Michael Newdow, go home!

[phildonnia]

Michael Newdow has earned a place in the hearts of the true believers as the archetypical atheist. When you hear crap about atheists from Rush Limbaugh, and wonder what the hell he's talking about, he's probably got someone like Newdow in mind. He (Newdow) has taken his dogma to such an extreme that he is an embarrassment to the mainstream atheist.

In other words, he is the atheist equivalent of Pat Robertson.

(He also apparently lives down the street from me.)

 

[jj]

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

Been there, done that, no bible in evidence, no "so help me dog", either. Simply "do you swear or affirm that you are about to tell the truth and nothing but the truth", not even "the whole truth".

 

[jj]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

 

[jj]

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.

Or that it is demonstrating, every time it happens, that in the USA, religion comes before law.

I can't see any possible legal issue here, it's endorsement of religion by government, plain and simple. No more, no less.

 

[geetarmoore]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....

 

[kmortis]

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....

geetarmoore,
I disagree. Look at how bull-headed fundies are treated here. Christians that are mild, live their life by example are well accepted here; whereas the "bang the Bible on the street corner" stripe are ridiculed, berated and openly insulted. The former would actually have a chance in getting some of us to see "the errors of our way", whereas the later don't have a snowball's chance in Pheonix.

I see the same thing the other way. Newdow is an ass. He bludgeons his view point upon everyone, expecting them to accept him because he's COnstitutionally speaking, right.

Think about it this way. There was very little difference in the rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas PAine. By all historical accounts, however, TJ wasn't a bull headed ass. TJ went on to be one of the greatest presidents the US has ever seen, Paine? He got exiled to France, where he helped the Revolution...until they decided that he was an ass. He got shipped back to England, where he died penniless, and his bones were stored in a chest-of-drawers until a supporter bought it and buried his remains. Now, both TJ and PAine were instrumental to the US Revolution. But why is one remembered favorably and one not?

Well, that's my two cents, and I could be wrong...

 

[geetarmoore]

geetarmoore,
I disagree. Look at how bull-headed fundies are treated here. Christians that are mild, live their life by example are well accepted here; whereas the "bang the Bible on the street corner" stripe are ridiculed, berated and openly insulted. The former would actually have a chance in getting some of us to see "the errors of our way", whereas the later don't have a snowball's chance in Pheonix.

I see the same thing the other way. Newdow is an ass. He bludgeons his view point upon everyone, expecting them to accept him because he's COnstitutionally speaking, right.

Think about it this way. There was very little difference in the rhetoric of Thomas Jefferson and Thomas PAine. By all historical accounts, however, TJ wasn't a bull headed ass. TJ went on to be one of the greatest presidents the US has ever seen, Paine? He got exiled to France, where he helped the Revolution...until they decided that he was an ass. He got shipped back to England, where he died penniless, and his bones were stored in a chest-of-drawers until a supporter bought it and buried his remains. Now, both TJ and PAine were instrumental to the US Revolution. But why is one remembered favorably and one not?

Well, that's my two cents, and I could be wrong...

I can understand your argument, and I guess you could go on to say that people shouldn't have fought to remove the 10 commandments monument from Roy Moore's courtroom, that we should just accept prayer in school, and we should just roll over when it comes to all the other over-steps of the non-secular world. I mean, who is it hurting, really?

But we haven't rolled over on these things, and we shouldn't. To remain consistent the effort needs to be focused on all areas that are unconstitutional, as we need to focus on the fact that these are moderate battles, not extremist viewpoints. To uphold the constitution can not be allowed to be seen as 'extremist'.

These two topics - 'under god' and 'in god we trust' are constantly thrown in the face of seculars by people who defend the 'Christian nation' viewpoint. It is, of course, all historical revisionism, but they don't see it that way, and the most recent presidential election shows that we are loosing the battle to these people. We are a nation of Christians, because it's in our pledge, and on our money, and that is the bottom line, despite what history and the constitution tell us.

If I am an 'fundamentalist' for wanting to follow the constitution, then so be it . At least I am fundamental in regards to an actual historically correct and verifiable document.

