Is there such thing as fundamental atheism? I think we may be seeing it in the form of Michael Newdow. He is now suing to have virtually all mention of God removed from government. I think he is wrong.
Here’s where I am coming from on this…
I am not an atheist. I was raised Catholic and still identify myself as Catholic. My faith, such as it is, has ranged from entirely agnostic to somewhat devout. It changes on nearly a daily basis. I don’t take the Bible literally. I don’t go to church every Sunday (sorry, Mom). I don’t subscribe to much of the Catholic dogma. I believe in the separation of Church and state, yet I believe just as strongly in the freedom to practice any religion. I don’t believe there is much direct influence by any deity in my life, but there have been things that have happened (or not happened) to me that I consider “miraculous”. I have no idea who will go to heaven or who will go to hell but I am pretty sure neither of them exist in the sense they were described to me in Sunday school. At the end of day, I think the ideas of treating others as you wish to be treated, and trying to be a forgiving person are pretty good ways to live.
The thing is these are my personal beliefs. I am not sure if they are right or wrong, if such a characterization even exists. I don’t try to push them on others, and I don’t expect anyone else to understand or subscribe to them.
The problem I have with any type of fundamentalism, be it Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, or even atheist, is not the religious beliefs. I don’t think religion in and of itself is a bad thing at all. It’s just a way of explaining the seemingly unexplainable. It gives comfort, and there is nothing wrong with that. The only thing that really bothers me is when someone tries to impose their belief system onto me and tries to tell me that his or her way of living life or defining the world is the only correct way. It’s the intolerance that I find maddening.
Michael Newdow is demonstrating extreme intolerance for any worldview but his own. He appears as fundamentalist as any Islamicist or Fundamentalist Christian out there.
I thought the whole “under God” debate created by Newdow’s initial suit, was interesting, yet inconsequential. I find the fact that children are compelled to recite any oath to anything more troublesome than the actual language contained in that oath. I don’t cringe when I see “In God we Trust” on my money. I don’t see the problem with having chaplains in Congress (or hospitals and airports for that matter) available to minister to those who feel they need it. If a president wants to say “God Bless America” at the end of his speech I have no problem with it.
Now if children were forced to say “Death to anyone who doesn’t believe as our nation does”; if currency read, “We all Must Believe Or Burn in Eternal Torment”; if Congressmen were forced to go to the chaplain for approval on legislation; if the president closed every speech by saying, “God bless America, except for those darn Dutch Calvinists, he doesn’t need to bless them because they’re going to hell anyway!”; well then I’d have a problem.
My policy on life is pretty much, “To each his own, but don’t try to make yours mine.” Newdow is trying to make his beliefs the law of the land. I don’t feel that any of the stuff he is bristling at endangers the separation of church and state. Actually it seems that he would like to see a state religion, and that religion is atheism. That’s just wrong.
Can I get an Amen?
![[Post to Twitter]](http://getdonkey.com/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet ThisRelated posts:
- Always surprising I am always surprised at how Republicans can just spout...
- get donkey! Quick Takes Quick takes for the week: So by now, everyone on...
- New Yorkers don’t want cuts to schools or healthcare The NY Working Families Party has commissioned a poll that...
- If It Wasn’t So Outrageous It Would Be Funny Here is how our federal government is “protecting” us from...
- Insurance not Investment — The Human Face of Social Security I haven’t linked to anything political in a while, and...
11:30 am on August 30th, 2002
I’m a pretty confirmed agnostic. Having “God” on my money doesn’t bother me all that much, but I’m opposed to it on principle, pretty much in the same way I defend people’s right to say hateful things in the interest of free speech for the rest of us. I don’t believe that making no mention of a deity in government is an espousal of atheism. Atheism isn’t a religion. Our government is supposed to be secular. What’s wrong with leaving God out of it? What do we get for having God in it?
11:39 am on August 30th, 2002
Making no mention of God or any other deity is one thing. Personally, I believe that people in government should avoid doing so. Legally forbidding people to mention of God is quite another thing. I think that is what Newdow is in favor of.
11:55 am on August 30th, 2002
I see where you’re coming from, but I don’t see the harm of keeping religion out of government. There are certainly enough people trying to drag it in these days. Should we just let them go along with it? Where do you think we should draw the line, and what should we enforce it with?
