. Religion has no place in government. It really makes me mad that religion is driving what we do now. Religion does not run countries, politics does. We need to get religion out of government, especially since ITS THE LAW. |
Religion DOES have a place in government. You want us to forget our history, huh? See, that's what I don't get. Why Liberals are so scared of religion, and so scared of Bush being so religious. It's ridiculous. And Separation of Church and State was interpreted 1942, and I don't accept it. Just the Constitution.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Defiant
Fleet Admiral
Joined: 04 Jul 2001
Posts: 15946
Location: Oregon City, OR
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
I do.
Also, I refused to go to a wedding of a family friend, because it was in a church. I refuse to set foot in a church. Its not my way.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:38 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | We are NOT saying "One Nation Under Jesus, etc! It's ONE NATION UNDER GOD! It encompasses ALL RELIGIONS! |
That assumes that one has a religion, also that one has a religion with a central deity or one deity in particular. Although I have not met any polytheists, I'm sure they're out there, and atheists are definitely around.
In this case, however, I agree that the prayer should not be removed. To use a terrible analogy, I will bring up the subject of weddings. One might have a wedding where one invokes God (or a religious equivalent). There could be a few atheists in the crowd . . . one doesn't have to get rid of the invocation of God during the wedding because people sitting there will be forced to listen to it.
As long as people don't have to actually pray themselves, this is nothing more than a harmless tradition. We've got 'God' in our national anthem as it is, I see nothing wrong with that. |
Agreed. Good point. And I clarified on my post after that.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:42 pm |
|
If its a piece of history (major history, though. not talking like during the 1900's) dating back a few hundred years, I think it should stay.
Otherwise, religion doesn't have any place in government.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Pah-Wraith
Sheikh
Joined: 30 Nov 2001
Posts: 6012
Location: Londonistan.
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:43 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | We are NOT saying "One Nation Under Jesus, etc! It's ONE NATION UNDER GOD! It encompasses ALL RELIGIONS! |
That assumes that one has a religion, also that one has a religion with a central deity or one deity in particular. Although I have not met any polytheists, I'm sure they're out there, and atheists are definitely around.
In this case, however, I agree that the prayer should not be removed. To use a terrible analogy, I will bring up the subject of weddings. One might have a wedding where one invokes God (or a religious equivalent). There could be a few atheists in the crowd . . . one doesn't have to get rid of the invocation of God during the wedding because people sitting there will be forced to listen to it.
As long as people don't have to actually pray themselves, this is nothing more than a harmless tradition. We've got 'God' in our national anthem as it is, I see nothing wrong with that. |
Generally Polytheists who believe in a Pantheon of Gods and Goddesses normally believe they are simply attributes of One God, so I know Hindus certainly would not be offended by this.
Since Gautama Siddharta was a Hindu and he went onto found the religion of Buddhism, I doubt they should be offended either.
Like RM says- Jah, Allah, Elohim, Yhwh, Jehova, Bahai are all God in different languages so it doesn't really offend the majority of religions and cults.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:44 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | If its a piece of history (major history, though. not talking like during the 1900's) dating back a few hundred years, I think it should stay.
Otherwise, religion doesn't have any place in government. |
Why not? And you can't completely separate it, unless the person is athiest and/or secularist. You are NOT forcing someone to say this. For instance, you are not FORCED to say the Pledge of Allegiance. As long as your not FORCED to participate and a state religion isn't established, it's fine. And necessary. A secular government is NOT good.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
