Comments on: Michael Newdow’s Inauguration Lawsuit Dismissed

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:32:40 +0000

This country was founded on the right to practice freedom of religion, where you want to live and who you want to be. No one makes you not do these things. If there were not freedom you could not be an atheist, budda, satan worshiper ect. Of course as a christian I would try to convince you my way was the right way, but I dont make you pray or worship with me. I have a choice. So do you. Dont take my rights away so you can have your be the best. If you change what this country was founded on then you will no longer have freedom. Then what will you do if your way is the only way. Life as we know it will no longer exsist. Freedom! Its the only way. God Bless America and all its wonderful mixed up people.

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 22:55:04 +0000

It is clear that the separation of church and state, which is in no federal documents from our Founding Fathers, but rather a concern from the Danbury Baptist Association in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, in which the concern was raised as to the state establishing a religion, as done in England (i.e. The Church of England).

Therefore, the court has misinterpreted the motive by Mr. Jefferson. We agree, the state should not establish a religion, (i.e., the Church of the United States of America), but tradition and federal documents show that God Himself was purposefully included in the foundation of our country, and is even to be thanked, as Abraham Lincoln stated in the Thanksgiving Day Proclamation of 1863.

Our history loudly proclaims a government which acknowledge the Sovereign Creator. On March 6, 1799, John Adams (for those who wish they were their to sue John Adams during this day, stated in his call for a “National Fast Day”, “..that they call in mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore his pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through the grace of His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to his righteous requisitions in time to come;”

Atheists are destroying America, and have rejected the past to build a destructive “utopia”, that because of the sin of men, will never be accomplished. Our society reflects greatly of this tragedy. America is waxing worse. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:00:34 +0000

I was going to make the most of my life; but then this absolutely necessary lawsuit failed and can never be brought again. Who would ever think of bringing children into the world when the powers that be turn a blind eye to such grave injustices! Is it a sign Nazi fascism is making a comeback?

Gimme a freakin break!

By: Brooks

Brooks — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:34:41 +0000

Aren’t Christians supposed to pray in the closet and not out in the open to be seen by men like the Pharisees anyway?

By: Buffy

Buffy — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:22:15 +0000

Too bad we can’t get a group of Satanists to demand prayers to Satan be included. If one deity can be prayed to then all must, you see. That should get prayer and religion ousted faster than our requests to do so….

(There’s nothing the powers that be detest more than sharing the limelight, and the idea of prayers to Satan would scare the pants off them.)

By: Brooks

Brooks — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:12:16 +0000

And, even if the plaintiffs could establish such an injury, they have failed to demonstrate how the harm they allege is redressable by the relief they seek, or that the Court has any legal authority to award the relief requested.

That’s ridiculous. What about all the people in the gay community who were offended by Obama’s choice of using Rick Warren in a prayer? That whole mess could have easily been avoided if the fundies could have just gone one minute of their lives without something religious-related in politics

By: James Koran

James Koran — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 23:06:44 +0000

I see a difference between the public sphere and public square. The first amendment protects the religious and non-religious in the public sphere of ideas, however, the public square should remain neutral.

By: Friends of Mike Newdow

Friends of Mike Newdow — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:38:14 +0000

Mike plans to appeal the decision.

And, I’m glad more people understand that the suit is against Roberts corrupting the oath as specified in the Constitution, not against the oath taker adding his/her own comments to the end of the oath. Roberts needs to stick to the script.

By: Christopher

Christopher — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 21:21:53 +0000

Ah, Quentin, I do see the difference, and that makes sense.

By: Quentin

Quentin — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 20:29:10 +0000

The way I understood it, the point wasn’t to prevent Obama from adding SHMG at the end of his oath if that’s what he wants to do, the point was that Justice Roberts, acting in an official government capacity, is not authorized to add any additional personal statements to the official oath.