12:43 pm on August 30th, 2002
I think we may be a lot closer in our thinking than it seems. I strongly agree with you that too many people are trying to bring religion into government and otherwise secular public institutions. I am as opposed to forcing religion down the throats of people as I am to forbidding them to mention it.
It’s a matter of choosing your battles, I guess. In my opinion it is more important to focus on the religious groups who are attempting to change public school curricula to include “creation science” and exclude evolution, ban books they find objectionable, and bomb abortion clinics in the name of God. Those are the people who are endangering freedom and are trying to impose their religious proclivities onto the lives of each and every American.
In my mind stuff like “In God we Trust” is harmless fluff in the face of those more serious attempts at de-secularizing America. The meaning of that statement is as watered down as the meaning of Christmas. The president closing a speech with “God Bless America” is no different than to me than if he said, “Good night, Hockeypuck”. It’s political shtick that presidents have done since the time of Adams. Congressional Chaplains are there just like the Senate barbershop is there. Would I care or think it is harmful if those things weren’t there or if religion was never mentioned again within the halls of government? Not at all, but it doesn’t bother me that much that they are there or that people do mention religion.
Your question of where to draw the line is an excellent one. I’m not sure I have an answer, but my guess would be that that line is crossed anytime someone tries to force the nation at large to follow a particular religious belief system. I don’t begrudge Newdow his personal beliefs about the non-existence of God. Hell, I don’t begrudge Jerry Falwell his personal beliefs about God. Both are fundamentalists in my opinion. Part of the nature of fundamentalism, unfortunately, is to be intolerant of other people’s beliefs. In that respect Newdow and Falwell are cut from the same cloth. I don’t like either one.
12:54 pm on August 30th, 2002
I don’t believe that Newdow is seeking any laws preventing anyone from expressing their personal religious beliefs. He is simply trying to make the government follow the Constitution and remain secular.
The lawsuit that he won, which is on hold now, did not prevent anyone from saying the pledge of allegience. It only prevents government run schools from using the words “under god” in the pledge.
Remember that the mention of god on money and in the pledge was added during Eisenhower’s presidency, when people were in a frenzy over communism. The intention was to equate being a true American with christianity (and it really was that specific, rather than a generic god). If it seems like a minor thing to you, then imagine that the word “goddess” or “devil” or ” master” or “supreme being” were used instead of “god”. It’s one of those things, like slavery and women not being able to vote that the government has done, but still isn’t right.
Removing god from goverment does not encourage atheism any more than it does another belief. It simply allows all Americans to believe as they wish. Religion has no place in a country of diverse beliefs. IMHO.
1:45 pm on August 30th, 2002
I am not comfortable with a national loyalty oath that depends on religion, but it’s not the fight I’d pick, either. I think we would be better off without it, but I wouldn’t have filed the lawsuit. I’m not sorry that Newdow did, though, and the Ninth Circuit decision was legally correct, in part for the reasons wKen mentions.
As for fundamentalist atheists, I used to be married to one, so I have no doubt they exist. The Skeptical Inquirer people turn me off for the same reason. They do good work on bunkum and faith healers, but they equate Buddhism with Atlantean crystal faith healing or whatever. Puh-leez.
2:51 pm on August 30th, 2002
All good points wKen.
I should clarify some things.
I think government should be secular. Period. There should be no laws that are based on religious beliefs. There should be no state supported religion.
I don’t think that what Newdow is doing is totally without merit. I actually agree with his ideas about banning congressmen from passing religious-based resolutions. If they want to mention God or anything else in their speeches or in campaign literature, no problem. Passing a resolution is codifying religion, however. It’s wrong.
I supported the legality of the pledge ruling, actually. In all honesty, I think the entire pledge of allegiance should be banned from public schools. “Under God” is only part of the problem.
If the president or any other elected official is to be banned from to mentioning God, or Vishnu, or any other deity in a speech, that is limiting his or her ability express his or her personal beliefs. I don’t see how that could be done without a law, and based on the article linked in the original post that seems to be Newdow’s goal. I have a problem with that. I believe any restriction on speech is bad.
I understand that congressional chaplains appear to link church and state. I’m not 100% convinced that chaplains alone should be removed, however. To me they are a congressional amenity. No one is forced to seek the guidance of a chaplain just as no-one is forced to get the $10 haircuts at the Senate barber. If chaplains are removed, in my opinion, then all other congressional amenities should be removed as well. That is something I might be in favor of.
