Court To Newdow --Constitution Doesn't Mandate Atheism

Michael Newdow really doesn't get it. In his crusade to wipe out any hint of religious speech or expresion in any public venue, Newdow fails to recognize that his success would effectively gut the very First Amendment he alleges he wants enforced. Fortunately the courts are starting to see the absurdity (and, indeed, the danger) of his activities.

On Thursday, Newdow told U.S. District Judge John Bates that having a minister invoke God in the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.

But one day later, Bates ruled that Newdow wouldn't get far in his legal challenge and noted the absence of a "clearly established violation of the Establishment Clause."

"Moreover," the judge said in the ruling, "the balance of harms here, and particularly the public interest, does not weigh strongly in favor of the injunctive relief Newdow requests, which would require the unprecedented step of an injunction against the president."

The government had asked the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss the current lawsuit, saying the invocation had been widely accepted for more than 200 years old.

The court on Friday said it doesn't have the power to order the president not to speak at his own inauguration and the act of ordering the president not to permit an invocation and benediction — which Newdow sought — would be one and the same.

So, Mike, get this through you thick little atheist skull -- just as no one has a right to force you to speak or believe other than what you choose, you also lack the right to impose restrictions on others. You are not harmed by hearing that which you object to, whether in person or on television, and your own intense shocking sensitivity is not the standard by which the First Amendment is enforced.

Oh yeah, and Mike -- you need to go back and read up on the concepts of "stare deceis" and "res judicata", since you clearly slept through those lessons in law school. Since you already adjudicated this very issue, the earlier decision stands and serves as the precedent for all future cases on the issue. In short, you and your supporters lose FOREVER!