Michael Newdow, go home!

[kmortis]

That seems to imply that you'd have no problem if the christian fish (to symbolize a long dead and semi-mythical person) was put on the US flag.

Two answers here:
1) Good catch.
2) Well, the CoStG isn't necessarily a religious item, iddit? St.G might have chosen (or had chosen for him) a "religious" item t o symbolize him, but he, himself is not a subject of worship. Jesus, on the other hand...
3) Actually, that would be a fun fight to sit back and watch. I'm sure that Austrailia could use an engineer with my talents.

 

[Melendwyr]

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive.

This objection of yours is based on an opinion.

Quite frankly, we do not care about your personal opinion. It's a religious statement, and religious statements are not supposed to be made by government. Whether you find it offensive or not, in and of itself, is utterly irrelevant. It's a violation of the separation principle, and if you don't find that offensive, this conversation is pointless.

 

[pgwenthold]

The constitution does not say that congress shall pass no law that offends someone respecting the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.

Even if everyone in the country agreed, Congress could not pass a law declaring Buddhism the official religion of the US. Granted, no one would be there to object, but it would still be a unconstitutional act.

 

[Iacchus]

This objection of yours is based on an opinion.

Quite frankly, we do not care about your personal opinion. It's a religious statement, and religious statements are not supposed to be made by government. Whether you find it offensive or not, in and of itself, is utterly irrelevant. It's a violation of the separation principle, and if you don't find that offensive, this conversation is pointless.

Perhaps we should strike the words "God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence as well?

 

[rebecca]

Perhaps we should strike the words "God" and "Creator" from the Declaration of Independence as well?

That makes no sense. The Declaration of Independence is not an evolving guidebook of our government, as is the Constitution, and it's not something that we make school children declare themselves as in the pledge of allegiance, and it's not something we currently print and actively endorse like we do currency. The Declaration was . . . a declaration. It was written more than 200 years ago and mailed off to a distant despot. I don't think the former King of England is going to be notified of a change in wording.

 

[Melendwyr]

1) The Declaration of Independence, while a historically important document, does not establish any part of the GOTS.

2) Several of the most important Founding Fathers were Deists and Craftmasons - if they lived today, they would almost certainly be atheists. A few were overtly hostile to organized religion in general and Christianity specifically. Even the ones that were some denomination of Christian acknowledged the importance of keeping politics out of religion and vice versa.

3) Whether you like it or not, whether you're offended by any particular instance or not, the government making religious statements is forbidden by the Constitution, and is thus illegal without an Amendment.

 

[Iacchus]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?

 

[Mercutio]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?

It would be if it was your only option. It is not.

All you need to do is "swear and affirm", and no bible is necessary.

 

[uruk]

So, when we go in the courtroom and are asked to swear on the Bible, is this wrong too?

I'd say that is wrong. Would you make a Hindu swear upon the bible? Swear upon something that holds no meaning for him?
The oath should read,"do you swear to tell truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the penalty of perjury."

I think threat of fine and imprisonment is more of an incentive to tell the truth than threat of some deity you don't believe in.

 

[hodgy]

Hodgy,
Not to nitpick, but [nitpick]there is a huge difference between a falg with no words that symbolizes a long dead (and semi-mythical) person and a blatant "endorsement" of religion.[/nitpick]

Well - that flag has a long historical tradition (as the flag of England) with which I can identify, irrespective of its religious affiliations. I think its stretching a point to say that that tiny motto on a coin is a blatant endorsement of religion - I think its there more for historical reasons, it may once have had religious significance but that has been replaced by simple antiquity or tradition.

I think that US atheists have bigger and vastly more significant fishes to fry and quiblling over irrelevant issue like this probably damages your case. Fence-sitters on more important matters may be inclined to think that atheists are silly, petulant and petty as a result of this sort of action and apply that judgement to all of us.

 

[hodgy]

Yes, but our constitution states a separation of church and state. Does "In God We Trust" offend me? No. But it still has no reason being printed on all of our money.