I agree that “in God We trust” should never have been on currency. I can see how it may be offensive to others. If it were put up to a referendum vote, I would vote in favor of its removal. To me, however it is a very minor issue in light of the other actions religious groups are trying take to influence the government.
My problem with Newdow is his approach to these issues. For some reason, that makes a difference to me. It’s about a person’s principles, I guess. Is he or she primarily a supporter of the constitution who just happens to be a “blank”, or primarily a “blank” who just happens to see the constitution as a means of advancing his or her “blank”-related cause? You can substitute nearly any religion or group for “blank”. To me, the former is the more principled position. My original interpretation of Newdow after the pledge ruling was the former–A supporter of the constitution who just happens to be an atheist. After learning more about his tactics, I am not so sure that he isn’t the latter (e.g., In regard to the pledge-case “Noticing that all his coins and notes had “in God we Trust” written on them, he decided to use his University of Michigan legal training to sue the government for removal of the phrase. After a bit of research, Newdow decided it would be easier to protest the pledge of allegiance by claiming he didn’t want his daughter to say “under God,” even though she wasn’t in school at the time. He lost while living in Florida, moved to California and sued the local school board with no prior warning.”).
Here are some interviews with him:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,267702,00.html –Where the above quote was taken from.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/Newdow.cnna/
3:37 pm on August 30th, 2002
I understand the point you are making Rob, but I don’t believe the specifics of a case or private purpose of a plaintiff are as important as it’s effect on the interpretation of the law. Whether I read Hustler or not, Larry Flint has done quite a bit to insure my freedom to make my own moral judgements about what I will or won’t view. You may not agree with the beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but the vast majority of Supreme Court cases settled with regard to the practice of religious freedom has been brought by their faith. I am not a fan of the Klu Klux Klan, but even they have fought for the freedom to protest and assemble in cases that benefit all Americans, even if their personal reasons were to show hatred for most people in America.
I don’t care if Newdow is motivated by a hatred of religion, or any other belief system. I only care that the ultimate result is to re-establish our freedom to practice our beliefs without government interference or participation. By seeking that freedom for himself, he fights for everyone who does not want to be associated with a specific faith through government actions.
It may not be as important as some other causes. It certainly isn’t a matter of life or death. I just don’t see it detracting from the other causes. It isn’t like Newdow would spend his time on a more ‘important’ activity, were he to stop this court action. We can all pick our own fights, but I don’t understand discouraging someone from doing something that is positive.
I believe that the reason we have so many ‘little’ things wrong is because one side puts a great deal of effort into insisting on their beliefs being followed, while the rest just shrug their shoulders and say that it isn’t that big of a deal. Ultimately, that leads to the impression that the majority actually approve of what is happening, rather than being the work of a very vocal minority.
You don’t have to spend any time, effort, or money on Newdow’s cause, but if you think that he is ‘technically right’, then why do you spend time and effort against him?
Sorry for being so long. I’m glad that people can actually communicate like this, without a bunch of name calling. I do respect your intelligence, even if I disagree with your conclusions.
4:32 pm on August 30th, 2002
‘You don’t have to spend any time, effort, or money on Newdow’s cause, but if you think that he is ‘technically right’, then why do you spend time and effort against him?’
Because I believe that principle sometimes outweighs expediency, and while I believe in his cause, I think Newdow’s perceived lack of principle makes him easy target for derision. Even though he may be technically correct on some things, religious wing-nuts will delight in ridiculing him because his real goal appears to be self-advancement. As a result, the issues that matter will get lost among the character assassinations. There has to be a better, more principled spokesperson for this issue. With great lines like:
“I believe that the reason we have so many ‘little’ things wrong is because one side puts a great deal of effort into insisting on their beliefs being followed, while the rest just shrug their shoulders and say that it isn’t that big of a deal. Ultimately, that leads to the impression that the majority actually approve of what is happening, rather than being the work of a very vocal minority.,”
you may be good a candidate.
10:26 pm on August 30th, 2002
Wow – great post and fabulous dialogue here in the comments. Where were wKen and Ginger when I blogged about Newdow a few weeks back?
I think you make an interesting point about how the perception of the man seems to outweigh the legitimacy of the principle. the *perception* of Newdow as a media whore out to destroy all references to religion or God in public life manages to work against him (and his cause). But some of that perception is spun by the media, so I look more to what he’s done than what he’s quoted as saying. To be frank, I think that perception would be there no matter who was bringing lawsuits of this nature – it’s unpopular, so the person responsible must be demonized by those who disagree or find it ‘extreme’. That’s human nature, I’m afraid.
