• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Michael Newdow, go home!

JLam

Proud Skepkid Parent
JLam
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
4,149
The atheist who's spent years trying to ban recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools says he'll file a new lawsuit this week.
Michael Newdow says he'll ask a federal court to order removal of the national motto "In God We Trust" from U-S coins and currency. He says it violates the religious rights of atheists who belong to his "First Amendment Church of True Science."

The church's "three suggestions" are "question, be honest and do what's right." Newdow says it wouldn't be right to take up a collection when the money says "In God We Trust."
Click to expand...

Rest of the story is here

Why?

Why, why why?

Also...who cares?

I'm an atheist, and I can't stand crap like this. Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority. I'm against school prayer, I'm against the state forcing us to worship a god, and I'm against being forced to fund religious programs. Fortunately, we're not forced to do any of those things.

But "In God We Trust"???

Please.

Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats? Give me a [rule 8] break. Shut up and do something productive with your life.

And what the hell's with this "First Amendment Church of True Science"?? Anyone get the feeling that Newdow started this "church" just so he'd have a reason to file this ridiculous lawsuit?
I know that not all atheists will agree with me, but that's life, I suppose.

[ad-hominem]Michael Newdow is a self-righteous buffoon who cares more about his own ego than anything else.[/ad-hominem]
 
Last edited:
I wonder exactly how the motto would be removed from Federal currency.

Little black censor lines?
 
jlam4911 said:
Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god? That the state is forcing religion down their throats? Give me a [rule 8] break. Shut up and do something productive with your life.
Click to expand...

Similarly, using tax money to build a statue to Jesus wouldn't be oppressing you, would it? Therefore, since it's not oppression, you can have no objection.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Similarly, using tax money to build a statue to Jesus wouldn't be oppressing you, would it? Therefore, since it's not oppression, you can have no objection.
Click to expand...

No, that would be illegal. I would support fighting that. (I still wouldn't feel oppresed, but that's another story.) Has tax money been used to build a statue of Jesus somewhere?

My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. It's almost like cashiers who say "Have a nice day." It's a colloquialism.

I would argue that if the most fervent objection you can muster to the violation of the establishment clause is "In God We Trust" printed on your greenbacks, then this whole "separation of Church and State" thing is working out pretty darn well, thank you very much.
 
jlam4911 said:
My main objection to this lawsuit is that the phrase "In God We Trust" isn't overly offensive. It's almost like cashiers who say "Have a nice day." It's a colloquialism.
Click to expand...

Offensiveness is subjective. It doesn't offend you, clearly. But who are you to tell others that it shouldn't offend them? Who are you to decide what the phrase does and doesn't mean? There are plenty of religious people who would object to your characterizing a reference to their god as a meaningless "collaquialism".

Maybe there's a principle involved. What do coins have to do with religion, anyway? Nothing. Therefore, why have it? The argument shouldn't be "why not have 'In God We Trust'?" It should be "why have it?" Why? Why is there an invocation to a deity on our money? You seem to suggest it doesn't mean anything. Then why the heck have it there, if it doesn't mean anything?

I would argue that if the most fervent objection you can muster to the violation of the establishment clause is "In God We Trust" printed on your greenbacks, then this whole "separation of Church and State" thing is working out pretty darn well, thank you very much.
Click to expand...

And did anyone say that it's the "most fervent objection"?

Yeah, maybe it is pretty minor. But a minor violation of the separation of church and state....okay. How minor can it be? How major does it have to be before you think it's worth discussion? You're okay with coins, but not with statues. How about a mural in a legislature building? A city seal? A monument on the courthouse lawn? The problem with the thin end of the wedge is that people will use it. "It says 'God' on our money, and nobody objects. So why not have the Pledge of Allegiance with God in it?" And when you agree to that, then they'll ask why not a nativity scene at Xmas. It goes on and on.

Once you permit a principle to be violated, you've lost the grounds to object to more and further violations.
 
TragicMonkey,
I see your points. I agree that offensiveness is subjective. But we don't have the right to not be offended. Something is always going to offend someone, somewhere.

What I meant by "most fervent objection" is that this is the best argument that he could come up with for the violation of the establishment clause. That tells me that there isn't anything more serious that he could be objecting to. Can you think of something more serious that Newdow could object to? I can't. I'd have a problem if a member of Congress introduced a bill that would put the phrase "Praise Jesus" on coins and bills. That would be a big deal to me, and it's something I'd be willing to fight.

You say "Why have it there"? I say "Why not"? I don't believe that it hurts anyone, but I'm open to hear an argument as to how it would hurt someone. I admit I don't particularly like the fact that it's there, but its presence has had absolutely no adverse impact on my life, and I daresay it's had no adverse impact on anyone's life. Again, though, arguments to the contrary are welcome.

You're okay with coins, but not with statues. How about a mural in a legislature building? A city seal? A monument on the courthouse lawn?
Click to expand...

I'd have to say to all of those: "It depends." For example, last year the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors voted to remove a tiny cross from the seal of Los Angeles County. I think that was kind of silly. It simply reflected a part of the history of the county, in that the county was founded as a small collection of Christian missions. It wasn't establishing Christianity as the official religion of L.A. County. The seal also has a Roman goddess on it. I didn't see anyone arguing that the Roman goddess advocates paganism. As far as the 10 commandments monument controversy in Alabama, I had a major objection to that, because it was actively promoting Christianity, not just a generic version of god. (I'll stipulate that this is a weak argument...but it's just what I think.)

