"under god" pledge safe at the inaugeral

[SirFozzie]

And I'm cool with that. This whacko needs to learn he's doing his "cause" more harm then good. (this is the pledge of allegiance nut job). Apparently, the president/school kids saying Under God forces him to "accept" unwanted beliefs.

If he doesn't want to accept it, then don't accept it. But don't make your act of rejection a minority oppressing the people who do believe.

And yes, I am evil in such things, but I really would like folks to follow him, muttering "under God" to him whereever he goes, incessantly, until his tiny little mind snaps like a rubber band.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration.

U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any injury from hearing the prayer.

Bates also ruled that Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court in California last year.

Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the January 20 ceremony would violate 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 was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent.

During the two-hour hearing on Thursday, Bates questioned both sides vigorously but expressed doubt that a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office.

"Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in and enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Bates asked.

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.

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.

Newdow won widespread publicity two years ago when he persuaded the 9th Circuit to rule that the separation of church and state was violated when public school students pledged to God.

But the Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued.

Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children themselves.