I tend to side more with wKen, though, & tried to make a similar point when the Pledge crapola first hit the fan, but he said it much better than I did:
“I don’t care if Newdow is motivated by a hatred of religion, or any other belief system. I only care that the ultimate result is to re-establish our freedom to practice our beliefs without government interference or participation. By seeking that freedom for himself, he fights for everyone who does not want to be associated with a specific faith through government actions.”
I see it much in the same way – these may seem like nitpicky little distractions, but if not for people like Newdow and others who risk unfavorable media attention (and death threats – lots of death threats) many of our basic freedoms would be whittled away in a heartbeat. It’s better to have a little media whoredom with our constitutional law than no constitutional freedoms at all.
That said, I’d have taken a different approach to nearly all of Newdow’s targets. It was sufficient to raise the question of constitutionality in regards to the Pledge. I would certainly not have brought a lawsuit on the other two targets (the Motto or Chaplaincy) – not because I think they’re legal, but because – as so many have already said – I’d pick my battles. Let one idea work its way through the nation first. Let it gain ground in public discourse. It then becomes more obvious that there are others areas where the same question arises. It takes time to alter the public’s perception of what is and is not acceptable. By starting lawsuit upon lawsuit, Newdow appears too ‘pushy’ and aggressive for most of America. Psychobabble, maybe, but I think it’s true.
Ergh. Sorry for writing so much, Rob. In the future, I’ll try to remember that brevity is the soul of … something.
10:49 pm on August 30th, 2002
The problem with people like Newdow is that they are trying to force the government to accept an interpretation of the Constitution not supported by available evidence. It’s ridiculous to believe that “under God” in the Pledge doesn’t pass First Amendment muster, even though the Declaration of Independence makes references to a deity, and the chaplaincy in Congress was established early in our nation’s history. Are we to believe that it is unconstitutional to have students recite our own Declaration of Independence? How absurd does this have to become?
I can understand people wanting a completely secular government, without so much as a mention of God, but trying to establish such as a matter of Constitutional law is petty and wrong. Not every church/state issue relates to the First Amendment, and the sooner people understand this, the sooner these battles can be waged at the ballot box rather than by activist judges. Newdow and those who support him need to step back and read the Constitution for what it says, and not what they want it to say.
12:13 am on August 31st, 2002
Owen, it’s curious that judges that we disagree with are labeled “activists” and the others “accurately interpret” the Constitution. Every reading of the Constitution is merely an interpretation, unless you wrote it.
The United States was founded by men with a Christian faith, and it is natural for them to express a belief in that faith in their writings, but they recognized from personal experience that there are many interpretations of even one form of religion (Christianity), and so drafted governing documents (which the Declaration of Independance isn’t one of) to keep religion out of government.
The Constitution does not make the same references to god because it is purely a secular, governmental document which was intended to keep the goverment out of our business for the most part. The founding fathers had a strong distrust of rulers, and attempted to place a balance between the three govermental branches so that no one group would be too powerful. Goverment was a necessary evil to protect the freedom of indivduals, including religious freedom, and not to regulate the population. We easily forget that.
Only through continued vigilance and an open dialogue, such as in this forum, will that freedom be maintained. (Oh no, I’m sounding pompous now. I better stop). My best to you all. Isn’t free speech great?!
11:49 am on August 31st, 2002
Wow, the comments have really picked up. It’s nice to see topics like these being actually debated without polemics. My original question for those who either favor or don’t mind having some religious references and/or institutions in government still stands: is there any benefit to having them? For example, do they help make the government more palatable to religious people? Do they increase their sense that the government represents them? If that’s the case, should we put more religion in government to increase the effect?
I would contend that it’s better to leave religion completely out of the equation so that weaker minds aren’t tempted to conflate the two. The regrettable thing is that these same minds will see removing the references and institutions as a personal attack. For that reason alone, it might be best to proceed with caution on this subject.
Damn, tough issue. I don’t even know what I think. Nice commenting with y’all, though.
10:08 pm on August 31st, 2002
wKen, some of the Founders were Deists rather than Christians. The “the Founders were Christian” meme is ahistorical.
As for the religious references in the Declaration of Independence, sure there were some. The Declaration was meant to appeal to many groups, including Christians who would respond to religious language.
