I was looking at Yahoo just a bit ago and the headline "Court upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance."
After reading it... I'm both happy that they have upheld it... and saddened that Newdow is yet again back in the news.... hasn't his 15 minutes of fame expired by now?
Here's the article
SAN FRANCISCO – An appellate court has upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
"The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded," Judge Carlos Bea wrote for the majority in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling Thursday.
Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the pledge, which was amended to include the words "under God" by a 1954 federal law. Members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from "godless communists."
In a separate 3-0 ruling, the appeals court upheld the inscription of the national motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. coins and currency, citing an earlier 9th Circuit panel that ruled the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic and "has nothing whatsover to do with the establishment of religion."
The same appeals court caused a national uproar and prompted accusations of judicial activism when it decided in Sacramento athiest Michael Newdow's favor in 2002, ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance violated the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.
President George W. Bush called the 2002 decision "ridiculous," senators passed a resolution condemning the ruling and Newdow received death threats.
That lawsuit reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004, but the high court said Newdow lacked the legal standing to file the suit because he didn't have custody of his daughter, on whose behalf he brought the case.
So Newdow filed an identical challenge on behalf of other parents who objected to the recitation of the pledge at school. In 2005, a federal judge in Sacramento decided in Newdow's favor, prompting the appeals court to take up the case again.
Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was part of the three-judge panel that ruled in Newdow's favor eight years ago, wrote a 123-page dissent to the 60-page majority opinion.
"Under no sound legal analysis adhering to binding Supreme Court precedent could this court uphold state-directed, teacher-led, daily recitation of the 'under God' version of the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools," wrote Reinhardt, who was appointed by President Jimmy Carter in 1980.
Newdow, a doctor and attorney who founded a group called the First Atheist Church of True Science, told The Associated Press he would ask the appeals court to rehear the case. If it rejects that request, Newdow said he'll appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The whole argument that 'under God' wasn't placed into the pledge for religious purposes is bogus," Newdow said. "I hope people recognize this is not against God or people who believe in God. It's about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views."
Rory Little, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, said the Supreme Court is unlikely to review the case because Thursday's ruling is the third appellate court decision upholding the pledge.
In addition, Congress passed legislation reaffirming the pledge in 2002, following the 9th Circuit's ruling that struck it down.
"I think this is the last word on this particular lawsuit," Little said. "It's an important ruling."
Greg Katsas, who argued the currency case on behalf of the U.S. government when the appellate court heard the case in December 2007, said the panel made the right decision Thursday.
"I think these two phrases encapsulate the philosophy on which the nation was founded," said Katsas, who now works in private practice. "There is a religious aspect to saying "One nation under God," but it isn't like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country."
With all the death threats that Michael Newdow has received for his attempts to protect the Constitution and the rights of a minority, do you really think it's necessary (or just self satisfying) for you to add your pathetic little insult?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, I'm not quite sure how I insulted him. Could you clarify?
ReplyDeleteAnd I am voicing my opinion on the matter, I'm sorry I didn't take the blue pill this morning
You shouldn't worry about forgetting to take your blue pill this morning. From your "I'm… happy that they have upheld it [the god delusion]", it appears that your mind is ensconced with "the blissful ignorance of illusion."
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in case you should ever, inadvertently, take a red pill, then you might want to try to prepare yourself for "the painful truth of reality" that Michael Newdow is becoming the Martin Luther King of American atheists. Consequently, to wish that "his 15 minutes of fame [be] expired", is similar to wishing that MLK would shut up and that the Blacks would learn their place – which has turned out to be the White House.
Of course, I grant you that it may be another 50 years before an atheist is elected president, given that we're now the most despised group in America, e.g., see http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html . Yet, in case you should live so long, you might want to stock-up on a multi-year supply of blue pills.
Interesting how you compare an avowed atheist to one of the most God-fearing men in our history. Also, if you're going to play the race card and tell me that disagreeing with Newdow is the same as wanting blacks to "learn their place", I suggest you go back and look at history. No one did to atheists what was done to blacks in this country. I don't recall any atheists having to sit at segregated lunch counters or having to drink from segregated water fountains. Also, in your first comment you mention that Newdow has been receiving death threats. Wouldn't that have been part of the story if that had indeed been the case?
