web counter Media Lies: Remember Michael Newdow?

Monday, January 10, 2005

PLEASE NOTE: Media Lies has moved.
The new address is http://www.antimedia.us/.
Please adjust your bookmarks.

Remember Michael Newdow?

He's baaaaaccckkk!
The California atheist who unsuccessfully sued to get the phrase "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance is back with a new version of the same suit and another one seeking to prevent members of the clergy from praying at President Bush's inauguration, reports Religion News Service.
Newdow's original suit "was upheld" by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, but he wasn't successful in the Supreme Court because he lacked standing.

His addition of the three families is an obvious attempt to overcome the court's ruling that he didn't have standing to sue.
Dr. Michael Newdow refiled the pledge suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Monday. In the new case, Newdow has been joined in the suit by three families who include atheists and claim they are offended "to have their government and its agents advocating for a religious view they each specifically decry."

Newdow says he also filed suit in a Washington district court to try to stop clergy from uttering prayers at Bush's Jan. 20 inauguration. He said in the filing that such prayers make him feel like a "second-class citizen."
He should feel like an idiot. If Mr. Newdow is so sensitive that merely hearing words spoken is enough to offend him, then he needs to live in a thermidor.

Mr. Newdow has a law degree, but he obviously didn't study much while in school. If he had, he would be familiar with the First Amendment, and he would understand that Congress is prohibited from maying any law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", not from having religious people speak at public ceremonies.

Where in that amendment does it say, "The President shall not have prayers or clergy at his inauguration"? Where does it say anything about behavior of public officials? Where does it even address the much-talked-about issue of posting the Ten Commandments in a public building? The amendment specifically addresses the admixture of religion in the law and only that.

One has to hope and pray that he suit makes it to the Supreme Court and that common sense and a right interpretation of the law will prevail so that we can squash this nonsense once and for all.

If I lived near this guy, I'd quote Bible verses at him all day, just to piss him off.

UPDATE: The government is asking the courts to throw out Newdow's suit to prevent prayer and clergy at the inauguration.