• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Libs will do anything...

Schweddy

Benevolent Dictator
Administrator
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2004
Messages
11,965
Reaction score
6,075
Location
Plano, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
to keep Bush from being inaugurated.

Atheist Loses Bid to Ban Inaugural Prayer

Source: NewsMax

WASHINGTON -- An atheist lost his bid Wednesday to have the Supreme Court bar the saying of a prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist denied Michael Newdow's claim that a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.


In so doing, Rehnquist also rejected Newdow's request to recuse himself from the case because he is scheduled to swear in Bush. Newdow had argued that Rehnquist had become a willing fixture in a government ceremony ``infused with sectarian Christian religion'' and thus had a conflict of interest.


Rehnquist's order came without comment.

Two lower courts had rejected Newdow's request to ban the prayer, suggesting he couldn't show actual injury in hearing it. In his ruling last week, U.S. District Judge John Bates also said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.

Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee had 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 was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent. Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the San-Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God.


 

pwo

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Messages
205
Reaction score
1
Location
Illinois
That Newdow guy is crazy. I saw him on Hannity and Colmes once. He was complaining about how "In God We Trust" on the dollar offended him. He can't back up his claims of emotional damage. Come on, he wasn't the tramatized by it if he could talk about it on tv. As far as the inaguration goes, let Bush swear in the way he wants. It should be the presidents choice. If we had a Muslim president I'd be cool with him swearing on the Quron. Newsow is just publicity hungary.
 
J

Jufarius87

that guy seriously needs to get a new hobby personally atheists and there attacks on public prayer offend me and make me feel like an outsider but that doesnt mean i want to ban there right to express themselves constitution only bans passing laws that support a religion not the right to express yourself personally i think if he is that sensitive maybe he shouldnt watch the election
 

Gabo

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
336
Reaction score
1
At least if Bush didn't have to have his inaugration promise, he wouldn't have to break it consistently for the next four years like he'll be doing. :D

PS: I love MadLibs!
 
Top Bottom