ReplyDeleteWow! You suggest that I "go back and look at history"? Heal thyself! At least, spend the next few hours (or days or weeks or years) on the internet learning about how, during at least the previous 3,000 years, the religious persecuted, enslaved, and killed the horrible unbelievers, infidels, atheists, kafirs, etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, death threats against Dr. Newdow wouldn't necessarily have been a part of the story you quoted, especially if it were written with prejudice. If you want to learn more about Newdow, go to his webpage at http://www.restorethepledge.com/ . In an earlier version of his webpage, he had posted some of the death threats that he had received. Now, I see that the death threats are at least mentioned in the Wikipedia article on him and in an (old) insulting article about him in TIME Magazine ( http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,266658,00.html ). They're mentioned, also, in the 12 March 2010 article on the current case posted at CBS News ( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/12/national/main6291463.shtml ).
My point of comparison between Drs. Newdow and King was obviously not about their beliefs (with the former concluding that the probability of any god's existence is less than 50%, and the latter, greater than 50%, e.g., see http://meansnends.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-reducing-rancor.html ), but the attempts by both to defend the rights of minorities.
I know all about the history of my religion, thank you, and the history of this nation. But let me focus on a few things you have yet to make clear. One, exactly HOW are your rights being infringed upon by this ruling? Do you no longer have the right to omit the supposedly offending phrase? Will you go to jail if you do so? Will you be executed? No. You still have the right not to say it if you so choose.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you have yet to explain just how my fiancee's post about this is insulting to Micheal Newdow. She made no threats to his life or anyone else's and certainly said NOTHING about him needing to "learn his place." He can believe whatever he wants. Why then do es he feel the need to focus on making sure that the rest of us have to comply with his beliefs? Why can't he just leave the rest of us alone, and we'll do the same for him.
I responded to your similar questions and comments that you posted at one of my blogs. Perhaps you didn't see my response; it's at http://meansnends.blogspot.com/ . On the other hand, perhaps you didn't understand my point about coercing children, even though it's the entire point of the lawsuit. If so, perhaps the following imagined story will help.
ReplyDeleteImagine, then, that you and your fiancee marry and in time have children. Unfortunately, however, the American economy tumbles even worse than it already has – even worse than in the Great Depression – and the only way the lawmakers in Washington could see how to make us solvent again was to accept a $3 trillion "gift" from the Saudis. There was, however, a slight catch to the Saudi's "generosity": they required that the wording in the Pledge of Allegiance be changed from "under God" to "under Allah", and our lawmakers acquiesced.
You and your wife were, of course, furious that legislators would interfere in the religious "education" of your children, claiming, now, that the Establishment Clause prohibited such interference! But first you chose a "work around": you instructed your children to circumvent, in various ways, acknowledging that America had anything to do with being "under Allah", e.g., by not saying the words, by just mouthing the words, etc. Later, however, you saw that you had put your children in a terrible bind. They were caught between parental pressure and peer pressure (or coercion), for kids know when other kids are trying to trick them.
Well, you tolerated the situation for quite a while, but, damn it, enough's enough! So you filed a Federal lawsuit, claiming that "under Allah" violated your rights as specified in the Constitution. Oh, yes, of course you received hundreds of death threats for your (insolent) bravery, but what really got to you was to find your wife, the mother of your children, crying at her computer. Apparently she had just finished reading a blog, in which some unknown blogger wrote about you: "Hasn't his 15 minutes of fame expired by now?"
I read your post thoroughly. It doesn't hold water. Or, to put it better, your comment about coercion is a double edged sword. The same argument could be made that NOT including 'under god' in the pledge could be a method of coercing children to AVOID believing in God at all, but then, as an atheist you probably have no problem with teaching children that God is nothing more than a fairy tale.
ReplyDeleteAlso, that comment you left on your blog in response to mine was little more than a series of insults directed at me and people like me. I thought atheists were supposed to be more tolerant than those hateful Christians? Do any of these ring a bell? "Drug addicted fantasies" and such things also as "needing to see past the fog and distortions of my childhood." It apparently has never occured to you that religious people have just as much free will as non-religious people. We simply choose to exercise a belief that you do not.
Well reading over all this I want to include my opinions. See being a American I can freely say my views on any topic I want.
