the 1st amendment tells us "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." if this is true, then why is he trying to get it stopped: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...u=/nm/20050119/ts_nm/bush_inaugural_prayer_dc he says, "Newdow's rights of religious freedom should be protected." would protecting his rights infringe on others?
I don't think I understand the question. Are you basically just trying to point out that the Constitution protects the freedom of religious exercise? Athieism is a religion (not by definition, however, that is just a symantics game.. but any hardline atheist would probably fight me to the grave on such an issue ), or at least a belief or faith, so I guess it qualifies as a religion. So to me it seems that the court made the correct legal decision, not that I think the 1st amendment is right in all cases, nor is it the last word on this issue. But in legal terms, it is.
Ok, I think I get the question more now. So would stopping prayer at the inauguration infringe on someone else's rights? I think so. However, as I understand it, the prayer is only optional, not mandatory. If it were mandatory, then I think it would kind of be a little over the line, just like how I feel mandatory prayer in school is over the line.
this is the question i ask. if we are free to pray or not pray then is it infringement to stop someone from praying. someone can't be forced to pray, is it right to stop them from praying?
Obviously no. Since, like I said, the prayer at the inauguration is only optional for all Presidents.
Though, I suppose the guy is looking at it from a 'who infringes on who' first point of view. In that, if he wants to go to the inauguration, supports Bush, and is an atheist, then his rights are being infringed on because the two aren't necessarily related in his eyes. (Seeing the president in the inauguration shouldn't be an issue with his religion/lack thereof). Not that I agree necessarily, but I'm guessing that's the point he's making.
Newdow is a moron that loves seeing his name in the paper, even exploiting his daughter to try to change the pledge. He should be forced to pay all of the operating costs of all the courts where his stupid crap gets argued.
