Michael Newdow, go home!

True and this is my stance. Newdow is fighting the incorrect battle.

Sorry about my 'slippery slope' argument. But one cannot deny that there have been constant attempts at just that. Do you think George W. Bush actually became president (twice no less) because he is a good politician? He did so because he pleased his base - religious right winger fundamentalists - to whom he has been trying very hard to impart fulfilment of many religious agendas.

Luckily, for now, our system of checks & balances and other forms of compartmentalism of government in general contain such outright idiocy. Again I remind you of Rome. The general populus is not extremely well educated and easily swayed - look how easily they were convinced that the PATRIOT Act was a necessary 'evil' and that Iraq was a potential threat and harbinger of terrorists. Never assume that things cannot change quickly.

ETA: And one must distinguish between the notion that, say, allowing homosexuals to marry will slip into allowing people to marry their cats and the notion that these changes in governmental policies are systematic trends. When do we concur that too much religious doctrine in a supposedly secular government proclaiming 'separation of church and state' constitutes a theocracy? Do we wait to see where this delineation occurs (at which time it is too late) or do we keep the delineation from being blurred and shifted?
 
Last edited:
But you didn't read that very well did you? More than half of those questions are already in practice.

But that's not due to having the motto on the coins. Removing the motto will not somehow undo all that other stuff. More to the point, focussing on the motto may damage your ability to fight the other issues and antagonise those who would otherwise be your allies. I read it perfectly well.

This isn't about 'mottos on coins',

Erm, yes it is and my point is - it shouldn't be.

this is about a consistent drive to make a particular religion's point of view into laws and statutes and post-traditions and practice. And they would easily 'slip' in most of them if noone was cognizant and vigilant against their never-ending barrage and push.

Right - so stop worrying about the motto and go and fight the real issues.

We now have things like:

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' (based on religious and Neanderthalic views on homosexuality - Clinton's near support, but couldn't offend the religious)
* The Defense of Marriage Act (based on an unredressed threat from allowing marriages of two people in a dedicated non-heterosexual relationship)
* Faith-based initiative (sole purpose is to give money, my money, to religious institutions who ALREADY ARE TAX EXEMPT!!!, with no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)
* Banning of most stem cell research (based solely on religious objection with no rationale)
* The quickly passed 'Terry Schiavo Law' (a federal law to protect one person in a persistent vegetative state from being euthanized because it offends the religious right)
* Laws in the works to outlaw euthanasia for terminally ill patients - even if by their own consent and desires. (again, archaic religious views forcing the hand of federal government)

All of which are absolutely nothing to do with the motto on the coin.

I agree with KingMerv00 that Newdow is attacking this long list of intrusions by certain religious factions into federal, secular government from the wrong end. Instead of attacking redresses that DO harm people - like those listed above (and they are not slippery slope - they are enacted), he instead jousts at windmills.

Ok - so we sort of agree. Having said that I think that you should be wary of assuming that all atheists will agree with your position on all of the laws you mentioned. Some of those are really just political issues - some supporters of those laws may be religiously motivated and others may not.

The CoE and the religious right fanatical fundamentalists of the USA are very different beasts. To say that this is just tradition or cultural/religious heritage would be incorrect. These intrusions go way beyond these mundane similitudes.

Yes - but I'm not talking about all those 'intrusions' I'm talking about a tiny motto on a coin that has been there for years and is basically just a little piece of your nation's history.
 
Last edited:
jjramsey said:
But that's just it, it would be a change, not something that had been around for a while and had become part of the largely unnoticed background. Your analogy is a false one.

At the time a change is instituted, it's new. (Obviously.) So how long does a "wrong" change have to exist before it's considered acceptable and therefore "right"?

Whether the change is wrong or right isn't the issue. The point is that you were making a false comparison. To change from "In God We Trust" to, say, "Allah Akbar" would make quite a powerful statement. By contrast, the motto "In God We Trust," as it stands, has become empty in practice. Basically, you were likening a new motto that would be fresh with religious significance to an old one that has become a wan platitude.
 
What is the correct battle?

True and this is my stance. Newdow is fighting the incorrect battle.
This statement has been used quite a few time in this topic... So,
What do you (and others) think is the CORRECT battle?


Before I criticize Newdow or anyone else (I have issues with him but have never publicly criticized him) I have a specific idea of what I would like him to do. If your ideal plan for Newdow is that he just go away, than I wont join you. I may not favor his fight but I can't think of a more important battle for him to fight so I'll just keep quiet for now.
 
Oh, really? Change the word to 'Allah' and see who complains. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts it's the Christian religious groups who complain - and the more fanatical, the louder they'll yell.
The word already is 'Allah', just in a different language.
 
In a marriage, one learns to choose his battles. I think Newdow would be well served to learn the same lesson.

