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

[amenquohi.livejournal.com]

Well said, sir. Bravo! Jerks like him are as bad as the fundies he protests against.

Tell the oracle that ice cream in just about any form puts a smile on my face, but screaming ecstacy only follows a mouthful of...homemade brownie, fresh out of the oven.

[bradhicks.livejournal.com]

The United States was founded in 1956?

I don't care enough about it to go to the lengths that he does, nor am I sufficiently offended by the fact that the city whose suburbs I live in was named after a Catholic saint to do anything about it. But you can't tell me that those aren't endorsements of religion that skate right up to, and maybe cross, the line into what the 1st Amendment explicitly prohibits, establishment of state religion.

[[For favorite desert, put me down for a Dairy Queen strawberry, pineapple, and banana Blizzard.]]

[marared.livejournal.com]

*points up at the previous entry*

The only mention the Founding Fathers make of any sort of god is in the Declaration of Independence; our money actually said "E Pluribus Unum" til certain fanatical theists decided that changing the phrase to "In God We Trust" would somehow put a thorn in the side of those goddamned commie atheists that were taking over the world and infiltrating the US. Because, you know, we have powers of coercion on par with Satan Himself, and it takes rote recitations on a daily basis to combat the threat.

That said, Michael Newdow is exactly the irrational, phlegmatic, self-righteous, foaming-at-the-mouth variety of atheist that sets the stereotype the rest of us try to avoid...

(cannoli!)

apparently spamming your post. ;)

[tattermuffin.livejournal.com]

One other thought: Just because a country was founded on some/any principle, does that mean that the people can't work to change it if they feel it's fundamentally an unfair principle or concept?

And I really should have used this icon for my response to bradhicks, so using it now instead. LOL


[[Swenson's Swiss Orange Chip icecream. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm]]

[flemco.livejournal.com]

It didn't take long for others to point out the idiocy in your little rant here.

Tolerance and respect have nothing to do with putting God on the money I use to buy lap dances and drugs.

[creentmerveille.livejournal.com]

*applause*

My daughter actually does not recite the pledge in school at all. Out of respect she does rise with the class, but she came to the conclusion that she didn't like that everyone had to recite it by rote and pretty much none of the kids even know what the words mean. I broke it down for her and she still felt uncomfortable about the drone-like nature of it -- that "everyone just makes this huge promise of faith and says this because you're SUPPOSED to say it but everyone is standing there with their hands to their hearts, speaking words they don't understand and don't mean, daily, because they are told to" -- it just didn't set well with her. She also felt it was too close to worshiping a false idol (she has pretty strong religious views) and so I told her she didn't have to do it, and she was thrilled. The other kids don't get why she doesn't do it "because you're SUPPOSED TO!!!" is what she hears... one even tried to get her in trouble for NOT reciting, though the teacher supported her views (yay!). But you know what? I support her-- I like that she doesn't just do things because someone in authority says you must, but she questions it and makes her own value judgements.

(I'm sure there will be hell to pay someday, that in her teen years I'll regret supporting her free-thinking nature. But for now, I think it's a good thing. ;) )

[Hey Oracle- I like warm blackberries, boysenberries and raspberries with vanilla bean ice cream and dark chocolate shavings. Mmm.]

[weaktwos.livejournal.com]

...and you quoted the Worldnet Daily site? I guess only a biased conservative rag would be the best source for this information. It is kind of interesting to see that the only sites that are discussing this issue are conservative-leaning Christians are most concerned about this.

Incidentally, the Thomas More Law Center is the same group that tried to bring Intelligent Design into various schools.

As indicated above, In God We Trust was not put on our currency or in our pledge by the Founding Fathers, it was put into place by religious enthusiasts subsequent to the founding of our nation.

Sadly, it takes extremists to challenge this law, but in this particular case, I think it makes for an interesting debate.

And people expresing their religious views via public currency and national pledges? We should respect only one faith on our money? Can we just put phrases that express the rest of the nation's religious views, too? Some folks don't trust any deity when it comes to money, and others trust a different God. Then there are the Pagans. The government shouldn't favor any one religion. And our nation was founded on that principle, more than it being founded as a Christian nation.

As for "it" having been like this for his entire life (and ours, for certain), that's not exactly a valid argument, either, Phil. It does explain why a majority of us don't feel concerned enough about this issue to fight for it. I mean, ignorant children in Afghanistan don't know any different on certain issues, too. What was formerly a more secular nation with a thriving academic climate has now become a theocracy, thanks to instability brought on by wars, a generation of people don't remember what it's like to function beyond the Koran. An extremist interpretation of the Koran at that. But it's been like that their whole lives, Phil.

