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.
Comments
One response to “Atheist Protests Inauguration Prayer”
I think they missed the Dems bypassing their recount decision and going right to Kofi for some RIGHT answers-the dems signing a request for UN to run our elections. Maybe they are stupid enough to miss this!
Fri Jan 14, 6:26 AM ET
Top Stories – USATODAY.com
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
Shed of their black robes, Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia (news – web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news – web sites) engaged in a lively and, at times, amusing debate Thursday over whether foreign court rulings should be used in U.S. decisions.
• Iraq official expects high vote turnout, but violence goes on • Anti-malaria spraying begins in Aceh; rebel truce sought • Baseball officials announce tougher steroids policy • North Korea says it’s ready to resume nuclear talks • Bush says benefit cuts not inevitable Search USATODAY.com
Snapshots
USA TODAY Snapshot How do frequent flyers avoid chatty seatmates?More USA TODAY Snapshots
“We don’t have the same moral and legal framework as the rest of the world, and we never have,” said Scalia, who is one of the strongest voices on the high court against looking to foreign rulings to decide American cases.
Breyer countered, “You can learn something” from foreign countries. He said it is a matter of “opening your eyes to things that are going on elsewhere.” He said he does not consider foreign decisions “determinative” but “simply, from time to time, relevant.”
Sitting in upholstered chairs in the well of an American University auditorium, the two justices laid out their views in a rare public session. Their conversation was moderated by New York University law professor Norman Dorsen and co-sponsored by the U.S. Association of Constitutional Law and American University.
Supreme Court justices increasingly have referred to foreign law but not without dissent in their own ranks or public controversy. In 2003, when the majority struck down state anti-sodomy laws, it mentioned that the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed the right of homosexual adults to engage in sexual conduct. A year earlier, when the majority barred the execution of mentally retarded convicts, it noted that “within the world community” such executions are “overwhelmingly disapproved.”
Some members of Congress have denounced such references. Last year, Rep. Tom Feeney (news, bio, voting record), R-Fla., introduced a resolution criticizing the court for citing foreign legal authority. The resolution drew several co-sponsors but was not adopted by the full House. Shannon Conklin, a spokeswoman for Feeney, said Thursday that he intends to reintroduce the resolution.
Scalia and Breyer, both former law professors, appeared to relish expounding on their competing approaches. “I’m not preventing you from reading these cases,” Scalia said, “just don’t put it in your opinions.”
Scalia, who dissented from the gay rights and death penalty decisions, argued that the danger of foreign law is that it can be taken out of its native soil context or used only when it helps a position. “We are one of only six countries in the world that allows abortion on demand prior to viability,” he said, noting that the Supreme Court majority has not been guided by that. “Do we just use foreign law selectively?”
Scalia, who was appointed in 1986 by President Reagan, emphasized that judges should decide cases based solely on the U.S. Constitution and its 18th-century context.
Breyer, who was named to the bench by President Clinton (news – web sites) in 1994, argued that judges can draw guidance – not hard rules – from foreign sources. He observed that the Supreme Court increasingly is faced with international problems, from global antitrust disputes to terrorism. “Those are the cases we’re getting. And that reflects the truth about the world.”
There were many moments of levity between the two justices during the hour-and-a-half session that also was broadcast by C-SPAN.
Breyer quipped at one point that he usually goes about his life unrecognized. He said that the few times people have asked him if he was on the Supreme Court, they thought he was Justice David Souter (news – web sites).
Chimed in Scalia, “And he went along with it!”