Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Democrats

Journal pudge's Journal: A Special Kind of Moron 37

Journal by pudge

Most of you have heard of Michael Newdow, the atheist lawyer who sued to disallow his child from reciting -- or having her classmates recite -- the Pledge of Allegiance with the word "God" in it. (As he had no custody over his child, he had no legal standing to sue, and the Supreme Court tossed it out; he is trying again.)

He also filed suit a few years ago over President Bush's inclusion of a prayer at his inauguration, arguing that this forces Newdow to accept unwanted religious beliefs. He lost -- duh -- with the court noting that he did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" from the prayers, but is trying again this year.

If he lost already, what basis does he have to try again? Well last time he watched at home, and this time he is going to the inauguration, and that the atmosphere will therefore be more coercive.

You know, something tells me he is not going to be coerced, regardless of whether he is in attendance.

This is America. If you don't like something, then ignore it. Get over yourself and buy a clue.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Special Kind of Moron More

A Special Kind of Moron

Comments Filter:
  • Hmmm. From the subject line, I thought that this post would be about me. How disappointing.... Nandor
  • There are some folks whose mission in life is to make a substantial change that affects all of us.

    I figure it's because they find something that sets them off, meet with some success or some failure in getting rid of it (either are equally bad), and the process takes on a life of its own. There are all sorts of causes -- prohibition, gun control, violence/obscenity in the media and Santa Claus in public schools -- that are easy-to-grasp things to get large groups of people offended about and at the cente

    • He thinks someone else saying a prayer forces something onto him.

      I say he's a moron, and I'm sticking to it.

      • He thinks someone else saying a prayer forces something onto him.

        Once it comes to court, here's all (or some) of the grounds on which his new case (related to the inauguration) can be tossed out: He was not coerced into going to the President's inauguration. He went of his own volition, knowing full well that a prayer would be said.

        I say he's a moron, and I'm sticking to it.

        Good. People who (try to) do what he's doing (trying to do) are morons.

        • Several million of taxpayer funds are going to the inauguration(although the bulk is privately funded). It's also very much a state function. So you could make the case that it's not the appropriate place for a prayer. I don't think it is anyway. The parties, fine. State function... a no. I don't want my President spouting off the noble truths or declaring that there is no god either(oaths being different due to their personal nature, you should swear on what you believe).

          Part of being an elected off
          • So you could make the case that it's not the appropriate place for a prayer.

            I think it would be inappropriate for the President to not go through whatever rituals are meaningful to him, personally, whatever they are. He is taking on a huge responsibility, and ritual is important. Saying he should not engage in a certain ritual because it is "religious" (or for most any other reason) is anathema.

            Blame a few hundred years of SCOTUS decisions and go take a piss on John Marshall's grave for good measure i

          • Students have the exact same rights we do, and these rights aren't stripped when they walk through school doors

            For that to become true, we would need to abolish compulsory education. After all, I have the right to refuse if someone insists I must be somewhere. The government can forbid my presence in certain places (the property of others, secure government property, etc.), but they do not have the right to compel my presence anywhere unless I have broken a law, and then I must be judged by due proces

    • Wouldn't be so bad if it was a substantial change that "all of us" wanted - or one that would either 1) prevent harm to "all of us" or 2) cause a benefit for "all of us". I wouldn't even mind this guy's apparent mission in life if he himself were actually being harmed in some way. In this regard I have to agree with Pudge - this guy is not being coerced in any way to accept the faith of others just because he hears a politician invoke God or include a prayer. He's an atheist bent on trying to force every
    • There are some folks whose mission in life is...
      to be media hounds.

      Which is what you said:

      ... who seem to relish the righteous indignation present in their purpose....
      Note that he would be a failure without media with an agenda.

      Although to be fair, the primary agenda of big media is get more eyeballs looking at the adverts. If offending people's sensibilities get the job done....

  • I disagree... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by FroMan ( 111520 )
    He lost -- duh -- with the court noting that he did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" from the prayers, but is trying again this year.

    Atleast with the reasoning the court gave. They should have tossed the case because the court has no grounds to prevent the prayer.

    Obviously if _EVERY_ president since Washington has had prayer at their inauguration, that would mean even the founding fathers did not see a problem with prayer in state affairs. Now, if we decide that the founding fat

    • Obviously if _EVERY_ president since Washington has had prayer at their inauguration,

      The Washington Post reports [washingtonpost.com] "They [Attorneys for the Justice Department and Presidential Inauguration Committee] also argued that some form of prayer has been part of every presidential inauguration since the 1937 inauguration of Franklin D. Roosevelt."

