Michael Newdow. Great! Now they can use him to define us

[maxrandb]

as Godless! This man, whether you agree with him or not, is not helpful to progressive causes. What in the hell is wrong with a liberal having a strong faith in God. When you get right down to it, Jesus was a liberal.

I know people are going to say that we should not be forcing religion down someones throat, but to stifle someones ability to say a simple prayer???? Perception is the problem people. People like mister Newdow are not "in the mainstream". Supporting him, and voicing support simply re-affirms the right wing mantra that "democrats are godless, out of touch, anti-values people". We all know that is not true, but since when has the truth ever stopped repukes?

For those of you that do support him, I offer the following from the greatest Liberal, and IMHO, the greatest President we have ever had. This is from FDR's last inaugural address. Unlike d&*kheads coronation. During war and upheaval, FDR had a low key inauguration, and about a 5 minute speech, but what a speech it was!

"Mr. Chief Justice, Mr. Vice President, my friends, you will understand and, I believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.

We Americans of today, together with our allies, are passing through a period of supreme test. It is a test of our courage--of our resolve--of our wisdom--our essential democracy.

As I stand here today, having taken the solemn oath of office in the presence of my fellow countrymen--in the presence of our God-- I know that it is America's purpose that we shall not fail.

The Almighty God has blessed our land in many ways. He has given our people stout hearts and strong arms with which to strike mighty blows for freedom and truth. He has given to our country a faith which has become the hope of all peoples in an anguished world.

So we pray to Him now for the vision to see our way clearly--to see the way that leads to a better life for ourselves and for all our fellow men--to the achievement of His will to peace on earth."

That is not the entire address. There is a little bit more, but I think you could safely argue that these 5 paragraphs are reflective of this great man, and for the tremendous accomplishments and improvement to the quality of our lives that his progressive policies helped bring about.

These 5 paragraphs should be plastered on every Democratic Party advertisement. They should be repeated by every Democratic Party leader. They should be thrown in the face of every fat, wind-bagged radio talk show host in this country. But most importantly, they should beat in the heart of every Democrat and progressive in this country.

Sorry for the rant, but I have a simple question to those of you who support Mr Newdow. Should FDR's inaugural speech be illegal?

[maxrandb]

1. What if you posted a great post, but everyone ignored it?

[Demit]

5. well, I guess it's enough to know that YOU think it's great. :)

Maybe no one felt that your first question was answerable with anything but "nothing's wrong with it, of course." EXCEPT--

It sounds as if, by quoting FDR's speech at length, you are really asking "what's wrong with liberal politicians expressing their faith in the context of public office?" And there's a whole lot wrong with that.

And your last question is just odd. What would be the mechanism for retroactively making speeches from the 1940's illegal?

[K-W]

10. What if you posted a post arguing that we ignore free expression

in order to please those who want to destroy us.

We should neither become like republicans or conform to thier ideas. We should defend Newdow's right to express his opinion and make whatever lawsuits he wants and we should fight for a fair trial to judge the merits of his suits.

Instead the right has gotten you to join thier lynch mob against him.

[Caution]

2. yeh and what is wrong with being a liberal and an atheist?

You may not think the issue is important and that it will hurt the issues that you think are important, but as an atheist I feel this issue to be extremely important and a fundamental question about my rights.

I am a liberal atheist and I'm proud of it and I'm also proud that someone out there is standing up for my rights.

Apparently you don't understand the basis for Mr Newdow's case, individuals have every right to speak abotu faith and god and President Roosevelt had every right to speak the works you quote.

Does the government have the right to impose a belief system upon me or my children? To establish under the law that god exists? Absolutely not.

[maxrandb]

4. Help me understand

How is praying, or mentioning God "imposing a belief system upon me or my children"?

How is mentioning God in a speech, or in a pledge "establishing under the law that god exist"?

Who is not standing up for your rights? Is anyone forcing you to believe in god?

Please help me understand. How does allowing republicans to paint us, with a brush in Mr Newdows hand, further the cause of Democracy, or increase Democratic majorities in this country? Like it or not, what you fear the most (Repuke control, facism, and religious intolerance) is being enabled by the likes of Mr Newdow.

[UdoKier]

7. Newdow has never complained about a speech.

He complained about public schools forcing kids to recite an oath of allegiance to a God they should not be forced to express a belief in.

Hell, I have a problem with forcing kids to recite ANY pledge. That does NOT inspire patriotism, just blind, unthinking loyalty to one's masters.

[maxrandb]

28. ARGHHH!!! No one is being forced!

I also think the Pledge was just fine the way it was. Here is what I do.

