He’s at it Again

MIchael Newdow, the athiest who last sued to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Alleigance is in the courts again.

The California lawyer who tried to have the phrase “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to legally prevent President Bush from placing his hand on a Bible while being sworn in at his inauguration.
Michael Newdow, an atheist doctor and lawyer from Sacramento, has filed a complaint and a motion for preliminary injunction in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking to remove prayer and all “Christian religious acts” from the Jan. 20 inauguration.
Mr. Newdow, 50, asserts that the presence of Christian ministers who pray publicly at the inauguration, Christian songs and the swearing of the oath of office while a president places a hand on the Bible violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

Newdow lost his case last year because he sued on the behalf of his 10 year old daughter. The court foud that Newdow had no standing to sue on her behalf because he’s not actually her custodial parent. His daughter lives with his ex-wife, who incidentally is not an atheist. BUt he’s back on that bandwagon also, attempting to ring a suit on the behalf of several other parents who do have children in that school system.

Look, Newdow ought to lose this case in a heartbeat because he can not identify how the activityh to which he objects respects “an establishment of religion”. When Newdow can amply identify which single religious establishment the words “under God” in the Pledge respects, or which one religion the prayers in the inauguration respects, then perhaps he has a case.

But so long as he uses the word “Christian”, his case is a big, fat loser. “Christian” is not a religion. It is a word that encompasses many religions with disparate practices and beliefs that are not constant (or even compatable) from religion to religion.

What Newdow is saying is that the Founding Fathers actually intended for there to be no trace of religion in public life so that atheists could walk freely without having their precious, precious egos bruised by the merest mention of God form the lips of an elected official. That’s a ridiculous assertion, easily disproven by the words of those who wrote the Constitution, and speaks to Newdow’s personal weakness more than it does to the intrisuveness of religion in public discourse.

No related posts.

Category: Moonbat Nonsense