Michael Newdow is a Whiney, Little Bitch

Michael Newdow is a whiney, little bitch. He cares nothing for civil rights or any of the jargon he preaches and only wants to find an easy, controversial way to get famous quick. Atheists are not oppressed in Western society today. Come to think of it, I can't think of one time I've been discriminated against for being an atheist, except for little things like name-calling, which is obviously not a civil rights issue. There was a time when people could be killed for being atheists; we are not oppressed. The thing that angers me the most is how Newdow parades around that daughter of his, putting himself in the position of a good parent trying to raise his daughter the way he wants and being thwarted at every turn by the Christian government. Bullshit. If he was a good parent, he'd let his daughter make up her own damn mind, instead of exploiting her and trying to shelter her from the rest of civilized society. It's the two greatest American past-times, being over-protective of children and suing people for no good reason. People who have lead a relatively care-free life often like to make themselves out as being oppressed when they really don't know how priviledged they are.

 

wow i dunno who he is, but i agree with you.
i've never been discriminated against for being agnostic/atheist/just dont care =)
and thats really unfair when a parent tries to force their child into believing something they believe. my mom is sorta like that, but i believe what i want whether she likes it or not.
my city is very free and everyone is open minded to different religions, cultures, & beliefs. whooo im so glad.

 

The shock! The disrespect! The...ok I can't keep up the faux-outrage. Whiney little bitch may be too kind.

 

CS

Take a deep breath..thats it...

the BITCH

Occam

 

What are you guys?

ATHEISTS FOR THEISM!

 

ROFL... please.
:H

 

No, I'm not an atheist for theism, I just don't see atheism and theism as a struggle of good vs. evil. Michael Newdow says he wants to have the right to raise his daughter any way he wants to. He does. What he really wants is the right to brainwash his daughter by keeping her ignorant of anyone's beliefs other than his own. The pledge of allegiance isn't coercion, it's a tradition. And it certainly isn't meant to analysed like catechism or considered like an oath. It's lip-service, and I don't really see its significance. We don't have a pledge in Canada, and if we do, I and most of the country don't know what it is. But there's nothing inherently wrong about idea, or with the words "one nation under God," or "God keep our land glorious and free." Michael Newdow is getting caught up in the PC craze, claiming to be progressive, but just being radical. His next scam will be to organize the first annual atheist pride parade. People like him treat atheism like an ideology or dogma. It's not, it's a belief system. Mostly theory, little praxis.
Atheists, I'm sure, are oppressed in some countries. I wouldn't be surprised if there were several countries in the Middle East and North Africa in which atheism is punishable by death. Here in the West, however, there is no such impression. And what "oppression" there is is of a lesser degree and infrequent.

 

Bullshit.

Any endorsement, establishment or promotion of religion by the government and other public institutions which are supposed to be fair and neutral in these matters, is a violation of the Constitution. Period.

I can site court case after court case where the Supreme Court has established this. Ever heard of the Lemon test?

Newdow doesn't want his daughter to be drenched in religious dogma by the system because the system is supposed to be respectful of all religions (including non-religious atheism).

"Under God" was ADDED to the ORIGINAL pledge by evangelical politicians. "In God We Trust" was ADDED to our currency by evangelical politicians. Neither were in the original pledge or on the original currency.

Thus, all we (as atheists) want is fairness. Take "God" out and put "Liberty and Justice For ALL" on the dollar (for instance).

No, if Newdow were an evangelical atheist he'd be pushing for "In NO God We Trust" to go on the money or "Under NO God" to go in the pledge--all he wants is fairness from the system which is supposed to be neutral in religious matters.

You don't know how he raises his daughter, pal. Besides, it's none of your business. If he wants to raise her to be an ardent atheist, that's his choice. She'll grow up and decide for herself one day.

I did.

 

Well, the pledge certainly isn't the establishment of a religion, and to call it an endorsement or promotion seems to be a bit of a stretch. The pledge certainly doesn't endorse or promote one specific denomination or sect. But does it promote religion, in general? No. I'm having a hard time seeing how this is possible. The pledge is no creed, by which I mean that someone who says the pledge isn't professing a dogma, doctrine, or faith. At its heart, they are saying that they are loyal to America, whether that entails a nation under God or not. But none of this matters because I don't care what the Constitution has to say on the matter. Same goes for your numerous court cases. I'm discussing the issue from a philosophical viewpoint, not a legal one. So, potentially the whole system is under question. Besdies, if I understand the role of the Supreme Court correctly, it's up to it to interpret the what it means to endorse, establish, or promote religion, and their interpretation is the final say on the matter. So, it seems to me that you're trying to have your Constitution and eat it, too. But, as I said before, it's still just an appeal to authority. So, it's an invalid argument anywhere but the courtroom.