 

[FredFlash]

Separation of Church and State

Most of this country trusts in a god, and we atheists need to recognize that we're in the minority.

Was the U. S. Government established by the people to declare the people's trust in God?

I'm against school prayer

Why not? It was never forced on anyone.

Can any atheist out there seriously argue that he/she is oppressed? That they're being prevented from not worshipping a god?

Can any genuine Christian argue that he is not concerned when the government trespasses upon the jurisdiction of Christ and his exclusive authority to direct his people regarding the duty which they owe to their Creator? James Madison urged us to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

Our ancestors followed Mr. Madison's wise advice until 1864 when they stood by and allowed President Lincoln, Treasury Secretary Samuel Chase and a professed theocrat/Satan worshiper named James Pollock to establish the duty of all American's to declare their trust in God on the nation's coins. During the Early Years of the Republic they would have shot James Pollock as an idiot instead of appointing him Director of the Mint at Philadelphia.

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.

Fred Von Flash of Dallas Texas USA

*******************​

 

[FredFlash]

Separation of Church and State

'Under God' and 'in God we trust' are constantly thrown in the face of seculars by people who defend the 'Christian nation' viewpoint.

The problem with trivial and seemingly reasonable and harmless deviations from the pure doctrine of no government authority over religion (the duty which we owe to the Creator) is the principles underlying them. They are the very same principles that lay beneath the Unholy Satanic Union of Church and State that is the shame of Christendom and resulted in seventeen hundred years of bloody persecutions throughout Europe.

Take for example the exploitation of the government’s law making authority to "declare the trust of our people in God" on our national coins. [See Note] The underlying premise is that a uniformity of religious beliefs and opinions is required; the government has the moral duty to promulgate and defend the true faith; therefore, the government must be authorized to decide what an individual’s duties to God are and ensure that those duties are discharged, using force and violence if necessary. Stamping "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins was one small step for the National Reform Association and a giant leap for Satan into the jurisdiction of Christ.

[Note] Treasury Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins. (Note: "The people" was one Counterfeit Christian minister in the employ of the Devil who wrote a letter to the Director of the Mint)

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.
​

Fred Von Flash Dallas Texas USA

 

[slingblade]

Was the U. S. Government established by the people to declare the people's trust in God?

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.

Why not? [School prayer] was never forced on anyone.

It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.

Can any genuine Christian argue that he is not concerned when the government trespasses upon the jurisdiction of Christ and his exclusive authority to direct his people regarding the duty which they owe to their Creator? James Madison urged us to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties.

I'm supposed to care when a Christian's "duty" to a being I consider imaginary is tresspassed upon by the government? Why? Well, okay, I admit that if the government suddenly decided to make church attendance against the law, I'd be concerned. Just as I'd be concerned if the gov't tried to make it mandatory. But the point is, you don't make a lot of sense.

Our ancestors followed Mr. Madison's wise advice until 1864 when they stood by and allowed President Lincoln, Treasury Secretary Samuel Chase and a professed theocrat/Satan worshiper named James Pollock to establish the duty of all American's to declare their trust in God on the nation's coins. During the Early Years of the Republic they would have shot James Pollock as an idiot instead of appointing him Director of the Mint at Philadelphia.

I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money? It's antithetical. Can you prove this claim that Pollock was a Satan worshiper? Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?

It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness.

What?


(edited, spelling)

 

[geetarmoore]

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.



It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.



I'm supposed to care when a Christian's "duty" to a being I consider imaginary is tresspassed upon by the government? Why? Well, okay, I admit that if the government suddenly decided to make church attendance against the law, I'd be concerned. Just as I'd be concerned if the gov't tried to make it madatory. But the point is, you don't make a lot of sense.



I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money? It's antithetical. Can you prove this claim that Pollock was a Satan worshiper? Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?



What?

I'm with you. I'm here scrathing my head, trying to figure out if there is a point burried somewhere within any one of his postings this morning.......

 

[slingblade]

Geetarmoore, I think I sense kittens and recipies in the offing, and soon.