ReplyDeleteBut also As Americans no one has to read, hear, or even acknowledge what I say. Our country is great for that.
This blog started out with just telling others about this Newdow guy. From what I have read from the blog posted above and other sources and even some insightful comments made by A. Zoroaster I think the guy wanted to make a scene as do so many people out there.
I swear that there are people who love nothing more than to sue and cry and complain about things we all say or do. But when you look at the whole thing you kinda have to laugh. This guy did not even have custody of his kid he was so worried about. So to me he was not "worried" he just found something else to complain about.
Now I am not gonna touch on Religion at all. Not because I have no faith but because The Constitutional Crusader has pretty much said all the things I would of said.
But I will state this clearly this blog was more about sharing information but A. Zoroaster wanted to start a fight. Cause he did not like what it was about. Now Assuming he/she/it is American they have the right to state how they feel. But they also have the right to just click it and look for something else to read.
Maybe they are lonely or had a bad day. so that might be why they came here to argue. But honestly dude this guy you seem to care so much about seems to me to not be someone i would look up to.
Also Martin Luther King Jr Was way cooler than this guy who only wants to complain. For surely if you want to complain about anything there are far worse things that "under god" to complain about our country.
I mean get real and think about everything. For one we owe so much money to other countries. Take up a stand for that. Or the fact jobs are hard to come by now. Here's another for you to think of how about getting the government to back off some when it comes to Raising kids? Now days it seems most parents are scared to have kids cause they have no idea what kind of punishment if any they can give their kids.
Oh and then everyone else always asks where the parents where when the kids do bad stuff. Spare the rod spoil the child my friend.
So next time you come across something you don't like, Maybe you should just hit the big red x. Its what i do when i stumble across the close minded people that believe in the big bang theory.
Constitutional Crusader: your illogic is startling. You state: "The same argument could be made that NOT including 'under god' in the pledge could be a method of coercing children to AVOID believing in God at all…" You've got to be kidding: pledging allegiance to one's country has nothing to do with one's belief in any fairy-tale god! If I say, "The sun is shining today," does it mean that I do or do not believe in god?!
ReplyDeleteFurther, the phrase "under God" wasn't in the original pledge; it was added by Congress in 1954. Your "logic" suggests, for example, that all Americans who fought, who were wounded, and who were killed in wars prior to 1954 (e.g., WWI, WWII, the Korean War, etc.) weren't patriotic! It suggest, as another example, that the 93% of members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences who don't believe in some fairy-tale god are not patriotic. I object – strongly!
Your "logic" reminds me of the notorious statement by President George H.W. Bush (e.g., see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists ): "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." To him (and you) I say: "Blow out your ear!"
In addition, you state "religious people have just as much free will as non-religious people". Okay, but do they exercise it, or do the vast majority just accept their parents' indoctrination in their religion? If your parents were Muslim, would you be? You add: "We simply choose to exercise a belief that you do not." You "exercise" a belief? A belief that doesn't have a single shred of evidence to support it; a 'belief' in which you've been indoctrinated. If you want to exercise something, how about exercising your free will, e.g., to hold beliefs only as strongly as relevant evidence warrants.
And then there's your choice of the pseudonym "Constitutional Crusader"; yet, you obviously advocate disregarding the Establishment Clause. I'll again quote Judge Reinhardt:
"…the majority asserts that “under God” as that term appears in the amendment to the Pledge is not a religious phrase, and was not inserted in the Pledge for a religious purpose. Instead, the majority argues that “under God” is simply “a reference to the historical and political underpinnings of our nation,” that its purpose is to remind us that ours is a “limited government” and, thus, that the term as adopted by Congress has a predominantly secular meaning and purpose. There is simply no basis in fact or law for so absurd an assertion. If the plain meaning of the words “under God” were not enough to demonstrate beyond any doubt that the majority’s contention borders on the irrational, and that the term is predominantly, if not entirely, religious in both meaning and purpose, the overwhelmingly religious intent of the legislators who added the phrase to the Pledge, as shown by the unanimous statements to that effect in the Congressional Record, would remove any possible doubt from the mind of any objective person…
"Had my views prevailed here, our decision would not preclude daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance by public schoolchildren. To the contrary, public schoolchildren would be free to recite the Pledge as it stood for more than sixty years, a patriotic Pledge with which many of us grew up – a patriotic Pledge that is fully consistent with the Establishment Clause. All that would be required would be the deletion of the two words [under God] added by an amendment designed to promote religion and to indoctrinate schoolchildren with a religious belief. As has long been agreed in this nation, the teaching of religious views is the function of the family and the Church, not the State and the public school system."
