Target Centermass

Day: January 13, 2005

  • Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer

    Here’s a fine example of one man overreaching and undermining his own cause.

    A federal judge heard arguments Thursday in the case of an atheist who wants to prevent a Christian minister from reciting a prayer at President Bush’s inauguration.

    Michael Newdow — best known for trying to remove “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance — told U.S. District Judge John Bates that allowing an overtly Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony violates the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

    Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush’s decision to have a minister recite the invocation is a personal choice the court has no power to prevent.

    As an atheist, I find myself sympathetic to the effort to revert to the earlier form of the Pledge of Allegiance, one sans “under God” and all I feel that implies. I shrug with only mild interest at the concept of removing “In God We Trust” from money — I feel it would be proper but it has no effect on the beer-buying process.

    That said, this inauguration issue is a joke. Unless the prayer is a mandatory or statuatory portion of the ceremony, I see no grounds for this case.

    Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow’s legal claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out because Newdow lost a similar case in California last year.

    The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 that Newdow did not suffer “a sufficiently concrete and specific injury” when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush’s first inauguration.

    Newdow — arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from California — said his case is different this time because he actually has a ticket to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coercive than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on television.

    Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer.

    Hearing a prayer is not harmful, especially for one who is not compelled in any manner to attend. Granted, there are times when listening to the prayers of others can seem annoying (especially when it causes a delay in the commencement of the devouring of delicious holiday dinners), but we have no constitutional protections against mild annoyances. For that, Mr. Newdow should be thankful.

    George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the details of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but merely the personal choice of the president.

    That seems to sum up the case — just as I should have the right to not have religion thrust upon me, the religious should not have their faith stripped away, even in a public role.

    A decision is expected tomorrow.

  • Speaker Tells Students Stripping Can Be Lucrative

    Astoundingly dumb move.

    School officials in Palo Alto are reconsidering their use of a popular speaker for an annual career day after he advised middle school students that they could earn a good living as strip dancers.

    William Fried told eighth-graders at Jane Lathrop Stanford Middle School that stripping and exotic dancing could be lucrative career moves for girls, offering as much as $250,000 or more per year, depending on their bust size.

    “It’s sick, but it’s true,” Fried, president of Foster City’s Precision Selling, a management consulting firm, told The Associated Press. “The truth of the matter is you can earn a tremendous amount of money as an exotic dancer, if that’s your desire.”

    Well, Mr. Fried, you’ve gone that far. Anything you want to add that can make it worse?

    Fried spent about a minute answering questions, defining strippers and exotic dancers synonymously. He told students, “For every two inches up there, you should get another $50,000 on your salary,” student Jason Garcia, 14, said.

    Well, yes, I guess there was something.

  • A Little Canadian Self-Examination

    Our neighbors to the north seem to be struggling with a bit of an identity crisis: are they allies or opponents to the U.S., contributors or pretenders as members of NATO and the international community? Ben at The Tiger in Winter takes an interesting and critical look here (hat tip to Damian Brooks at Babbling Brooks).

    We are unsteady as an ally. And this is not only a Liberal failing. In fact, the most egregious example was under a Conservative government. Diefenbaker did not co-operate with the Americans during the Cuban Missile Crisis — he refused to put the Canadian military on alert. (Canadian commanders, on the other hand, put themselves on alert.) That display prompted Bobby Kennedy to say of us, “in an emergency Canada will give you all aid short of help.”

    Go give it a read. Mr. Brooks adds his two cents to the piece.

    [Canadian conservatives] want Canada to live up to its potential, both domestically and internationally, so bad it hurts. That means making Canada stronger – economically, socially, and yes – militarily. The Canadian left likes to talk about charting an independent foreign policy from the U.S., but how can you remain independent with no assets to devote to your international goals – foreign aid, consulates and embassies, and yes again – military? How do you maintain true sovereignty over Canadian domestic issues without a strong and expanding economy – one that’s competitive worldwide without the crutch of a weak dollar?