Oh joy.

[dslartoo]

Oh joy.

Michael Newdow is at it again.

Who he? Oh, he's the atheist in California who sued the state on behalf of his daughter because he thought she shouldn't have to speak the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in the mornings at her school.

His case was rejected 8-0 -- 8 to nothing! in 2004, on the grounds that he didn't have legal standing to represent his daughter (who, by all accounts, really didn't CARE about the Pledge one way or the other), since she is under sole custody of her mother.

Newdow wouldn't take no for an answer and in January 2005 he filed a complaint in FEDERAL court. In September he got his wish: a federal judge ruled that reciting the Pledge in public schools is, in fact, unconstitutional.

Now the motherfucker is at it again. He's filed a 162-page complaint against the President and Congress alleging that the national motto "In God We Trust" is unconstitutional as well.

You know what, Newdow? Like it or not, those are the words under which this country was founded. [[Edit: It has been pointed out that I'm way off base on this one; I'll address it properly in an update to the post later and reply to those who've already left comments. The rest of the entry, I think, is still accurate.]]

Our Founding Fathers were religious types and believed strongly in a God; they didn't feel the need to make a secret of it, and they were proud of it. As, I imagine, you are proud of your atheism. Is "In God We Trust" really that much of a surprise to you, then? I mean, the words even appear on our money.

In other words, it has been like this your entire damn life.

No one is dragging you into a church. No one is asking you to convert to Catholicism. No one is forcing you to recite "In God We Trust". Guess what? There's another rather important principle under which this country was founded. It's called freedom of religion. That means that you aren't going to be hounded or driven out of the country or stoned to death or forced to convert because you happen to be an atheist, despite the fact that most of the U.S. does follow a Christian religion of one brand or another. It does NOT give you protection against being offended, something which apparently happens to you at the drop of a hat.

Here's another newsflash, Newdow. I'm an atheist, and guess what? I don't give a damn about the words "In God We Trust". See, I actually have tolerance and respect for other religions, and people expressing their religious views doesn't bother me at all.

Get off your high horse and go find something more important to do.

-- END OF LINE --

[[The Oracle would like to know your favorite dessert.]]

Comments

Re: I really dislike your logic

[marared.livejournal.com]

*My* solution has been to educate people on the origin of the subject when it comes up in conversation. They respond a lot better when you sit down with them and politely and enthusiastically go over when that phrase appeared and WHY it appeared in the first place.

When you make such large moves on a *national* level, all you end up doing is threatening the sheep, and they as a whole are a far more powerful force in resistance than we would be in forcing change. I prefer to work with the individual, and watch the changes spread on a memetic level. It's slow going, but more effective in the long run, I think.

Re: I really dislike your logic

[monkeyd.livejournal.com]

I can appreciate, as a secular humanist Buddhist, that it takes action from both directions to create change.

Newdow is working from the top-down. The problem at this point is that his top-down approach polarizes and activates resistance to his efforts at the bottom level, the grass roots action level. This is not what America necessarily needs in an election year, as it means that the grass roots efforts required to "get out the vote" are activated in a direction contrary to the direction Mr. Newdow wants them to be moving, possibly, as I cannot speak to Mr. Newdow's motives.

What you are advocating is a bottom-up approach. Change enough minds on the subject, and there will be less of a resistance to top-down changes. The problem with this, is that in a country of millions of people, the speed at which an idea can be changed, even with technology and communications at the speed of light, is limited by the interest and engagement of the majority of the population. The majority of the population has no interest in changing "In God we Trust" or "Under God", things which probably have Thomas Jefferson rolling in his grave. To change this perspective, there needs to be an exposure event on a sufficiently large scale to prevent the backlash that will naturally accompany changes of this kind in the direction of "Godless Communism". Mr. Newdow, perversely enough, is actually moving in a direction which will let that kind of exposure event happen. It is other people's responsibility here, if they care about it enough, to capitalize on the opportunity he has granted. If you don't, your opposition, the American Christian Theocrats, will.

Re: I really dislike your logic

[marared.livejournal.com]

I'm glad you at least understand where I'm coming from.

I believe, to a point, that religiosity is cyclical, in periods that can last for centuries, and that we are at the beginning of a downswing; in a few decades we may see a return to rationality on par with the 18th century. But in the meantime, no amount of politics - or exposure events - is going to change humanity's need to have a scapegoat.

Nontheists haven't got the unity necessary to put forth an opposition of any strength, anyway; we are a group of very widespread beliefs, and you can't put three of us in a room without two of 'em squabbling. Since we cannot work together, I work on my own.

Re: I really dislike your logic

[monkeyd.livejournal.com]

I like the Buddhist concept of ages. We are officially in the Dharma ending age, which would be the fifth 500 year age after Siddhartha shared the Dharma with the humans of this world. I find it works well, as a basic model for historical religious trends, as it maps fairly well in the large trend to the start of Christianity, the spread of Islam and Christianity, the Reformation, and other key religious events.

As a Buddhist who has atheistic leanings, it is a slippery slope sometimes. I like what faith I do have, but sometimes I want to shake people who go off into either "Jesus-krispie" land or "La-La Paganism" land. For me at least, I see no difference between the two. And as far as any unity amongst nontheists, I don't know if there can be any sort of tacit agreement. People choose nontheism for such a wide variety of reasons, almost all of which require some deep self reflection at some point along the way, that ascribing motive to their choice of belief seems somewhat absurd.