At PTA meetings, at 4H meetings, at any school function where the pledge is said, I say it right along with everyone else, but I loudly say "One Nation Indivisible". I simply leave out the "under god" part.

Believe it or not. I've never been arrested for it. I've never been told "Hey mister, you better say that god part". Hell, I've never even gotten a dirty look.

I'm happy, and the folks that want to say God are happy. What's wrong with that approach.

Please face it. If we continue down this rediculous path, where even the mention of god is taboo, we are going to be in the minority for a long time.

Please bring up your complaint about religious freedom with Attorney General Pat Robertson. That is where the "Democratic Intolerance of Religion" is leading us.

[Caution]

46. No one is being forced?

You realize that a number of states require the pledge to be recited in school?

You also realize that children notice when other children refuse to say under god? You know that teachers routinely inform parents and are *schocked* when a child refuses to say "under god"

Heck we had a JW in my school who was totally outcase over this issue.

I said "under god" just because at 6 years old I didn't really have strong feelings on it and I saw how that poor girl was treated and didn't want everyone to hate me too.

Children behave quite differently then adults. They tend to gang up on those who refuse to conform.

No one is saying that the mention of god should be taboo, people have every right to their beliefs and they have every right to vote based upon their beliefs. They do not have the right to impose those beliefs in legislation. It's that simple.

Rather than being a wedge issue this should be a VERY obvious issue that the SCOTUS has been avoiding particularly due to loud-mouther right wing religious whackjobs. The SCOTUS knows the pledge with under god violates the first amendment so they have been dodging the issue for quite a while.

[K-W]

11. It is state sponsorship of religion and it is 100% wrong.

The state is giving a platform to a particular religion to express its beliefs at an official state event.

I know its common practice and we have about as much chance to stop it in the near future as we do changing the pledge or the currency, but it should be stopped.

At the very least it alienates those who do not share Mr. Bush's beliefs. People who should feel that thier government represents them as well. ITs easy to write it off as traditional when the executive branch is not trying to destroy religious rights in this country.

[charlie]

12. How is Newdow anyone but Newdow's problem?

I seem to recall Congressional Democrats STAMPEDING to register their outrage and piety the last time he won in court.

[Caution]

14. How about this:

First off i said nothing of the sort like this:
How is praying, or mentioning God "imposing a belief system upon me or my children"

This is a comman tactic utilized by the religious to make themselves feel persecuted and to take a defensive stance when one need not be taken. I have no problem with prayer or the mention of your god. I have a problem with government mandating that I do so.

Read this and tell me why you object to it:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under Allah, with liberty and justice for all.

Would you object to your child being given this? The usual answer here is that god is "generic" well no it isn't. I do not believe in any way shape or form that a god, any god exists. I have the right to this "belief" and should not be forced by my government to say that I do under any circumstances.

You are forcing my child to acknowledge the existence of god. if my child refuses to do so my child will be subject to ridicule and scorn from peers, teachers and administrators.

If the law states that my child must recite the pledge of allegiance and that pledge contains a reference to god, then the government has passed a law which states quite clearly that god exists, which establishes the US as a nation which at it's highest levels acknowledges the existence of god within the laws. If i do not recite the pledge than I am breaking the law, which makes me, by definition a criminal.

The thing *I* fear most is the United States becoming a "Christian" nation and undermining the cause of science and rationality and humanistic morality in favor of what I believe to be a deeply flawed dogma which has caused untold death, destruction and strife throughout the ages in the name of one poor man who basically told people to be nice to each other.

I'd rather fight for the things I believe in against the likes of the religious right because I don't share their beliefs, dogma or values.

As for who is not standing up for my rights? You aren't. When you say Newdow should shut up and be a good little doobie because complaining about the pledge of allegiance will strengthen the religious right you are siding with them and certainly not with me and my right to religious freedom.

another silly question: Is anyone forcing you to believe in god?

Try this exercise some day. The next time you are out and someone asks you to pray for someone, say "I don't believe prayer to be effective because I don't believe in god. What is it that ails this person? How may i help them in a rational real world way" Notice you are offering to help, but then take a look at the reaction you get from someone who sees you as an atheist. Then tell me if no one forces you to believe in god. Take a look at our currency some time and read the words: "In God We Trust" and realize that our government is telling you to accept your fate because God will take care of you rather than government doing what it is created for and existing for the benefit of the governed.

I have no problem with belief in god. I have a problem with some of the results of this belief. My problem is with government and my peers ostracizing me because i don't believe in god.