Of course, Newdow never married his child's mother, but considering how the relationship turned out, it's a lesson from which he might have benefited back then.
 
Do you eat a grape or two at the grocery store without buying them?

The source of conflict here seems to the scale, not the principle. The principle is that the state shouldn't be invoking deities. The scale, however, is small, and it has been said that something that small doesn't matter and isn't important. Likewise you wouldn't get a bunch of police cars to surround the grocery store if you eat a grape...but that does that make it okay to do so?

I think it boils down to how big a fuss you think someone ought to make relative to the scale of the offense to principle. I don't think Newdow is going too far because taking it to court is not that big a deal. That's what the legal system is for. He's just going through the regular channels to effect minor change in a civilize manner. If he were holding rallies, or inciting civil disobedience, or setting fire to cars or something, clearly he'd be going too far. But people are mad at him for what amounts to complaining to the complaint department? It's not extremism if the only other option given is "shut up and deal with it."
 
Do you eat a grape or two at the grocery store without buying them?

The source of conflict here seems to the scale, not the principle. The principle is that the state shouldn't be invoking deities. The scale, however, is small, and it has been said that something that small doesn't matter and isn't important. Likewise you wouldn't get a bunch of police cars to surround the grocery store if you eat a grape...but that does that make it okay to do so?

I think it boils down to how big a fuss you think someone ought to make relative to the scale of the offense to principle. I don't think Newdow is going too far because taking it to court is not that big a deal. That's what the legal system is for. He's just going through the regular channels to effect minor change in a civilize manner. If he were holding rallies, or inciting civil disobedience, or setting fire to cars or something, clearly he'd be going too far. But people are mad at him for what amounts to complaining to the complaint department? It's not extremism if the only other option given is "shut up and deal with it."

Its not just an issue of scale. There are 2 further issues:

1. Its not an intellectual excercise - its being done in public and may damage the general credibility of the atheist cause.

2. Many atheists may disagree with Nedow's position because they like having tokens of their country's history around them and do not automatically see something like that motto as an infringement of their rights.
 
a few corrections

Not that I'm defending W or opposing Newdow, but let me correct some serious errors. . .

* 'Don't ask, don't tell' [snip]

* The Defense of Marriage Act [snip]

* Faith-based initiative - [snip] no notion of protection from hiring discrimination based upon religion and against indoctrination)

* Banning of most stem cell research [snip]

You're wrong on these items (and maybe the other two, as well).

1. The military provision was an IMPROVEMENT over the old 'inquire and expel' policy.
2. The DMA was in response to activist judge's striking down traditional laws on marriage on perceived consitutional grounds
3. Faith-based organizations (IIRC) are still subject to anti-discrimination laws.
4. W did NOT ban stem cell research. He restricted federal dollars to research on existing lines.
 
Its not just an issue of scale. There are 2 further issues:

1. Its not an intellectual excercise - its being done in public and may damage the general credibility of the atheist cause.

2. Many atheists may disagree with Nedow's position because they like having tokens of their country's history around them and do not automatically see something like that motto as an infringement of their rights.

1. Violation of principles is necessary because it might "look bad"?

2. Then they can make an argument for keeping it as a historical relic (although then one wonders why they don't feel the same love of history when having the Ten Commandments all over the place). As for "automatic" and "infringement of their rights", that's a mischaracterization of the whole deal. The point is that the motto is an improper religious invocation on a public institution, something that is supposed to be secular. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of principle. Perhaps it's our culture, but there seems to be a sort of insistence that things must do you harm in order for them to be wrong, and if they don't harm you there can be nothing wrong with them.
 
1. Violation of principles is necessary because it might "look bad"?

Its only a principle if you make a principle out of it. Do you really believe that it is necessary to purge every last vestige of insignificant religious symbolism from your national identity? Do you really think that that will promote a tolerant, intelligent society?

2. Then they can make an argument for keeping it as a historical relic (although then one wonders why they don't feel the same love of history when having the Ten Commandments all over the place). As for "automatic" and "infringement of their rights", that's a mischaracterization of the whole deal. The point is that the motto is an improper religious invocation on a public institution, something that is supposed to be secular. It's not a question of rights, it's a question of principle. Perhaps it's our culture, but there seems to be a sort of insistence that things must do you harm in order for them to be wrong, and if they don't harm you there can be nothing wrong with them.

Well - its your country so I'll leave you to it. I personally think its ill-advised and I, as a dyed-in-the-wool atheist would oppose the removal of that motto if I was a citizen of the US.
 
Its only a principle if you make a principle out of it.

That is true of any and every principle.

Do you really believe that it is necessary to purge every last vestige of insignificant religious symbolism from your national identity? Do you really think that that will promote a tolerant, intelligent society?

Did I make that claim?