Well, that's certainly one way to look at it. I suppose I'm just a little more cynical than you. I mean, a Southern Baspist could make the same argument for teaching Intelligent Design in public schools, claiming that he doesn't want his daughter to drenched in secular dogma by a system which is supposed to be respectful to all religions. I don't see how freedom of religion necessarily implies secularism, and I can see how members of radical religions can feel oppressed by a secular government.

I didn't know that. But it doesn't change anything. The status quo is still the status quo.

Then hold a referendum or however it is you handle things like that down there. Don't try to usurp the authority of the majority of Americans by taking it to the courts.

That's actually a very good argument. But I'm not convinced because obviously no court, not even in California, would make that sort of ruling. On the other hand, maybe I'm being too cynical, in this case, about Newdow's intentions.

Yes, I imagine we both did. But we obviously have some idea about how he raises his daughter. We know that he is raising her to be an atheist, and we know that he doesn't want her saying the pledge in it's current form. Maybe he doesn't want her engaging in transactions involving US dollars, either. But my exact point is that if people are not exposed to the real world, in which different people have different beliefs, then we will not be capable of making such a decision. This controversy is just another mile stone down the slippery slope.

 

Where it counts.

First he'd have to define "secular dogma" and secondly, if he wants religious teaching in school he could send his child to the numerous religious schools that are in America or just attend church everytime the door's open.

No. Majority DOES NOT rule when it comes to FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOM and RIGHTS. Can you imagine a referendum in the South in 1962 about Civil Rights????

Slippery slope? Into eliminating religion from public life? Or what? I hardly think that. The government should be neutral in all matters of religious belief. A Baptist would not want to see "In Buddha We Trust" on the dollar. Everyone but Buddhists would be alienated to a degree. So, as an atheist, I disagree with "In God We Trust". This alienates non-believers.

Buddha to a Baptist is the same as any "God" to an atheist (most of us, anyhow).
:sunglasse

 

I guess that's a question of values. So, I can't say that you're wrong. But it certainly looks like we're approaching the problem from two very different angles.

There could be many reasons why that would be impossible. Financial reasons, for example. Private schools cost money. Besides, the same thing could be said of the atheist parent. While I don't know this for a fact, it would be silly if there were a law on the books demanding that kids say the pledge in school. A secular, private school, sympathetic to Newdow, could potentially ban the pledge on school grounds. Granted, no school has ever done this, but there's no reason it couldn't be done.

I understand that. But what we are trying to determine is whether or not this is an issue of fundamental freedom and rights. If you use your conclusion as a premise in your arguments, then that's just circular.

In the long run, yes. And I don't think it's that far-fetched. Undeniably, the US government has been going in the direction of secularism, and I see no reason to believe that it will eventually strike a happy balance and stop. To go a little off topic, do you believe that the world would be a better place if we were all atheists? I've given it some thought, and I think the answer is no. The world wouldn't be a particularly worse place, either. War, poverty, and death are just a permanent part of the world.

Okay, but what's this vague concept of "alienation," and why is it the business of the government to ensure that no one is alienated.

 

The philosophical angle alone could go anywhere. That's why I use the judicial angle, because it is applicable to what IS happening. It also gives us some way to measure what constitutes what.

Agreed. But, it is not the government's business to indoctrinate with religious concepts.

I think so. I think the Lemon case determined this. Atheists have as much right to fundamental freedom and protection under the law as Theists or Deists. But, by endorsing, promoting and establishing any connection of religion with government this seriously jeopardizes that right by recognizing one belief over the other as sanctioned (in some form) by the government.

I think it is far-fetched. There's no "war" against religion by secularists. Well, most of us, anyhow. Lies about the ACLU, for instance, being "anti-religion" and such have created an illusion that ridding "God" from government would rid "God" of private institutions and society in general. THERE is your slippery slope!

Vague concept? This culture is drenched in Christianity to the core. Mostly thanks to evangelical politicians in the 1950s. Unlike you who claim to be unaffected by all the "God"-ism in America, many of us do feel alienated and second-classed by such concepts as "In God We Trust" or "Under God" (both ADDED in the 50s). We, as atheists, do NOT "trust" in any "God" nor do we feel that we are "under" such an entity. Again, why not neutral, but equal concepts such as "Liberty & Justice For All" or "Out of Many, One"? These are just examples of how I consider atheists alienated more than any other philosophy, because we are non-religious. I can list more examples, if you'd like.

 

No doubt you are far more politically-minded than me, but let's not pretend that your view is strictly legal. You are clearly concerned with ethics, for example. And if you were strictly concerned with the law, then you'd have to accept the Supreme Court's decision. But yes, you could end up almost anywhere from the philosophical angle.