 

[RandFan]

I'm with you. I'm here scrathing my head, trying to figure out if there is a point burried somewhere within any one of his postings this morning.......

Yeah, I agree, what the hell was that all about?

 

[JLam]

 

[RandFan]

Geetarmoore, I think I sense kittens and recipies in the offing, and soon.

How about kitten recipies?

 

[slingblade]

I wish those two posts meant I'd just won a million bucks.

I coud sure use a million bucks.

 

[elliotfc]

I'm sort of sorry that people are beating up on Newdow. After all, the "under God" was added to the pledge during the red scare, as a way of deliberately vilifying atheists as "reds" by a psychotic Senator from Wisconsin(among other things).

The "In God We Trust" came earlier, but is also just as illegal. It does cost money to add that message to the coin die, and that is government money. It's illegal, plain and simple, and for that reason alone, should be, IF we are a nation of laws, removed and not permitted.

Not doing so is a full, complete, and final admission that the USA puts religion above law. It is that simple. Every new coin struck is another admission that religion is above law in the USA.

Is "In God We Trust" commensurate to religion?

If so, what religion is it advocating? Religion in general?

Let's take Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was pretty obsessed with God, more and more so as the Civil War dragged on. Yet he wasn't religious.

My point is that I don't see how mentioning God is the same as advocating or promoting religion. Could it be? Sure. Does it have to be? No.

I personally don't believe this means the government should have license to put God any and everywhere (although the fearmongers sure are painting that picture, eh? Fear is powerful).

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Yep. I support removing both of these things. I don't care what kind of 'image' the guy gives to atheists. He's correct, and doing what is right.....

So he's on a moral mission. That's good, I guess. No, by definition it has to be good, because he's on a moral mission.

I like your attitude btw on this one. Image be damned, stand up for your principles. Christians believe the same thing (or, they ought to).

The difference then, between Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow, is that you accept Newdow's morality, and you reject Robertson's, image be damned.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I don't know. Was it? If you're asking, I say no. If you're making a claim, I say show me some proof.

FredFlash will, I think, address each of these points on his own...but all I can say is that I've studied the histories of the continental congresses, each session always started with prayer, and perhaps the most revolutionary concept driving the philosophies behind the continental congresses was that rights do not come from the state, but from God. As for proof, it is manifold, but I've got a book pre-ordered called "The Faiths of our Founding Fathers" by David Holmes which will no doubt be a terrific compilation of all the proof that you'll need to understand FredFlash's point. It's being released this week.

It was in my experience. My evidence is anecdotal, and therefore not really evidence, but I witnessed a student being told he would either pray or be punished. He chose punishment, every single time. He was Jewish, you see, and refused to utter the Lord's Prayer.

So he wasn't forced to pray. He had an alternative. What was the punishment by the way? In true theocracies, if you didn't follow the state dictated religion, you were also punished...imprisonment, whipping, banishment, sometimes execution, seizure of property, the usual.

By the way, what was the name of the school that this happened in, and in what year? I'm curious, I find these anecdotes interesting and I, for one, take them seriously. Students (in public schools) ought not to be punished for not saying prayers, and these anecdotes deserve to be followed up.

I have to be misreading this, somehow. Why would a Satan worshiper want "In God We Trust" on the money?

In order to have something else to desecrate, of course.

Can one be a theocrat and a Satan worshiper? Satan isn't a god, according to Christian dogma; only God is god. So how and why would a person want a God-centered government and yet worship Satan at the same time?

A Satanist also believes in the Judeo-Christian god...they would define him differently of course.

-Elliot

 

[geetarmoore]

So he's on a moral mission. That's good, I guess. No, by definition it has to be good, because he's on a moral mission.

I like your attitude btw on this one. Image be damned, stand up for your principles. Christians believe the same thing (or, they ought to).

The difference then, between Pat Robertson and Michael Newdow, is that you accept Newdow's morality, and you reject Robertson's, image be damned.

-Elliot

The difference is, the Christians don't have the constitution backing them up, and Nedow does..

You lose. Bahhhhhhhh.