judithf09: If you don't understand the feelings of atheists, it might be enlightening for you to read at least one of Greta Christina's post, namely, the one at http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html . Also, if you would like to learn about what it's like to be an atheist in America, I'd recommend your reading the post by DarkSyde at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/12016/649 . And as for your dismissal of our concerns, perhaps the following quotations from http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/04/filth-based-initiatives.html might be of interest to you:
ReplyDelete[QUOTE]Consider some of the vindictive e-mails that were sent to the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation after one of their spokespeople, Anne Laurie Gaylor, appeared on CNN. These e-mails were reprinted in the January/February 2006 edition of the FFRF newsletter Freethought Today, which is where I draw them from (all spelling and grammar as in originals):
"You make me vomit and sick and I pray to GOD that you go to hell."
"Your a complete moron if you can't seem to understand the constitution of the United States that scum like you are trying to debase. All you liberal bitch's, along with the homosexual ACLU scum should be lined up against the wall."
"Your closed-minded bigotry is so unrepentantly sub-human."
"I bet you're a drunken whore."
"You Ms. Gaylor, and people LIKE you are the scum of America. Ane if you are going to appear on any more talk shows, I would consider some plastic surgery and perhaps some dental work!"
"People like you who interpret the bible wrong and try to sell this BS to people should be 'stoned to death'"
Or consider the blog Molly Saves the Day, which in light of recent events in South Dakota posted an essay on how to set up an abortion clinic at home. Some of the comments sent to the author of that blog were stunning in the depth of their furious hatred and spiteful rage:
"You are a fucking sicko. When you die, you will find yourself burning in the deepest depths of hell. Being Satan's chewing gum next to Hitler and Judas will be nice, won't it? And I'm no fucking conservative. The day a woman kills her baby with your procedure will be the day you are damned, you pagan bitch."
Or Michael Newdow, the atheist who filed a constitutional complaint over religious language in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance. The flood of hate mail and death threats against him was to be expected, of course; but more surprisingly, even some of the reporters who covered Newdow's story were targeted. Writes Bob Norman of the Palm Beach, Florida New Times, in his article "First Pledge":
"...some extremist Christians... once again exposed their savage underbellies. They barraged Newdow with hundreds of death threats and hate mail. I know this not only because he shared many of them with the national media but because I received them too.
"...A man who identified himself as Scott Sandlin wrote in the subject line of his e-mail: "YOU should be shot." I've written about mobsters, rogue cops, dirty politicians, and all manner of South Florida hustlers in the past, but I've never been threatened like this."[/QUOTE]
Establishment Clause: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF. Sounds Like I know the establishment clause after all.
ReplyDeleteAnd again, judging ME based on THEIR actions just shows how ignorant you truly are. I have never once called for atheists to be "lined against the wall" or some other such drivel.
ReplyDeleteConstitutional Crusader:
ReplyDelete1. Where did I judge YOU based on THEIR ignorance? In your haste, did you fail to notice that the post was addressed not to you but to "judithf09"?
2. Compare "Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" with Congress' passing the 1954 law requiring children to be exposed to a state employee leading children to recite a Pledge containing the unjustified assumption that any god exists – even though defensible estimates suggest that the probability of any god's existence is miniscule, specifically, less than 0.00000…[continue for ~500 zeros]…0001, e.g., see http://zenofzero.net/docs/IiIndoctrinationinIgnorance.pdf .
It doesn't matter who the post was addressed to. It was still an ignorant statement you made. Also, by acknowledging even the smallest possibility that God exists throws your whole argument out the window. Less than .(500 zeroes)1 percent? How much less? By stating this you have acknowledged that there is at least a possibility that God exists.
ReplyDeleteNot to mention, when you go after my fiancee, or any member of her family, (Judith is her cousin) you deal with me. You want to duke it out with just me, go to MY blog and leave a few comments.
I can't speak for other families out there, but being raised in the christian family that I have, MY PARENTS would have supported me if I decided to follow another faith, but I couldn't find one out there that fit my PERSONAL views of God. I know several people who were RAISED one way, but when they became teens or older, decided to change to a different religious belief. I personally did not insult Mr. Newdow, I didn't send hate mail or death threats to him or any other Atheists, Pro-Abortionists or anyone else that doesn't share my beliefs, because I believe that everyone has a right granted to them by their creator to practice what they please. I don't go around spouting that my religion is better than anyone else's religion or lack of one. So I would appreciate it if people would not attack me for simple words on a blog.
ReplyDeleteWell, Crusader, should anyone be interested in your rant, the record is fortunately available to read, from which I expect that essentially anyone interested would conclude something similar to: "What the devil is he going on about?" Just for the fun of it, why don't you read the record; perhaps you, too, will come to appreciate how crazy your comments sound.
ReplyDeleteAs for you silly assessment, "By stating this you have acknowledged that there is at least a possibility that God exists", be advised: an atheist is one who has concluded that the probability of the existence of a particular god is less than 50%; a theist is one has concluded that the probability is greater than 50%; and by saying "I don't know", an agnostic is saying that the probability is exactly 50% (i.e., as in a "50:50 coin toss", an agnostic claims no knowledge).
What you might want to do is seriously consider the advice: "Better to say nothing and let them assume you're ignorant, than to speak and remove all doubt."
And Daphne, please appreciate the distinction: I did not attack you, I attacked your words. You stated: "Hasn't his [Newdow's] 15 minutes of fame expired by now?" Those aren't "simple words". Would you have said the same about Martin Luther King? Why not? Because he sought constitutional rights for Blacks whereas Newdow seeks them for (mere) Atheists?
If you don't see what I'm saying, then I'd encourage also you to read the blogs that I recommended for judithf09. Again, they're at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/11/15/12016/649 and http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2007/10/atheists-and-an.html .
And with that, your 15 minutes of my time are up.
Now you're splitting hairs. You attacked her words? What the hell does that mean? Since she's the one who SAID the words, wouldn't that by definition make it an attack on HER as well? Also, Micheal Newdow has EVERY SINGLE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT EVERY OTHER AMERICAN HAS! So do you. Unless you know something I don't and there's a second Constitution out there that says "all men (except atheists) are created equal."
ReplyDeleteDirect from the dictionary:a·the·ist /ˈeɪθiɪst/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-ist] Show IPA
ReplyDelete–noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Sounds like a zero percentage to me.
1. Re. the saying, "Tis better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt", I was surprised to find that, although it's common to attribute it to Abraham Lincoln or to Mark Twain, those attributions are questionable. Instead, it seems to be derived from the Old Testament's Proverbs (17, 28):
ReplyDelete"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise, and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."
2. As a case in point, re. the dictionary definition of 'atheism', you might want to (silently) consider how you would answer the following questions. When you express a belief in some claim, what range of probabilities do you associate with its veracity? Similarly, when you express disbelief, what's the range of associated probabilities? If you don't understand the questions, perhaps you'll find some guidance at http://zenofzero.net/docs/IhHypothesesandProbabilities.pdf ,
http://zenofzero.net/docs/T1_Truth_&_Knowledge.pdf ,
http://zenofzero.net/docs/T2_Truth_&_Understanding.pdf , and
http://meansnends.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-reducing-rancor.html .
3. Re. your inquiries, "What the hell does that mean? Since she's the one who SAID the words, wouldn't that by definition make it an attack on HER as well?, I wonder if you've heard the statement usually attributed to Voltaire, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", although he actually wrote: "Monsieur l'abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write."
You, sir, will never convince me to shut my mouth whether you think me a fool or not. Your opinion on my own foolishness registers a big fat zero.
ReplyDeleteYou have all but made clear your desire for my girl to stop saying that which she has been saying. Your own posts attest to this.
When I express a belief in some claim, as you put it, I do consider evidence of all types, and it is there if you know where to look. But as Dante Alligieri said in his Divine Comedy, at some point reason must be supplemented with FAITH, otherwise the journey to discover the greatness of God will remain incomplete.