Juana!

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

post your opinion.... what do you think?

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) members separately rejected on Wednesday an emergency request from a California atheist who sought to stop the recital of prayers at President Bush (news - web sites)'s inauguration.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist (news - web sites) and then Justice John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) turned down atheist Michael Newdow. He is best known for trying unsuccessfully to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance that millions of U.S. schoolchildren recite every day.

Newdow, a doctor-lawyer who is acting as his own attorney in the case, argued that clergy-led prayers at the inauguration on Thursday would violate his constitutional rights.

"As an atheist, he cannot in good conscience attend an exercise where his government forces him to endure religious dogma he finds highly disagreeable," Newdow wrote in his motion filed with the Supreme Court. "Newdow's rights of religious freedom should be protected."

Newdow, who lives in Sacramento, California, said he would drop his plans to attend the inauguration if forced to confront the prayers by two Christian ministers.

Newdow also had suggested that Rehnquist, who plans to administer the oath of office to Bush at the inauguration, remove himself from considering his request.

He said Rehnquist took part in the 2001 inauguration when prayers were included. In seeking Rehnquist's recusal, Newdow said the chief justice would feel "awkward" at the ceremony if he rules in Newdow's favor.

After Rehnquist denied Newdow's request for an injunction, Newdow refiled it with Stevens, who also rejected it.

schutzenkonig

Good for the SC. His arguement that it violates his first amendment rights is ludicrous.

CD

God I hate assholes that try to make everyone live the life they want. That applies to atheists AND Christians alike.

___________________________________________

VIVIX

What he's saying is a complete loop. We can't pray because it offends him. Doesn't stopping the prayer service for Bush interrupt Bush's right to religious conviction?

bleh123

first admenment is bullshit designed to make people think they have rights but obviously don't, I mentioned the free speech part in another thread. I can't exactly at the moment provided any specific evidence execpt to point out all the references to God our founding fathers made and included in mottos or whatnot. I dont' remember what year, but before 100 years time had passed the freedom of religion was obviously and blatantly broken with the expulsion of the Mormons.

davemo2us

That's right. When you try to use the arguement that someone elses praying is forcing you to accept god and so they should abandon their beliefs and thus accept yours. You are basically using your own arguement to defeat yourself.

Reminds me of the old saying my teachers were so fond of, "if your friends jump of a bridge would you do that to?".

bleh123

I do agree with that too, America seems to have a problem with forcing ideas down other ppl's throats. In Croatia, 95% fo the population is Catholic, yet so far the only Jesus freaks I've met who try to force their religion on you have been American missionaries there.