A secular government isn't supposed to be invoking gods.

Do you think a tolerant, intelligent society can be promoted through hypocrisy?
 
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.

Freedom of religion is the total absence of any type of attempt by a human authority (as opposed to a divine authority), such as the government, to influence our opinions regarding the manner and methods we employ to discharge the duties that we owe to our Creator.

During the Early Years of the American Republic, those who advocated nonsense like the government empoying the nation's coins to set up the people's duty to trust in God were considered by the majority of Americans to be fools or enemies of Christ and the religious liberty that he ordained. Even executive religious recommendations such as the one issued in 1789 by George Washington were deemed improper. From 1817 to 1860 twenty-two U. S. Congresses in a row refused to ask the President to issue religious recommendations.

Baptist Minister Gilbert Beebe’s famous 1845 sermon “My Kingdom is Not of This World” expressed the view of most Americans that the principle established by the Constitution was the leaving the religion of the people as free as the air they breathe from government influence.

John 18:36 · "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence".

Thus spake the Son of God when mantled in the flesh. He stood arraigned at the bar of Pilate; and when, if there had been anything in the elements of this world which could contribute to the defense or benefit of His kingdom, they must have been called into action. All the interests of the kingdom which He claimed as His own, centered in Him, and the destiny of the kingdom, for weal or woe, was at that important moment hinged upon the result of what was at that time progressing.

None of the princes of this world knew Him; He had not made a revelation of what He was, even to those who sat empowered to deliver Him to death. He had not labored in His ministry to make Himself familiar to the crowned heads of the nations of the earth. He had proposed no treaties or terms of alliance with them; not had He called on them, or any of them, to propose terms for His acceptance; for the nature of His kingdom was so radically different from every kingdom under heaven, that it was not possible that an alliance could be entered into that could subserve the true interests of either party. His kingdom truly was destined to encounter the violence, enmity, wrath, strife, and persecution of kingdoms of men, both in her King and in the subjects of her government.

The powers which should oppose Him in person and in His people were not such as He was compelled to succumb to for what of power to resist, for He reminded Pilate that he would not have had any power, if it had not been given him; and on another occasion He declared that He was able to call on His Father, who would instantly honor His requisition for more than twelve legions of angels--a force sufficient to overwhelm all earthly powers engaged against Him; but how, in that case, could the Scriptures be fulfilled? Not an intimation was made of raising up an earthly force to resist the assaults of the enemies of His kingdom, even if a force had been requisite, He would have called from the heavenly world.

We may well conclude, that if in that most trying hour, when His holy soul was pressed within Him, He had nothing to ask of the rulers of this world, there never could a period arrive when the powers of earthly princes should be required to defend Him or His cause. To those who tempted Him with their questions concerning tribute money, He said, Render unto Caesar the things which belong to Caesar, and unto God the things which belong to God; thus clearly intimating that the governments were not only distinct from each other, but that the distinction should be perpetual; and that the requisitions of Caesar, or of the governments of the nations, had to do with men as citizens of the world, and that their obligation to earthly magistrates and rulers was not relaxed nor abolished by the administration of His laws. And again, that the things of God were not to be rendered to Caesar, but unto God.

Things of a civil nature, relating to the natural rights of men, were to be settled by God's own providential appointment, by human legislation; but the things aside from a respect for and obedience to earthly potentates, in natural matters, belonging to God, such as matters of faith, of conscience, of religion, were not things over which the kings of the earth had any supervision or power, and things in which His subjects were not at liberty under any circumstances, to submit to the dictation or legislation of any other than God Himself.


The kingdom of Jesus is not of this world. In its origin, elements, provisions, policy, protection, government, or destiny. Its origin is heaven-- it is a heavenly kingdom. The King is the Lord from heaven; He said, "I proceeded forth and came out from the Father;" and again, "What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before," etc. The subjects of his kingdom are of the same origin, for "Both he sanctifies, and they that are sanctified, are all of one; for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren" and he said, "Thine they were and thou gavest them me." "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." etc.

The laws for the regulation of this heavenly kingdom are not of earthly enactment. Christ the anointed of the Father, is the sole Legislator, and he, by His Spirit, writes his law upon, and sets it up in the hearts of his children. The elements, or component parts, viewed separately or collectively, are all of God, and every plant that the heavenly Father has not planted shall be rooted up.

The provision on which this kingdom is sustained, were given us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world, and being prior to, could not be of the world. Grace, mercy, peace, righteousness, and truth, with all things else necessary for the commandment of the everlasting and unchanging decree of God, were treasured up in the Head of the church before the world began; and all the provisions of his spiritual house on which His poor are fed; were brought down from the abounding and overflowing fountain from which every good and perfect gift comes. And he will abundantly bless her provisions and fill her with bread.