Like it or not you are imposing your belief system upon me because you think it is right and in America I have the right to disagree with you and as is spelled out in the Constitution, my government DOES NOT have the right to establish belief in god through a pledge, through a "motto" on my currency or through mandated school prayer. And don't even get me started on creationism, creationism light ("Intelligent" Design), Biblical inerrancy, this being a "Christian Nation", abortion, the death sentence or any of the other religious right buzz issues.

[ThorsHammer]

3. Nice post

IMO Newdow just gives people more ammo for people to rally around Bush for 'defending God'. I do think the Democratic party can and should appeal to people of faith, but has to do a better job of redefining its message.

[UdoKier]

6. Who says Newdow is a liberal?

Anyway, a politician can say whatever he wants in a speech. Nobody is forced to listen. Newdow is technically right on the separation issue, although he picked a pretty silly battle.

[JNelson6563]

8. He's an atheist, so what?

And your suggestion boils down to Let's out religion the Rethugs. Ugh.

Julie

[Jesus H. Christ]

9. Seperation of church and state is a progressive, liberal idea.

Newdow's right.

Sad that I have to repeat statements about ideas that were progressive two hundred years ago.

[DavidDvorkin]

13. Newdow is a hero of our democracy

People on the left who attack him are doing the work of the GOP for them.

[FredScuttle]

15. "Martin Luther King. Great! Now they can use him to define us

as agitators who want to destroy state's rights! This man, whether you agree with him or not, is not helpful to progressive causes. What in the hell is wrong with a liberal having a strong faith in state's rights?

I know people are going to say that we should not be forcing integration down someones throat, but to stifle someones ability to keep their race pure? Perception is the problem people. People like Rev. King are not "in the mainstream". Supporting him, and voicing support simply re-affirms the right wing mantra that "democrats are radical, out of touch, anti-states' rights people". We all know that is not true, but since when has the truth ever stopped the John Birchers?"

(from the DU Archives, 1956)

Why the hell are we more worried about how a bunch of self-interested Nazis define us than in defending our constitutional rights? Same goes for the gay marriage question...."oooh, the GOP is going to define us as a bunch of queer-loving radicals"....SO FUCKING WHAT. Principles used to matter in this party.

FDR's inaugural speech is what it is...can't say I'm enamored of it. Of course, I wasn't enamored by his rejection of boatloads of Jewish refugees before WWII or the internment of Japanese-Americans during the war either. What I do admire is the Consitution's vigilance to preclude government establishing religion.

[giant_robot]

16. In your very first sentence, you imply that republicans tend to

characterize all liberals based on the actions of the few. I agree. So does the problem lie with Newdow fighting for rights that are clearly being violated, or with republicans who paint all liberals with the same broad brush? Would silencing Newdow somehow change the way republicans generalize with respect to the behavior of liberals? Or would they just find some other extreme example to cast liberals in a bad light?

[FredScuttle]

17. Amen

n/t

[patcox2]

19. Clearly being violated?

What right is clearly being violated, smarty pants? Thats your opinion unsupported, I can tell you, by anything in over 200 years of ocnstitutional jurisprudence.

[Caution]

20. so the Establishment clause has never been tested before?

come on. When the government mandates the existence of god through legislation they are clearly violating the establishment clause.

[patcox2]

24. Mandates the existence of god?

Wow, I didn't know the legislature had the power to do that. When are they going to repeal the laws of gravity, I wonder.

Is this seriously the most important thing in the world to you? You managed to retain your beleifs despite being subjected to the horrible torture of being forced to hear words you disagree with. As did I.

[Caution]

30. I guess fleeing to new lands for religious freedom is something

that would only be important to people like me. Theocracy will be fun won't it?

[giant_robot]

21. First amendment rights, of course.

How can you possibly defend a pledge recited by children in a public school invoking the name of god as not being a violation of the separation of church and state? As far as nothing in 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence supporting this opinion, check out Murray v. Curlett (1963).


http://www.atheists.org/courthouse/prayer.html#case

Edit: link

[patcox2]

23. The pledge has already been approved by the USSC.

They held that as long as reciting is not mandatory, its permissable. In light of a ruling by the Supreme Court, what higher authority do you cite for this "clear violation?"

You sound like Gonzalez in his explication of the rights of the president, if he disagrees he can simply declare the courts wrong.

[giant_robot]

27. Yet when the Newdow case was brought before the Supreme Court

this summer, they chose to sidestep the issue by dismissing the case on a technicality. They don't seem to have much confidence in that ruling, do they?

