Michael Newdow's attempt to stop prayer at Bush inauguration

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
SpinyNorman
Student
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:25 pm
Location: The Great State of Delaware

Michael Newdow's attempt to stop prayer at Bush inauguration

Post #1

Post by SpinyNorman »

Jus wondering what people think about Michael Newdow's attempt to grab more attention for himself....er...um...I meant what people think about Michael Newdow's attempt to have prayer stopped at Bush's second inaugural.

Newdow claims that a prayer held at the inaugural would cause him, and I quote, "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury".

SOmeone needs to explain to me what injury this causes. If this man thinks those of us who pray are nuts who just waste our time participating in a fruitless exercise, what damage does it cause him to hear it? No where does it say all participants in the inauguration MUST pray. IF you don't want to pray, don't pray. If you want to pray, then pray.

People are always accusing CHristians of forcing their religious views on people. (A charge that regrettably is not always false) Isn't Newdow doing the same thing?

Thoughts? :-k
Last edited by SpinyNorman on Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
aprilannies
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:09 am
Location: Florida

Post #21

Post by aprilannies »

karl wrote:
Horace Maynard Middle School in Union, Tennessee punished India Tracy, a 14-year-old straight-A student, for not participating in religious events. In addition, the school did not do enough to discourage religiously motivated bullying, which lead to physical assaults on India. Her family is Pagan.



India was sent to the Principal's office for not attending a Christian tent revival during school hours. (Her older sister Tyla was once punished at Union County High School for the same reason. She was given extra classwork in order to "remind" her to bring her permission slip.)

India was sent to the Principal's office when she refused to portray Mary in a Christmas play.

India was forced to attend regular Bible study classes during the school day, and urged to lead the school and her class in prayer.

A teacher told India to "keep quiet because you'll get in trouble" after she wrote a paper about religious freedom.

A bus driver regularly asked India in front of other students if she had gone to church yet and if she'd like to come to church.

Derogatory names were written on her locker in permanent ink, but the school refused to remove the graffiti or move her locker.

She was beaten and ridiculed by other students for not being a Christian ever since 1999, when she refused to go to a religious retreat , and the school system has failed to prevent it.

The bullying is so severe that her mother has had to pull her out of school and homeschool her after India started talking about suicide.

India was repeatedly called "Satan worshipper", "witch" and other names. She was accused of "eating babies" and of being a lesbian because she wasn't a Christian.

She was repeatedly attacked as she knelt in front of her bottom-row locker. Her head was bashed at least 10 times, cutting her lip, forehead and nose.

India was chased down the hallway by three boys who grabbed her by the back of the neck and told her she should change her religion or they'd "change it for her."
There is more to the story than this, but you get the picture. The militant nationalism in the U.S.A somewhat resembles the militant nationalsim in pre-WWII Nazi Germany. In the U.S.A today, it is almost considered "unpatriotic" to be against the Iraq war, and today nationalism is also being equated with being a Christian. The shocking and deplorable assults on India Tracy by Christian thugs reminds one of the tactics of the brown-shirted Hitler SA youth.
The point in this little exercise, is that there are indeed extremist Christians out there, and for more on these "Christians forcing their religious views on people" one can visit: http://www.theocracywatch.org

Scary.

What I also find scary are message boards like: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/message where people propagate about how the Chinese are eating babies http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/messag ... ght=silver and we need to throw out all immigrants. They seem to convince people fairly easily. Why is it so hard to think for yourself? ](*,)

Note: I am in no way shape or form trying to insinuate that all Christians are like the nuts noted above. I realize these people make up a very small, yet very vocal, part of the population. Thanks. :)

On topic, I too, have mixed feelings about the prayer. I ran into similar feelings at my little sister's public high school commencement ceremony, when the girl giving the benediction said, 'In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.' It would have solved most of the problems for me if the prayer was just ended 'Amen.' Atheists can choose to do their checkbook, and a specific endorsement of religion has not occurred. I'm neither Christian or atheist, I'm more agnostic, but I tried to pretend I was Jewish, or Muslim, or even pagan... 'In Jesus' name I pray...' from a public institution would piss me off. As an atheist, I simply discount the whole prayer as a crutch for those weaker than me.

Am I making sense? :confused2: :D

Karl
Student
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:24 pm
Location: Detroit Metro

Post #22

Post by Karl »

aprilannies wrote:Scary.

What I also find scary are message boards like: http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/message where people propagate about how the Chinese are eating babies http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/messag ... ght=silver and we need to throw out all immigrants. They seem to convince people fairly easily. Why is it so hard to think for yourself? ](*,)

Note: I am in no way shape or form trying to insinuate that all Christians are like the nuts noted above. I realize these people make up a very small, yet very vocal, part of the population. Thanks. :)

On topic, I too, have mixed feelings about the prayer. I ran into similar feelings at my little sister's public high school commencement ceremony, when the girl giving the benediction said, 'In Jesus' name I pray, Amen.' It would have solved most of the problems for me if the prayer was just ended 'Amen.' Atheists can choose to do their checkbook, and a specific endorsement of religion has not occurred. I'm neither Christian or atheist, I'm more agnostic, but I tried to pretend I was Jewish, or Muslim, or even pagan... 'In Jesus' name I pray...' from a public institution would piss me off. As an atheist, I simply discount the whole prayer as a crutch for those weaker than me.