But there’s a difference between a marketing document and a functional spec. The Declaration is the former and the Constitution is the latter. We’ve built our nation based on the functional specification, not on the marketing materials.
6:21 pm on September 2nd, 2002
Ever heard of “Christian deism?” Not everyone, including many of the founders, saw an inherent contradiction between deism and Christianity. The “deism vs. Christianity” meme is the true myth in this matter. The idea that they are inherenty contradictory – THAT’S ahistorical. The founders, even those who were deists, almost all considered themselves Christian.
And while we must “interpret” the Constitution to a large degree, there are contorted interpretations. I’m certain the left would be upset if an activist judge interpreted the word “posterity” in the preamble combined with the right to “life, liberty, and property,” combined with prohibitions against abortion in English common law, to declare that abortion must be illegal under the Constitution.
That would be activism – shoving words down the Constitution’s throat – and even as an ardent pro-lifer, I know that. The decision in the Newdow case was very similar, because as I said, it runs contrary to all available evidence as to what the First Amendment says and was intended to mean. If you can’t debate that point, then don’t preach about separation of church and state. Unless the issue is resolved in the First Amendment, it must be left to our elected represenatives.
David Yassen says that “I would contend that it’s better to leave religion completely out of the equation.” That’s a reasonable view – what isn’t reasonable is to claim that the Constitution should prohibit students from reciting the Declaration of Independence in school. No offense intended to anyone, but to believe that the Constitution was intended to ban the recititation of the Declaration strikes me as more than a bit fanatical.
And to try to minimize the importance of the Declaration of Independence is “ahistorical” as well.
11:38 am on September 3rd, 2002
The decision in the Newdow case was very similar, because as I said, it runs contrary to all available evidence as to what the First Amendment says and was intended to mean.
Nuh-uhhh! Or rather, why does the case law (Lemon v. Kurtzman, et. al.) on which the Newdow decision was based not count as available evidence?
what isn’t reasonable is to claim that the Constitution should prohibit students from reciting the Declaration of Independence in school. No offense intended to anyone, but to believe that the Constitution was intended to ban the recititation of the Declaration strikes me as more than a bit fanatical.
It’s a good thing the Newdow decision doesn’t ban students from reciting the Declaration of Independence, then.
1:56 pm on September 3rd, 2002
Zarquon,
The application of Supreme Court precedent ignored statements in Supreme Court rulings specifically stating that “under God” in the Pledge is constitutional. Furthermore, just because a precedent exists that can be interpreted in a certain way doesn’t mean that interpretation is reasonable, nor does it mean the precendent was a valid decision. Looking at the wording of the First Amendment as well as the intent of the founders makes the Newdow ruling appear ridiculous.
You also say that “[i]t’s a good thing the Newdow decision doesn’t ban students from reciting the Declaration of Independence,” but the legal reasoning contained in that decision WOULD ban the recitation of the Declaration of Independence if applied universally – and Supreme Court cases are always meant to be applied universally as the Constitution is the “supreme law of the land.”
7:40 pm on September 4th, 2002
Okay, let’s go to the sources.
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion.”
First Amendment
Now, to a chap named Jefferson on his intent:
“I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. [...] But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting and prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the United States an authority over religious exercises, which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant, too, that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription, perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is in the best interests of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines; nor of the religious societies, that the General Government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times of these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.”
In contrast, here’s what Mr. Eisenhower had to say on the addition of “under God”:
“In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future. From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.”
7:47 pm on September 4th, 2002
On the topic of the Declaration of Independence, unless you’re referring to a teacher requesting his students to affirm a belief in the Declaration, then this ruling has no relevance. And even then, God and Creator aren’t necessarily identical. The fact some people believe they were created by God doesn’t mean that I have to believe in the existence of God to have a creator.
12:40 am on September 5th, 2002
Zarquon:
1) Thomas Jefferson did not draft the First Amendment, nor do his words, as you quote them, preclude an innocuous phrase such as “under God” in a voluntary pledge. Moreover, Eisenhower’s words are certainly oriented towards religion, but in such a general away that I cannot believe Jefferson would have protested.
2) In Arizona students are led in a recitation of a section of the Declaration of Independence every day. It is essentially the same as reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
3) If you capitalize “Creator,” as is done in the Declaration, it connotes a reference to a monotheistic deity. In fact, it is a Judeo-Christian reference – even blatantly so. To say otherwise is more than a bit of a cop-out.