And as far as beating me over the head with the phrase "clear violation": I am posting an opinion on a discussion board, not writing a legal opinion. Neither I nor Michael Newdow need to cite a higher authority to call "bullshit" when we see it.

[patcox2]

18. I wouldn't be suprised to learn that the republicans fund Newdow.

I wouldn't be suprised if they funded the gay marriage initiatives as well. Just like they funded Nader.

And we have so many hopeless idealists in this party that they don't care, because its the principle, darn it, we should alienate the majority of voters and ensure our own irrelevance and minority party status by embracing the wedge issues that the republicans plant on us.

[Caution]

22. Those damn feminists, civil rights activists. those bastard abolitionists

What is it with these bastards who refuse to just do what it takes and only what it takes to gain political power and instead keep fighting over these lofty "principles!" Bring back the tax on tea baby because being an American has nothing to do with fighting against the oppression that can stem from government!

[patcox2]

25. Yes indeed, the pledge is exactly the same as slavery.

You're right, you are in bondage, just like the slaves. Oh, the humanity. We need an emancipation proclamation to free you from the torture of knowing that someone, somewhere, is saying something you disagree with.

Its fucking trivial, sorry to tell you, but it is.

[Caution]

29. It's trivial to you. Not to me.

From your post you implied that you thought gay marriage was trivial too.

I think having religious freedom is important (I guess putting it in the very first amendement in the bill of rights might indicate that but apparently not)

oh btw my post was referring to your crap about abandoning idealistic pursuits, not comparing the fight for religious freedom to slavery (though, frankly I think religious freedom is pretty fundamental as well).

[patcox2]

33. Religious freedom is fundamental absolutely.

Getting elected is more fundamental, so that we can then have the power to fight, is all I am saying. Discretion is the better part of valor. Fight fights over principle when you can win them. I am only arguing for pragmatism.

Here is a funny story; my four-year-old was given a collection of Warner Brothers Cartoons for christmas. One of them was a 1940s, WWII propaganda type cartoon (I enjoy those, they are amusing) in which Proky Pig was in school and he refused to say the pledge ("b'thea , b'thea, b'why do I have to say this stupid old pledge?"). There followed 4 minutes of idealized american history about our forefathers and their fight for freedom and all that, (delivered by Uncle Sam himself) after which Porky saw the error of his ways and said the pledge.

And here is what he said:

"I pledge allegiance, to the flag, of the united states of america, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Because the cartoon was made before 1954, when the family council or whatever right wing whackjob group lobbied to have "under god" put into the pledge.

Nice to know the world is not going to hell, it has rather, as the philosopher says, "always been thus." After this, came the rebellion of the 1960s. I think the inevitable result of the right wings excesses today will be another social rebellion. Its a pendulum.

Also, please know, I object to the pledge on so many more levels than the "under god" crap, which I do regard as relatively trivial. I abhor the idea of loyalty oaths and hate the pledge for the indoctrination and mind control it is.

But thats not where I am going to waste my energy, because a symbolic victory (the pledge is a symbol, the words are symbols) is not what I think we need right now.

[Caution]

36. I agree that getting elected is fundamental. But abandoning pricinples

is not the way to do it.

Notice the direction our country has taken since those right wing religious whackos were allowed to subvert the pledge? Since they were allowed to add "In God We Trust" to the currency? I'm not positing a causal relationship but these are clearly results of allowing the right wing control without a fight.

[patcox2]

41. I am not sure, I see backlash and counter-backlash.

The pledge is new, but "in god we trust" has been around a hundred years. The congressional chaplain, for over 200 years.

Right now, I think what propels the right wing is almost entirely reaction. They have no positive agenda, they are reacting against what has actually been a couple of generations in a row of remarkable progress. Gender and racial equality (or at least movement towards same and commitment to the ideal), incredible changes in sexual freedom, the pill, birth control, rock and roll, open rebellion (its part of our culture, since the 60s the genie is out of the bottle), the world really has changed incredibly for someone born in 1930 or 1940, and the right wingers to me represent a temporary cultural backlash against an overwhelming tide.

I am an optimist at heart, I guess.

But on a very pragmatic level, I just wouldn't want to give them any new ammunition on this issue.

[Caution]

43. I tend to agree here

so why the hell we would abandon principles now? If the march towards progressive liberalism is to continue then why would we abandon a cause as fundamental as separation of church and state?

Rather than abandon it we should embrace it and do a better job of explaining why it should be important even to christians (clearly I personally do a pretty lousy job myself!).

I am frankly amazed that the average person who lives a mostly secular life but believes in god/christ/whatever in America would vote in a reactionary, religious zealot.