The policy of this kingdom is from above. "For our conversation is in heaven," and it is therefore as becomes the children of God. All earthly religions have to depend on human policy, human wisdom, and humanly devised means; but not so with the kingdom which no man can see except he be born again. The protection of that kingdom is of him who is a wall of fire round about it, and the glory in its midst. All anti-christian religious establishments desire the arm of human government--regal power, and human means for their protection; but not so with the kingdom of Jesus Christ; the eternal God is the refuge of His people, and underneath them are the everlasting arms. All provisions on which the subjects of the kingdom of our Lord are fed, comforted, instructed, and secured, are spiritual, and therefore cannot emanate from any but a spiritual fountain. Although the world, the flesh and Satan have volunteered like the aliens about Jerusalem in the days of Nehemiah, to furnish God's people with food, the order of the government forbids the traffic with them; and it is impossible that the children of the kingdom should be fed with any other food than that which God has graciously provided, and abundantly blessed.

Should the government of the kingdom of our Redeemer be to any extent divided with angels or men, whatever part or portion these should administer, must necessarily detract so much from the power and glory of Christ. "The government shall be upon his shoulder; and of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end." So stands the record of the Holy One. The subjects of his government are forbidden to call any man, master, or father, as their Master and spiritual Progenitor is in heaven, and nothing can be born of the flesh but flesh; so that without being born again, no man can see the kingdom of God. A legislature of unregenerate men who cannot see the kingdom, would be very poorly qualified to legislate for a kingdom which is to them absolutely invisible; and if there were none but regenerate men seated in legislation, they being by the new birth qualified to see the kingdom of God, would to a man, know by the same illuminating work of the Spirit, that they could do nothing to aid in the legislative or executive departments of the Messiah's kingdom.

The destiny of the kingdom of which we write, differs essentially from that of all other kingdoms. The best systems of human government are destined to crumble to the ground. In the providence of God, empires are founded, kingdoms and republics are raised up, they reach their climax, and then decline, and finally cease to be reckoned among the things that be; but the kingdom of Jesus is an everlasting kingdom, and a dominion that shall never end. It shall never be changed, superseded, or transferred to other hands. The mountains shall depart, the hills shall be moved, the earth and the sea shall pass away, and all the elements of this world shall be dissolved, but the kingdom of our God shall survive them all, and flourish in eternal bloom. How presumptuous then, for monarchs of the earth, whose transient glory is as a withering flower, or human legislatures which God shall obliterate, to prepare the way of the rising empire of his to reach forth the guilt-polluted fingers of their power, to point out the course in which God requires his children to move.

Seeing, then, that we look for such things--seeing that we have received a kingdom which is not of this world, which cannot be moved--let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably, with reverence and Godly fear; for our God is a consuming fire.
 
Just wanted to add 100% disagreement with the OP.

All traces of religion in the US government should go, and pursuing this goal is appropriate and honorable.

For those of you who are comfortable with these religious intrusions, replace 'God' with 'Allah' and you may begin to get a sense of how I feel about it.

Oh, yes, some of you argue that 'Allah' and 'God' mean the same thing. I assure you that Jewish and Christian Americans generally interpret 'God' as 'my God' and would interpret 'Allah' as something very different.

How would you feel if you showed up at a courthouse for a trial that you are party to only to read a Muslim quotation in mosaic that praised Sharia law? Would you not swallow hard at the thought that the majority, including possibly the judge and the jury, were comfortable with the thought of honoring and applying Sharia law rather than the law of the land?

When you open your wallet to pay for dinner, and see bills that say 'In Allah we trust', would you not feel excluded, a second-class citizen, an outsider, and at greater risk?
 
Last edited:
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?

When children are forced in public school to stand with their hands over their hearts and state, five mornings a week, that the nation in which they live is one "under God"? How is that not an instance of the state "forcing religion down their throats"? I don't buy the argument that the "under God" language is purely ceremonial, or devoid of religious content. If it were, why is the religious right so adamantly opposed to removing it? The fact that it is a less egregious violation of religious freedoms than some others that can be imagined doesn't diminish the fact that such language has no place in a state institution.
 
I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot
 
I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot
 
I think the best thing religious fundamentalist types have going for them is Michael Newdow. And since I'm sypathetic to them...well...I wish/hope Michael Newdow appears on 93 television programs a week.

He gets people who aren't hot and bothered about this stuff...hot and bothered. In opposition.

I'm assuming Michael Newdow is a sincere idealist. If he's an arrogant publicity whore I'd wish he'd shut up...if it weren't for what I said above. Whatever his motivation, he's great publicity for religious fundamentalist types. He either is ignorant of this fact, could care less about this fact, or is cognizant of it but can't help himself.

-Elliot
 

Back
Top Bottom