I understand that the challenge is made on constitutional grounds but that's not the point I was making. My point is that the offense that Nedow apparently takes is disproportionate. The fact that he has some possible legal standing upon which to try to remove that offense is not relevant to the issue of whether he should be seriously / sensibly offended in the first place.

Newdow comes across harsh but he's making valid points.

Newdow comes across as a pedant and potentially tars our collective cause with that brush. I am an atheist but I would take strong exception to anyone proposing to change the flag, mottos or whatever of my country just to placate an exaggerated sense of offense. As I said before, this type of approach trivialises the issue, diverts attention from better causes and even antagonises other atheists - Nedow should drop it.

 

[Tricky]

I think that US atheists have bigger and vastly more significant fishes to fry and quiblling over irrelevant issue like this probably damages your case. Fence-sitters on more important matters may be inclined to think that atheists are silly, petulant and petty as a result of this sort of action and apply that judgement to all of us.

It's true, they do have bigger fish to fry, and its also true that Newdow has ruffled the fur of a lot of people who wouldn't normally care about such issues. But I believe it is the extremes that define the middle.

In the 1960, anti-Vietnam protesters were extremists and reviled by the vast majority of people. But although they were always thought of as extremists, they succeeded in moving the dialogue to the left simply because people were now at least talking about the extreme positions. In the same way, people who want Newdow to shut up are at least having to defend their positions. When they are forced to think about things like "would you mind if our coins said Allah akbar on them", then they are being forced to reassess their position, and though they are not going to come out and say Newdow was right, the center position has been moved slightly. I believe it has been moved to support that atheism is a rational position. Baby steps, but steps just the same.

I don't care for extremists of practically any sort, but I recognize that they are instrumental in expanding dialogue.

 

[gnome]

Count me among the ones that thinks it's counterproductive. Going after a symbol that seems to violate church/state separation is not the best move--if you consider it's bad in two ways.

1) Being a symbol, changing it will not substantively improve separation of church and state in any but the most superficial manner.

2) Being a symbol, it generates high emotions among those that are attached to the symbol.

So, lots of backlash, little benefit.

Stick with the bigger battles, one that someone can get their reasoning mind behind instead of an emotional item like a symbol. These symbols reflect the attitude of society, they do not create it. If we actually make progress, the symbols will start to become less ubiquitous as well.

 

[Bob Klase]

I think threat of fine and imprisonment is more of an incentive to tell the truth than threat of some deity you don't believe in.

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.

 

[gnome]

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.

For those that it would actually matter to, do they think it's OK to bear false witness if they HAVEN'T sworn on a bible?

 

[Kopji]

Newdow seems similar to Randi, or is of the same stuff: a kind of pioneer. We may not always want to go stand where they are, but it does not make their way wrong or right. They battle for a truth, certainly not the only one, but one that is important to them. If I stand in support of someone like Randi, how can I not also affirm Nedow's right to his battles?

After all, a 'moderate' stand against homeopathy could easily advocate that people be allowed to make whatever concoction sells. Same rationale for psychics. If we criticize Newdow, why not ourselves for opposing 'psychics' and quacks? We are someone else's extremist.

 

[c4ts]

Maybe Newdow is the most sarcastic person ever, and we don't yet realize it.

 

[uruk]

For those that it would actually matter to, do they think it's OK to bear false witness if they HAVEN'T sworn on a bible?

If it's ok to kill in the name of the lord, why not lieing in the name of the lord?

 

[jjramsey]

After all, a 'moderate' stand against homeopathy could easily advocate that people be allowed to make whatever concoction sells. Same rationale for psychics. If we criticize Newdow, why not ourselves for opposing 'psychics' and quacks? We are someone else's extremist.

A lot more is at stake in the case of homeopathy and other quackery, namely people's health and lives. By contrast, the motto "In God We Trust" has become essentially lip service to a ceremonial God rather than a serious religious statement.

 

[Iacchus]

Based on the Dover transcripts, even the threat of eternal damnation by some deity they DO believe in isn't much incentive to tell the truth.

Of course the whole idea of this seems to be an appeal one's conscience. And if that doesn't work, and they think you're lying, they'll say, "Of course you do realize that you're under oath and in danger of perjuring yourself," and bring up the subsequent penalties.