Well, another day, another dummy! I guess just when we thought we saw it all, we ain't seen nuttin yet. When will this idiot get it through his thick skull that our country was founded on Christian principles and a few words here and there are not really going to kill him? Damned if I can figure out what the big deal is to these asswipes. I found this on AOL. You can follow this link to see it for yourselves if you have the stomach for it.
A number of atheists and non-religious organizations want Barack Obama's inauguration ceremony to leave out all references to God and religion.
In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.
In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion.
An advance copy of the lawsuit was posted online by Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005.
Joining Newdow in the suit are groups advocating religious freedom or atheism, including the American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Florida.
The new lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."
Newdow said references to God during inauguration ceremonies violate the Constitution's ban on the establishment of religion.
Newdow and other plaintiffs say they want to watch the inaugural either in person or on television. As atheists, they contend, having to watch a ceremony with religious components will make them feel excluded and stigmatized.
"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit.
Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr.
The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery. The document includes a quotation from Warren on atheists: "I could not vote for an atheist because an atheist says, 'I don't need God.' "
Newdow told CNN that he didn't name President-elect Barack Obama in the suit because in addition to participating as a government official at the ceremony, he possesses rights as an individual that allow him to express religious beliefs.
"If he chooses to ask for God's help, I'm not going to challenge him," Newdow said. "I think it's unwise."
Newdow said that as a member of a racial minority, Obama should have respect for atheists, who also are members of a minority.
Newdow said religious references in the inauguration ceremony send a message to non-believers.
"The message here is, we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans," he said.
Newdow said it's unconstitutional to imply that atheists and others are not as good.
He acknowledged that his suit is unlikely to be successful.
"I have no doubt I'll lose," he said, adding that he hoped to eventually succeed through appeals and hoped future inauguration ceremonies would exclude religious references.
Notice that he doesn't DARE to name the messiah in his stupid lawsuit. God forbid, can't do that, now can we? Hey nimwit, you said "we who believe in God are the righteous, the real Americans", not me. But it is the only part you got right!
This is the same asswipe that has been trying to kill God in our schools, in our pledge, on our money, and any other government setting he can. I found a rather interesting site that has some good dirt on our God-hating jerk. Here is a little sample:
"Michael Newdow, an atheist, said that the pledge harmed his daughter's First Amendment rights because she had to 'watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that ours is one nation under God.'"
Breaking revelations surrounding the case have led people to question the legitimacy of Newdow's suit. Based on information obtained by CPI News, a startling new fact has been unearthed regarding the personal opinions of Michael Newdow's daughter and her mother. According to information, the man who filed the legal suit in June did so against the wishes of his daughter and her mother, both of which identify themselves as Christians and attend a Calvary Chapel.
This new development suggests the possibility that the court's decision was based on fraudulent facts. Michael A. Newdow claimed that reciting the Pledge violated his daughter's constitutional rights, and made her uncomfortable.