[AZCat]

44. "In God We Trust" has an interesting history

Wikipedia has an interesting page on the evolution and gradual adoption of the phrase. Apparently it's first appearance was in 1814 in Francis Scott Key's "The Star-Spangles Banner" (last stanza) as "In God is our trust".

First money with "In God We Trust" - the 1864 two-cent piece, but paper money doesn't get the phrase until the 1950's.




All trivia from wikipedia.

[maxrandb]

32. Do Not Even Compare This Ridiculous Issue to

Civil rights, or slavery, or rights for woman.

This is like arguing that attending Ohio State University and being subjected to hearing the Marching Band, means that OSU has forced you, or established a law that requires you to be a fan of the OSU football team.

You are as free as a bird to believe in god, not believe in god, be a muslim, be a christian, believe in Judaism, whatever. What is stopping you. Nothing. Let me say that again. NOTHING!!!!

- You are not being arrested because you are an atheist. However, if you allow this silly argument to define Democrats, you might be in the future as the Democratic Party is further diminished.

- You are not being sent to re-education camps because you are an atheist. However, if you allow this silly argument to define Democrats, you might be in the future as the Democratic Party is further diminished.

- You are not being bought and sold in the town square because you are an atheist. However, if you allow this silly argument to define Democrats, you might be in the future as the Democratic Party is further diminished.

- Your house are not being burned and your children are not being lynched because you are an atheist. However, if you allow this silly argument to define Democrats, you might be in the future as the Democrats Party is further diminished.

I've seen some pretty silly arguments around here, but when an atheist is forced to drink at an "atheist only" drinking fountain, or sit in the back of the bus, or have a police dog turned loose on you, then you can use those arguments. Until then, your either silly, stupid, or BOTH.

[Caution]

34. Do not even continue to attribute statements to me I didn't make

I was referring to the posters statement that idealists are killing the Democratic party's ability to achieve power. Get a clue.

My references were to other idealists who had achieved the changes they were hoping to make.

So continue to take statements out of context, continue to fabricate statements altogether, continue to get pissed off that people disagree with you about your god and its existence but please do me the courtesy of doing it privately rather than attempting to publicly humiliate me with statements I clearly never made.

[patcox2]

35. Ooh, you are oppressing them, stop it.

Don't you know, they live in a hell of oppression and it is just as bad as slavery and jim crow.

[Caution]

37. no one claimed it was that bad

But if you think that atheists don't suffer from oppression over religious beliefs than you mistaken.

I will continue to fight for my rights as an American citizen at all costs regardless of what you may think of their importance.

[AZCat]

38. It doesn't matter what was originally said

Fact never seems to get in the way of rhetoric, unfortunately.

[patcox2]

42. I never suffered.

Not once. I laughed down my nose at the idiots. No suffering at all. I said the pledge, it didn't hurt at all, and laughed at how horrified they would have been if they had known what I really believed.

I shared my beleifs with my friends and those I respected. I saw no reason why they were anyone elses business, and I certainly didn't feel any need to make them known to a bunch of people whose opinions I couldn't care less about.

[Caution]

45. And I applaud that

personally, I would feel as if I were hiding something and being forced to because of peer pressure when I have every right to my beliefs as much as any christian does. So I'll continue to fight on this issue and I'll continue to support the Newdows of the world and I'll continue to hope that the Democratic party supports the wall between church and state rather than surrender on yet another issue because the right-wing continues to control the debate.

[onenote]

26. pledge v. invocation - there's a difference

A lot of the discourse on this thread focuses on Newdow's suit challenging the pledge. Frankly, I don't have any problem with that lawsuit even though it caused Dem politicos to run for the hills. He is right about the pledge (even if saying it purports to be voluntary).

But I think his new lawsuit, which apparently challenges the presence of ministers delivering invocations at the inauguration (not sure if it challenges the use of a bible for the oath of office) goes a step further. No one is compelled (or even asked) to recite the prayer along with the minister. Its just trivializes the serious church-state issues and plays into the hands of the right.

onenote

[Caution]

31. That's a different suit

Newdow is going after both the pledge and the invocation.

[UdoKier]

39. "Godless"

"Michael Newdow. Great! Now they can use him to define us as Godless! This man, whether you agree with him or not, is not helpful to progressive causes. What in the hell is wrong with a liberal having a strong faith in God. When you get right down to it, Jesus was a liberal. "

What's wrong with a liberal being godless? I'm quite content being godless.

[Lenape85]

40. People like this make Fox News seem Fair and fucking balanced!!!!!!!!