4) The Declaration of Independence also mentions God specifically, i.e. “The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” so you can’t get around that part anyway. Bear in mind, those words were written by Jefferson. Would he have thus opposed “under God” in the Pledge? Apparently not.
5) Would you abolish the national holidays of Christmas and Thanksgiving as well? The latter especially has a strong religious connotation, as Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclaimation clearly indicates. How far beyond the realm of logic are you willing to take this unsupportable interpretation?
7:35 pm on February 14th, 2003
Amen, brother! Amen! I totally agree with what you are saying on the Separation of the Church and State, but “Dr.” Newdow needs to be stopped. His only problem is that he wants more than his fair share of his 15 minutes of fame. He is just a bored little boy who has nothing better to do in life but to complain about anyone who does not share his exact same views. I identify myself as Catholic as well, with many of your similar views on the Catholic Church. I support you! Stop Newdow from taking the last shred of what founded this country: Good Christian (not saying that any other religion is not) principles and the practice of any religion! First the Pledge, now the Cash?! What’s he going to pitch a bitch about next??!
–Dr. S. Cummings–’
(PS:- I am NOT a ‘Doctor of the Universe,’ as this character Newdow believes himself to be…) That being said, by the way… What is that?? Sounds like a Cosmology degree to me, if not a degree in the academic disciplines of super-heroes such as the Honorable Captain America, or the Estimable Batman and Robin. We must also not forget the Eminent Superman! Wow… What an academic transcript this man must have!! (But of course, what transcript?!) I could have gotten an even more prestigous title (PhD) than the doctoral degree I took 4 years to get (EdD), 2001) by paying $100 to his Church!! Most of the time, he claims he ‘recieved his Doctor of Universe’ degree, but obviously hastens to mention that he BOUGHT it, along with that fancy ordination credential that can be found on his site. Man, if only I knew about this buying degree thing online before – and it be LEGAL- I could have saved myself so much trouble! No classes to worry about, only a bible to read and a 20 question test that I must score over 75%! Too bad, maybe I’ll get a PhD for my niece! (She’s 9 months old)
–DC–
7:38 am on August 19th, 2003
Newdow should be deported to Iraq or a communist country seee how he likes it
11:16 am on October 28th, 2003
i think micheal newdow should shut the hell up. if he doesn’t like how the united states is going, pack up your stuff and get the hell out of my country, you atheistic freak!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11:46 am on December 5th, 2003
11:57 am on December 5th, 2003
I think that Michael Newdow has a problem he needs help with! If he does not want his daughter to recite the pledge, than she deoes not have to! It’s not that hard to figure out.(HELLO!!!!)
If he does not want to recite the pledge than don’t, but you should let you daughter choose if she wants to belive in God or not! God Bless Everyone!(yah Michael Newdow, here me?…GOD BLESS EVERYONE!!)
10:38 am on March 25th, 2004
I agree with you totally! Newdow is an idiot who needs serious help! atheism is NOT my specialty though! i hate any atheists!
3:03 pm on March 25th, 2004
wow, the intelligence level dropped so quickly. we went from rational, balanced discussion to a laundry list of all the crotch-level internet forum attacks: Newdow is sick, he needs help, he’s bored, he’s a “little boy” (compared to what, a big man from Texas?), he’s a freak, he should leave the country if he doesn’t like the way things are. not surprisingly, all of those ad hominem attacks attempt to relegate Newdow and anyone who agrees with him to outsider status… which is the whole basis for his case, that he’s being made an outsider, and that his daughter would be looked at as an outsider if she told her teachers that she didn’t want to recite the pledge. democracy is not about them and us, it’s just about US, as one giant seething mass of diverse thoughts and opinions.
like him or not, Newdow is only trying to make the pledge neutral. a lot of people like to use the charged word “secular” in place of neutrality, but regardless of your chosen term, neutral is what government should be. atheism involves the non-belief in a higher power, but more broadly, it is automatically neutral. it’s an easy win for atheists. whereas Christians and others have to go to great lengths to explain the complexity of their faith, atheists can say, “there’s no evidence in the favor of god’s existence. therefore, i don’t believe.” take a look at Occam’s Razor, the philosophical idea that the simplest explanation is the best explanation. i have yet to hear a simple and intelligent rationalization of why/how a god, any god, could exist. it’s just too complex of an idea. a lot of people simply believe in god because they admit that it’s too complex for them to understand. people are so hard-pressed to come up with a decent defense of such an elaborate and impossible to prove belief system such as Christianity – you eventually make the explanation so complex that you end up tripping over your own prayer beads. the whole idea is based on faith, but faith does not solve global problems. rationalism does. neutrality and openness to new input solves problems. you can’t impose sanctions on North Korea because you “believe” they have nuclear weapons. you’d be an idiot for voting for a Presidential candidate because you “believe” they will do a good job. you need hard facts, evidence. in the absence of hard facts for the existence of god, neutrality should be the rule of the day… that’s all Newdow wants to do.