      But that's not really important.

      "Separation of church and state" is overly simplistic and cliched. The text prohibits congress from making laws "respecting an estab

      • Doesn't it seem to you that banning prayer at the inauguration would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? After all, shouldn't the prez be allowed to get sworn in however he likes?

        I want to see what happens if we ever elect an atheist or Jewish president.

        • Doesn't it seem to you that banning prayer at the inauguration would be "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

          No. It isn't a ban on prayer, it's a ban on prayer as part of government activities.

          After all, shouldn't the prez be allowed to get sworn in however he likes?

          No. The Constitution dictates the oath he must take before entering office, and the day he enters office. Beyond that, he is as free as any other citizen to prayer to whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, with whomever he pl

          • No. It isn't a ban on prayer, it's a ban on prayer as part of government activities.

            Which would be a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," quite clearly.

            No. The Constitution dictates the oath he must take before entering office, and the day he enters office. Beyond that, he is as free as any other citizen to prayer to whomever he pleases, whenever he pleases, with whomever he pleases. But in the spirit of the first amendment and the principle of least

            • It would not be a law, it would be a court order. More importantly, it would not prohibit the free exercise of religion, it would only prohibit government sponsership thereof, because otherwise government would be respecting an establishment of religion.

              Who is responsible for the inauguration ceremony? Swearing in a president is clearly a government activity. Leading the crowd in a prayer is something it would seem the first amendment prohibits the government from doing.

              Both of these things are happe

              • It would not be a law, it would be a court order.

                You're right, but the reason no court is ordering the ban is because the law doesn't tell them to, which is what I was getting at.

                More importantly, it would not prohibit the free exercise of religion, it would only prohibit government sponsership thereof, because otherwise government would be respecting an establishment of religion.

                It is not government sponsorship of religion. That's a specious claim. And the First Amendment -- as you rightfully empha

      • But then again, I think the first amendment trumps the copyright clause, and makes copyrights illegal, so what do I know?

        Oh, I'm not the only one! But clearly the founders disagreed. A pity.

        (I'll stop, now, before I go further off topic.)

  • For all the Newdow's (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ellem ( 147712 ) * <ellem52@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Friday January 14, 2005 @08:32PM (#11369493) Homepage Journal
    When did the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." come to mean "There must never be any sign of Religion ever, anywhere, especially Christianity" ?
    • I think you're on the wrong track there. My take on it:

      It's not that that 'make no law' snippet is supposed to 'prevent any sign of religion anywhere'. It's the idea that an elected official, who is representing ALL of us (as is the President) should not be showing anything to do with religion when he's working.

      I'm not sure if one could say it's wrong, or illegal, if he did. But I think it would definitely be showing a bias. And I think that's wrong.

      • It's the idea that an elected official, who is representing ALL of us (as is the President) should not be showing anything to do with religion when he's working.

        That idea was never intended by the Constitution, as clearly shown by the fact that Congress and the Supreme Court open with a prayer, God is mentioned on money and buildings, etc.

      • It's the idea that an elected official, who is representing ALL of us (as is the President) should not be showing anything to do with religion when he's working.

        When is the President NOT working? Every year when he tries to take a vacation, his vocal opponents decry him for lying down on the job, even though he basically moves all the operations of the White House with him.

        The critics of the President cannot have it both ways. Either he is working 100% of the time and thus has no choice but to expre

        • When is the President NOT working?

          Good question. I don't know, ask his secretary? ;)

          Seriously, he probably nearly always is. And that's not a good thing.

          Out of curiosity, is the President working when he gives a media interview?

          I'd say, because he's an elected official, that yes, he is.

          If he weren't an elected official, would he be giving the interview? If not, then he's not working, otherwise he is.

          Same thing with a CEO of a company. Whenever that CEO would give an interview, it's probably (though

          • Regarding interviews, is it then not appropriate for the interviewer to ask the President's personal opinion on something, in the same way an interviewer might ask anyone else to give a personal opinion without speaking for their employer? Is it inappropriate for the President to answer in such a case?

  • So it's OK for Bush to lead a little praise to God?

    Which God? Your God? My God?

    By saying "God" is that prayer to all Gods, or just his God?

