I was flipping through CNN.com today and noticed this item about Michael Newdow.
You might remember Newdow -- he's the California atheist who made a laughingstock of the Ninth Circuit Court when they banned the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Of course, his case unraveled when his daughter's mother pointed out that Newdow had invoked his daughter, of whom he did not have custody, as a reason for filing the case -- and the US Supreme Court dismissed it.
As quoted above, Newdow tried to argue that he would be "injured" by hearing a prayer at Bush's upcoming inauguration. However -- and this is the kicker -- the lawsuit was denied because of a Ninth Circuit Court ruling that Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he had previously sued about the prayer at Bush's first inauguration.
I don't know about y'all, but I heard nothing about Newdow's first attempt at banning prayer when it was ruled against in 2003 -- and NOTHING last year when the Supreme Court dismissed his Pledge case. I finally found something with significant search. And now Newdow's trying again, THIS time using other parents, whose names are being withheld, as plaintiffs.
I phrase it this way -- this guy is either the atheist equivalent of Jerry Falwell or the best double agent the religious right ever created. Can you imagine how many people they're going to blame, everyone from liberals to gays, for this guy's action?