[doctorellisdee.livejournal.com]

hey, there's a star of david on all our money, too, and the LIEberals don't seem to be getting too upset about that.

[neflhim.livejournal.com]

As one might imagine from the icon, I tend to agree.

While not added to the currency until the 50's, this nation was founded on the principle of freedom OF religion. Not freedom FROM religion. The First Amendment prohibition was against setting up a state church, similar to the Church of England. It was never intended to prevent religion from being a part of daily life. Nor was it to prevent religion and government from intermixing. The only thing it was intended to do, based on the phrasing of both the amendment and every other major founding document, was to stop the formation of an official state church.

"In God We Trust" on the currency does not establish a state church. Nor is it an express endorsement of a specific religion. I know the intent was Christianity. But as I pointed out in a comment to a comment, there are numerous monotheistic religions, all of whom worship 'God'. Yes, specific names may change, but they all refer to a single deity. As such, there is no way to claim this is a specific endorsement of this or that faith. It falls far short of establishing a religion, as banned in the First Amendment.

And as a more practical consideration, aren't there more important things to waste court time and money on? This is one man pissing into the wind because he is, basically, an intolerant fucko. If we solve all other problems in the country, then perhaps we can revisit this. But with all that is going on, it is a massive waste of time and money.

[scarcrest.livejournal.com]

When Benjamin Franklin asked about bringing in a minister to pray before the Constitutional Convention, the others said there was no need. Many of the Founders were religious, but they firmly believed in keeping religion out of government because they'd seen the abuses of the established churches of Europe. Ethan Allen was a pretty hardcore atheist who wrote about his views, and of course Thomas Paine was a heavy influence on our government.

But Newdow does hurt our cause. Do the words "In God We Trust" belong on our currency? No, they're a foolish relic of Cold War jingoism. But Newdow's just giving the theocratic right a reason to persecute us. Freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom from religion, and a lot of people in power would love to strip that second one away from us; Newdow feeds into the persecution complex that exists within every fundamentalist Christian.

[neflhim.livejournal.com]

For what it's worth, for those convinced that America is some kind of theocraqcy run by the religious right, I hold up Saudi Arabia or Iran as an example of theocracy. In those countries, you can be killed for being anything but Muslim. It bears reflection, since the differences are glaring.

Moved from being buried in a thread, because it bears repeating...

[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 is also required 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, a secular humanist, 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 no one who wants this gone does this, then the opposition, the American Christian State religion supporters, will.

[acrasie.livejournal.com]

The Founding Fathers were not working towards creating a religious state--they worked towards a secular state where those who had a religion were not persecuted for it and those who didn't have a religion were also not persecuted for it. Besides, if they did have a religion, it was protestant not catholic. Hell, the catholics were and to an extent still are continually shunned in the United States. Where do you think the practice of private catholic schools came from? Catholics were banned from attending public schools in the late 19th century because they were mainly irish and italian and other eastern european ethnicities who were considered uncivilized and on the verge of "taking over" the United States as well as stealing all the jobs "real" Americans wanted like trash collection and construction work and so on. Remind anyone of anything?

The explosion of religious sentiment in the United States government such as the motto and the pledge and so on were a reaction to communism and the godlessness attached to it. It had nothing to do with the founding of the United States and actually runs anathema to what the Founding Fathers actually felt.

[velvet-wood.livejournal.com]

Whether or not I think the guy's a quack, the argument "It's been like that for your entire life" isn't a very good one. _Many_ things existed for multiple generations that just about everyone would agree were bad things that needed getting rid of. "It's always been that way," isn't a good defense for _anything_, honestly. I'm kind of exhausted right now, so I'm not sure I'm making sense, but I did want to at least try to make that point. Someone has to start any change, and any important change is going to go against "the way it's always been."

[foxmagic.livejournal.com]

I want "In God We Trust" off our money, because it's false - we do not trust in a god, at least not in significant enough numbers to apply to the United States as any kind of a 'we'. And I want "One Nation Under God" out of our Pledge of Allegiance because it, too, is false: we are one nation under many gods and philosophies. I feel somewhat ashamed that our currency and our pledge contain falsehoods.

I am also ashamed, however, of the way that Michael Newdow is going about his fight. He's only attracting ridicule to the cause.