    What if we had an elected president who was Indian?

    Would a prayer to Krishna be appropriate, since Krishna is a manifestation of one God? Or would that be tantamount to Bush leading a prayer to Jesus?

    And would either of those prayers be OK at all?

    As for my opinion on this, I think religion and government should be totally separate. I think any elected official, sho
    • So it's OK for Bush to lead a little praise to God?

      Of course.

      Which God? Your God? My God?

      I don't care. While I am gratified for anyone to share my religious beliefs, I am not looking for anything remotely similar to a theocracy, and oppose anything I believe would send us there.

      What if we had an elected president who was Indian?

      Would a prayer to Krishna be appropriate ... ?

      If we chose to elect them, then I imagine we should be just fine with it.

      As for my opinion on this, I think religion and g
      • Maybe you don't mean that they should be totally separate, but only that there should be no public rituals and symbols. That's certainly possible, although I don't think it is reasonable.

        In my opinion whether this is reasonable or not is all about communication and cultures. For example Jacques Chirac is a Catholic, but never displays it in public. Why ? Because he knows (or to be precise his communication advisors know) that it would be perceived as scandalous by most of his electors, since French are ver

        • US people know more about the private life of their politicians

          I have always wondered about this! Not so much as it regards to France, but more of an average-worldwide attitude in countries who's officials can be elected.
      • But speaking to your opinion: what is religion? Should it be OK for a President to quote Thoreau, which is humanistic? Who decides what is, and is not, religion? In the late 1700s it was fairly clear -- compared to today -- what a religion was.

        To be honest, I don't know. I want to say "I know it when I hear it", however that seems like a cop-out.

        Congress to violate the First Amendment by classifying organizations as religious or not

        Does it not already do this? Or is it by self-declaration that a reli
        • Depends on who "us" are. Ok, I'm picking. I do find myself thinking if they want to do the rituals, fine. But not on mine, nor anyone else's, dime. (ie my tax dollars pay for the inauguration proceedings).

          If he paid for the person who was praying himself, would it be OK?

          I don't think money is the issue.

          What I'd like to see is a US where a candidates religion, or lack thereof, is a non-factor in the election proceedings, and the way their job is done in public.

          I think that would be terrible. Asking p

    • I'd be interested in hearing your response to this post [slashdot.org] I just made.

    • So it's OK for Bush to lead a little praise to God?

      Bush leading a prayer to Jesus?

      Incidentally, I don't think Bush will personally be leading a prayer at all. IIRC, that was handled by selected religious leaders at the previous inauguration. I'm willing to stand corrected, of course.

    • I'd be curious if you were ever so outraged when Clinton was caught on film carrying a large Bible?

      Every single president since George Washington has made some reference or another to "God". To single out Bush for special treatment in this regard is exceedingly lame.
      • I don't recall that happening, but that's no big deal. (don't ask my wife how great my memory is!)

        Regardless, in my view, he shouldn't have been carrying it out in public.

        I don't know that anyone is singling Bush out. I think it's more of coincidence that he is president at the time someone decided to file suit.

  • We requested but did not receive tickets to the inauguration. We will be in Washington, anyway, since we've been wanting to take a trip there and we bought the plane tickets on spec. Since this guy obviously doesn't really want to be at the inauguration, since it will put him in danger of such harm, maybe he should give his tickets to people who actually want to be there.

  • Didn't the 9Th circuit rule that the phrase "under god", in the pledge of allegiance, was somehow unconstitutional, yet then the supreme court tossed it out based on a technicality?

    In respect to atheists, I'd rather go with the term "secular fundamentalist". In regards to being subject to the opinion of an elected authority; well that is where we certainly agree this fellow who is going to the inauguration is a moron.

    Everybody clamouring over the presidents recent statement about his idea that a higher po
    • Didn't the 9Th circuit rule that the phrase "under god", in the pledge of allegiance, was somehow unconstitutional, yet then the supreme court tossed it out based on a technicality?

      Sorta. I don't like the word "technicality" because it implies irrelevancy, and it is not: the fact that Newdow had no legal standing to bring the lawsuit is part of the core of the issue: he cannot claim any actual harm by the problem he is suing over.

      But while the SCOTUS did not decide the case on Newdow's complaint, three

Slashdot Top Deals

The first Rotarian was the first man to call John the Baptist "Jack." -- H.L. Mencken

Close