Am I making sense? :confused2: :D
Yes, you are making sense. Perhaps some don't bother to investigate or think for themselves due to fear, guilt-mongering...or maybe just plain laziness.

The problem with rabid fundies is that they have no respect for anyone else, and they are under the delusion that Spirituality somehow arises from having the "correct" dogma, and other externalities associated with the frameworks that we call religion. Anybody who doesn't subscribe to their traditons, concepts or interpretations is an evil "infidel". They will also have no qualms about trying to foist their views on everyone else. It's too bad. Spirituality of course, is an Internal Process, and should be the same for everyone, regardless of religion.

K
In Ma'at

(Mystical Kemet)

LyricalReckoner
Newbie
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2005 4:36 pm
Location: San Francisco
Contact:

Re: Michael Newdow's attempt to stop prayer at Bush inaugura

Post #23

Post by LyricalReckoner »

SpinyNorman wrote:Jus wondering what people think about Michael Newdow's attempt to grab more attention for himself....er...um...I meant what people think about Michael Newdow's attempt to have prayer stopped at Bush's second inaugural.

Thoughts? :-k
Methinks he would have been better off asking Rehnquist to not append anything to the oath of office he offered the president.

When it comes to Tradition v. the Constitution, I expect a judge to go with the Constitution.

Overcomer
Guru
Posts: 1330
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 8:44 am
Location: Canada
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 66 times

Post #24

Post by Overcomer »

Karl wrote:
aprilannies wrote: The problem with rabid fundies is that they have no respect for anyone else, and they are under the delusion that Spirituality somehow arises from having the "correct" dogma, and other externalities associated with the frameworks that we call religion. Anybody who doesn't subscribe to their traditons, concepts or interpretations is an evil "infidel". They will also have no qualms about trying to foist their views on everyone else. It's too bad. Spirituality of course, is an Internal Process, and should be the same for everyone, regardless of religion.
K
Do you not realize that the atheist who foists his views on everyone and demands that there be no prayer in schools or at the inauguration or anywhere else outside of a church or private home, etc. are showing their disrespect for others?

Why do you think that the atheist should dictate whether there is prayer or not? Why do you think an atheist should get what he wants while trampling the rights of others who are in a relationship with Jesus and who want to invite him to be part of all that we do?

Why are your rights more important than mine? Why are your rights more important than those of George Bush? Why is your right to NOT acknowledge God in public be more important than his right to confess his faith in public?

Christianity is personal in that it centres on the individual's personal relationship with Jesus Christ. But it is congregational in that it is shared and celebrated among people who know Jesus. And it is meant to be shared with those who don't know God that they might have the tremendous joy and delight in entering into a relationship with him.

Rabid fundies indeed! What about rabid atheists? Why do you thinkyou have the right to dictate how things be done? You are busy complaining that Christians are disrespectful when your tone and choice of words shows your tremendous diesrespect for us.

It's funny how people criticize others about certain faults and fail to see that they themselves have those same imperfections!

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #25

Post by The Happy Humanist »

Rabid fundies indeed! What about rabid atheists? Why do you thinkyou have the right to dictate how things be done? You are busy complaining that Christians are disrespectful when your tone and choice of words shows your tremendous diesrespect for us.
First, I would love to be able to say that there are no rabid atheists. Unfortunately, there are - Madalyn Murray OHair comes to mind. Before she died, she unveiled a plan to eliminate religious symbols in the workplace, and I got this awful visual of people yanking crosses off the necks of secretaries...rest assured, that ain't what atheism is about.

Second, I think a line needs to be drawn between a student or a president invoking their god during a speech, talking about how their religion is a big influence in their life, vs. someone standing at a public gathering and saying "Let us pray" or "this nation's God" or something. I don't think atheists have the right to squelch all religious speech; but some religious speech is designed to disenfranchise the non-religious by implying that they are not "part of the gang." That's why there should be no govt.-sponsored school prayer.

However, not having school-sponsored prayer in a classroom does absolutely nothing to disenfranchise the religious. They are free to pray to themselves, they are free to pray off campus, etc. Saying that it's "trampling on their rights" is disingenuous. What if some day there is a movement to have math teachers tell first-graders, "God made 1 + 1 equal 2, God made 2 + 2 equal 4," etc. Would opposition to this movement constitute trampling on the rights of religious?
Nuff said.
Jim, the Happy Humanist!
===
Any sufficiently advanced worldview will be indistinguishable from sheer arrogance --The Happy Humanist (with apologies to Arthur C. Clarke)

Post Reply