to put neutrality/atheism in a more specific and related context: some people pray before meals, atheists just get on with dinner. but if you’re expected to pray, and you sit out, then you’re being made to look odd, and that’s what the man is fighting. government-related/mandated things should be exclusive, not inclusive, and if you want to add religion to it, then that’s your own prerogative, burden, and responsibility. you will have to take the time to say a prayer before eating your meal. you will have to go to a special room at school to have prayer meetings or recite a pledge that includes “under god.” the people that realize the importance of neutrality, those that realize that god doesn’t and shouldn’t be involved in first period algebra class, will get on with their meal, their class, their workday.
the author of the original comment is totally wrong in saying that Newdow is engaging in a form of extremism – in fact, he’s doing the absolute opposite. he’s fighting for the right to NOT take sides. he’s fighting for his right (and YOUR right) to stay in the middle, to be moderate, to not make a choice, to stay NEUTRAL.
look at it like this…
- i went to a very rural school in the South, and we stopped saying the pledge in 3rd grade. i was actually surprised that California, such a supposedly progressive state, still dictates that children have to recite the pledge.
- the country went for a very long time without “under God” added to the pledge. fire and brimstone did not rain down from the skies to purge the nonbelievers. the Soviet Union did not collapse under the weight of 200 million “under god” pledges.
- Eisenhower did in fact say, “In this way we are reaffirming the TRANSCENDENCE of RELIGIOUS FAITH in America’s heritage and future. From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” that makes the motivations behind the addition pretty obvious.
- the rise of fear-driven neoconservatism (which basically has a stranglehold now) can be traced back to the decade when “under God” was added to the pledge… as if “under god” could stop nuclear warheads emblazoned with USSR (or modern terrorists, for that matter).
- much like having to “opt out” of a do-not-call list, children should not have to opt-out of reciting the pledge. opting out in an academic environment can lead to alienation and ostracism. if the pledge is neutral to religion (and “under god” is NOT neutral if you don’t believe in a god), then everyone can participate. we’d all like for the FCC to decide that telemarketers can’t call you – but instead, we have to put our telephone number on some stupid list and wait weeks for it to take effect. imagine if email and telephone marketers, by default, had to have your permission before contacting you? wouldn’t that be great? they want to do something extra, and they should bear the cost of it, instead of citizens having to take the effort to get their names and addresses off of junk mail and telemarketing white lists.
i would like to reiterate, as mentioned above, that the outcome of the proceedings should be independent of the plaintiff’s motivations for seeking a ruling in his favor. anyone that attacks his character or his reasons for pursuing the case is missing the point. all you know or think you know about him has come to you through the filters of the media, so how can you even pretend to make a sound judgment? in the same vein, supporters of “under god” will probably vote for Bush II next time around, but his ancestors have well-documented ties to (and financial support of) Nazi Germany… if you’re so into ad hominem attacks and digging up skeletons from the past (Prescott?), you should do some research on that topic and keep it in mind on your way to the polls this fall.
4:04 pm on March 28th, 2004
My thought is honestly this, Michael Newdow has so much more to change. What the heck, why doesn’t he just change the entire constitution and what I don’t understand is how this entire thing could make it all the way to the Supreme Court…wouldn’t Michael object to the way one is being sworn in, after all they have to put there hand on the Bible;Furthermore if one doesn’t have to swear in on a bible does that exclude them from telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth…so help them God? Too bad Michael is an unhappy man who has nothing better to do than stir up chaos in something so insignificant. If children were taught at an early age the importance of the Pledge of Allegence they would be given the chance to make their own decision whether to participate or not. School age children recite the pledge without really understanding to true meaning of what they are saying. And most importantly why doesn’t someone take away all of Michael’s money because a true athiest wouldn’t be able to stand the words ” In God we Trust ” bunched in his billfold in his back pocket. There are many needy people out there that could make good use of that. Maybe one day Michael will become a happy person!!???