You seem to be making the slippery slope argument, but I don't buy it. If anyone tried to erect a statue of Jesus in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol, I can almost guarantee that it would get shot down. In other words, the slope isn't that slippery.

This is certainly a topic on which reasonable people can disagree, and I respect your opinions, TM.
 
I like Michael in the same way I enjoy Don Quixote & windmills.

An openly atheist person could probably not be elected to any important political office in this country. Congress comes out and publicly prays on the front steps over these issues, so it matters to them. As if to rub their influence in, even the money is printed with reference to their trust in a supernatural deity.

They disenfranchise an entire class of citizens by persisting in it. It seems reasonable that at least that one lonely voice speaks out willing to be heard. He has the right even though it seems hopeless and even annoying sometimes.

Yes he is an extremist, but without people at the extremes we would all calmly and reasonably reside in the middle of the road.

Change does not come by being loyal to the status quo and being 'reasonable'. We are the descendants of fighters and revolutionaries, not philosophers. While his battle is not the one I'd choose, I applaud that he has the courage to wage it.
 
I think one of the problems we atheists have, as a political force, is an inability to pick our battles wisely. Newdow's latest action seems yet another example of that.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
I think one of the problems we atheists have, as a political force, is an inability to pick our battles wisely. Newdow's latest action seems yet another example of that.
Click to expand...

Are atheists, in fact, a political force? "Political force" is a moving target. I don't think the problem is one of picking battles; I think it's more a function of the priorities people have in expressing their political opinions (i.e. voting). It's a tradeoff. I think that at least in the U.S., people worry more about the economy, national security and healthcare than they do about a piece of paper/fiber that they only have time to examine in detail while sitting on the toilet, since they forgot to bring a newspaper.
 
I don't really care because I'm not from the US but it does seem a somewhat ridiculous objection. The motto is primarily there for historical reasons and is a part of the US history and culture which even atheists ought to be proud and protective of.

I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.
 
hodgy said:
I don't really care because I'm not from the US but it does seem a somewhat ridiculous objection. The motto is primarily there for historical reasons and is a part of the US history and culture which even atheists ought to be proud and protective of.

I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.
Click to expand...

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]

Having said that, I am from the US and I have a real hard time working up the vitrol to fight this fight. TM, I understand the "nose of the camel" part of your argument, but still....this nation is no more an agnostic/atheistic nation than it is a Christian. Sure, it's laws are to be agnostic, but its culture is by no means that way.

Personally, I whole heartedly agree with the statement "In God We Trust", and I am an atheist. Yes, I am, in fact, a bit of a cynic as well, why do you ask?
 
hodgy said:
I'm an atheist but I have no objections to the cross of St George being my national flag.
Click to expand...

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.

And Jlam, in your OP you state: "I'm an atheist, and I can't stand crap like this. Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority."

Our constitution is supposed to protect the minority from the will of the majority. The majority of Americans are Christians. Should we recognize that and become a Christian theocracy?

It's not a matter of majority vs. the minority. It's about constitutionality.

Last time Newdow's case ("under God" in the pledge) went against SCOTUS they ruled against him on a technicality. They are avoiding ruling on the merits of the case because they know he's right. Newdow comes across harsh but he's making valid points.
 
I note it does not specify which god Americans trust.

I assumed it referred to Alan Greenspan.
 
TragicMonkey said:
Maybe there's a principle involved. What do coins have to do with religion, anyway? Nothing. Therefore, why have it? The argument shouldn't be "why not have 'In God We Trust'?" It should be "why have it?" Why? Why is there an invocation to a deity on our money? You seem to suggest it doesn't mean anything. Then why the heck have it there, if it doesn't mean anything?
Click to expand...

Whoops.

You dare not ask this questions, because it causes politicians to malfunction, kind of like the robot in sci-fi movies that blows sparks and smoke when caught in a logical contradiction.

It doesn't mean anything, but try to take it away and everyone screams about it.
 
and some trivia, Roosevelt disapproved of the motto (though not for the reasons some of us do)...

http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_mott.htm

Decades later, Theodore Roosevelt disapproved of the motto. In a letter to William Boldly on 1907-NOV-11, he wrote: "My own feeling in the matter is due to my very firm conviction that to put such a motto on coins, or to use it in any kindred manner, not only does no good but does positive harm, and is in effect irreverence, which comes dangerously close to sacrilege...It is a motto which it is indeed well to have inscribed on our great national monuments, in our temples of justice, in our legislative halls, and in building such as those at West Point and Annapolis -- in short, wherever it will tend to arouse and inspire a lofty emotion in those who look thereon. But it seems to me eminently unwise to cheapen such a motto by use on coins, just as it would be to cheapen it by use on postage stamps, or in advertisements."
 
kmortis said:
Hodgy,
Not to nitpick, but 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
David Swidler said:
Are atheists, in fact, a political force? "Political force" is a moving target. I don't think the problem is one of picking battles; I think it's more a function of the priorities people have in expressing their political opinions (i.e. voting). It's a tradeoff. I think that at least in the U.S., people worry more about the economy, national security and healthcare than they do about a piece of paper/fiber that they only have time to examine in detail while sitting on the toilet, since they forgot to bring a newspaper.
Click to expand...

No we are not a politcal force. And our inability to get together and decide which battles are both winnable and worth the effort and which ones are not is one of the reasons why.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom