Newdow, slapped

[Comrade]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.p...edge/index.html

Newdow got what he deserved: Being laughed out of court. I'm an atheist and I have no problem with In God We Trust on our money or Under God in the pledge, it's people like Newdow who make atheists look like jackasses.

http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html

He makes some interesting points :)

Anyone agree with Newdow, disagree...?

[Gorgo]

Here's some good analysis.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/092206.htm#more

Of course Newdow is right. There are enough churches, the state does not need to promote superstition.

[Sonart]

I'm an atheist and I have no problem with In God We Trust on our money or Under God in the pledge,

I do have a problem with it. And if you look at the ruling, it did not rule on the 1st Amendment merits of the case but rather the decision that "Michael Newdow, the father, did not have the legal standing to bring the case. Newdow, who is involved in a custody dispute with the mother of their third-grade daughter, could not speak for the girl, the court ruled."

Since the Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' and since Congress made a law in 1954 respecting the establishment of religion into the Pledge of Allegience to be recited in public schools, I'd still like to see the issue put to a legitimate test.

[Gorgo]

And this is just about as moronic as it gets.

[i]Originally posted by Comrade http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html

[Gorgo]

My guess is that if Scalia had voted, and they found that Newdow did have standing, it would have been ruled Constitutional.

[Scribbler1]

I don't have a personal problem with it either, but I can only speak for myself. The problem I DO have, however, is the bigoted arrogance of christians when they feel the have a RIGHT to force everyone to chant their god's name, whether they want to or not! These people act like the reference is part of the Bible and NOT forcing everyone to say the name is some kind of mortal sin. It was actually made part of the pledge in the 50's, and I feel that if it can be put IN, it can (and should) be taken OUT!

[Scribbler1]

[http://maddox.xmission.com/pledge.html]

I just read this idiot's rant. So, he thinks Newdow should be punched in the face, huh? Once again I feel the greatest pity for those armchair christians whose faith is so pathetically weak they tremble in terror when one guy tries to use his RIGHT to petition the court to remove something he finds objectionable.

[Sonart]

I don't have a personal problem with it either,

The problem I DO have, however, is the bigoted arrogance of christians when they feel the have a RIGHT to force everyone to chant their god's name, whether they want to or not!

So it seems you actually DO have a personal problem with it.

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by Sonart, I don't have a personal problem with it either, The problem I DO have, however, is the bigoted arrogance of christians when they feel the have a RIGHT to force everyone to chant their god's name, whether they want to or not! So it seems you actually DO have a personal problem with it.

Not at all. I am aware though, that there are a lot of people (some on this forum) who don't like to be coerced into saying it. Of course, you can always opt out and remain silent, but if you refuse to say the pledge as currently written you get branded unchristian or worse, and that's just with ADULTS! You can imagine how kids in school will be treated if they refuse. If people can be vilified, badgered and insulted (and they have been) over refusing to say the pledge with the word God in it, it is no longer a matter of a "choice" and should not be there at all.

I've said this elsewhere that my faith (or lack of it) is my business and no one else's, so I don't throw it up for all to see. I have said the pledge as written, because it doesn't bother me either way. But there are a LOT of people who ARE bothered by it and these people are who I support, not the zealots who want to impose their faith on others.

[Zeebadee]

The decision is asinine. SCOTUS simply delayed the inevitible, they are someday soon going to have to rule on this issue. The taxpayers spent a ton of money to get the case this far, now they can pay again the next time someone else decides to raise the issue. F**king lawyers.

[sixmillman]

This issue has merits. But way to much effort is expended on it. There are much bigger issues that the Supreme Court needs to be dealing with at this time. They were right in refusing the case at this time. In the words of Jack Nicholson "I'm drowning here, and your describing the water"

[Zeebadee]

The point is that the effort was already expended. They should have made a decision. Now, inevitibly, it will have to be expended all over again.

[Compugasm]

They did make a decision, but that isn't good enough. More to the point, those who even care about this think everyone else is wrong and continue to waste everyone's time and money suing, appealing, motioning, etc.. until you get your way. It could be put to a vote, and it would hold. It's gone all the way to the Supreme Court, and lost. Yet, the issue will never go away until "God" is removed. Frankly, I could care less if it's there or not. I'm just tired of hearing about this.

[Gorgo]

As long as atheists are considered at best second class citizens you will hear about it. That's what this is about.

[Sonart]

As long as atheists are considered at best second class citizens you will hear about it. That's what this is about.

>>BINGO!<<

Evil and Immoral second class citizens at that.

[Compugasm]

I'm an atheist and I could care less about God being in the pledge or on the money. Those things are the least of my worries. Put Hillary Clinton on the $3 bill if you think it will help.

[Gorgo]

When they start burning infidels we'll give them your name first.