Obviously not. But I don't think that's what your government is doing. It would be a stretch to call the pledge a dogma or even a belief-system. So, I don't see how it qualifies as indoctrination.

I don't know what the Lemon case is, but of course we both agree that atheists are entitled to protection and equal treatment under the law.

Well, we can't know what's going to happen in the future with certainty. So, I can't say you're wrong. But we both know that some atheists would erradicate religion if they had the power. These types are terribly misguided.

"Alienation" has many meanings. The word is used in different senses by Marxists and existentialists. I was just looking for some clarification, and your ostensive definitions have given me a pretty good idea of what you're talking about. But you haven't yet answered my second question: Why is it the government's business to ensure that no one is alienated? Another reason I asked for clarification is because everyone feels alienated in relation to something, but we usually don't make federal cases of our feelings. The fact that alienation is a feeling makes it very difficult to view particular cases objectively. If someone says he feels alienated, who are we to tell him different? So, it's easy to imagine all sorts of foolish rulings from courts if we consider a group oppressed simply because they feel alienated.

 

Just to add my two cents on the above point:

There are people from all different belief systems that would want other religions erradicated, and their's left standing. Some religions **cough*christianity*cough** have prophecies regarding this and are basically promising their followers an all christian world.

There is no organized crusade (aggressive or non) by atheists against people of other religions, but check the history of the worlds mainstream religions and you'll find they cannot make this same claim.

My point? I think by all historical accounts we can say that atheism is not a threat to other belief systems, especially once you take into account the REAL threat to other religions are and generally have been eachother. The worst an atheist is gonna do is recruit more to their belief system (and there is no organized "church" persay that spreads the message like we have with the world's mainstream beliefs). That's a lot less violent and forceful than most of religious history.

If you are going to consider athiests spreading their message a "war" what are christians doing when they go door to door trying to convert people? Are they in a war against atheist, muslim, hindu, pagan, etc...? Are they trying to erradicate other religions (well, that is a yes....)

 

Of course, I am concerned with ethics, but I side with the Supreme Court's past decision because they are aligned more with the Constitution.

By representing or promoting the entity of "God", this qualifies as sanctioning the belief in such an entity, thus unbalancing the scale of justice (fairness) between the believing citizen and non-believing citizen. I, again, site the Lemon test for clarification.

And religion wouldn't do the same? Most of the wars fought in history have been religious wars. "My God is better than your God" etc..etc. Killing in the name of atheism is hardly found anywhere. Don't say Soviet Russia, because Stalin killed in the name of his tyrannical form of State Communism, not atheism. I will go out on a limb and say that an atheist-majority of citizens would be even MORE compassionate than most religions based on "love".

WHY should the government see to it no one is alienated?? We are not speaking of private property. The government should see to it that no one is alienated when it comes to itself. That's what it's all about! JUSTICE.

In America we are guaranteed (each one of us) LIBERTY (freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution) and JUSTICE (equal treatment by the governing bodies and the law) for ALL (not just religious believers).

To say that an atheist is not somehow alienated by the syrupy god-ism of the mention of "God" everywhere is one thing, but the GOVERNMENT--the public system-- should NOT be where any religion is espoused. It carries the banner of being equal for all. The money an atheist spends shouldn't give praise to a "God" any more than the money a Christian spends should curse a "God". It should be fair across the board.

 

I'm confused. I thought the Supreme Court ruled in favour of those who defend keeping "under God" in the pledge.

And I still don't know what the Lemon test is. But anyway, I'm not sure where you get these definitions from. They are clearly not "representing" God because that would mean that they are claiming to speak on God's behalf, like the Pope, for example. If one "promotes" a belief, then that person encourages others to adopt that belief. That may be what's going on here. But then again, one could argue that states that refuse to teach ID in schools are promoting evolutionism, which is inconsistent with the beliefs of some churches. But that doesn't change the fact that ID is false. So, a line clearly has to be drawn somewhere. But it's your use of the word "sanction" that I really dislike. It's really a very sloppy word because it ranges from merely "granting permission" to implications of coecion. Now naturally, people are to be "granted permission" to talk about God. But is the pledge coercive? To what extent? And is it acceptable? After all, all governments are in some way coercive.

Yes, some religious people would like to wipe atheism off the face of the earth and all other religions with it. But that's still no excuse for the over-militant atheists out there. I was actually going to site the Jacobin Terror and their Church of Nature, or whatever that psychopath called it.

But people do feel alienated in relation to the government, when a proposition someone votes for doesn't pass, for example. That's not a civil rights issue, it's democracy.

 

I am not too sure about what you are talking about here. I am referring to the numerous cases where the Court decided (and rightfully so) to separate "church" and "state". I can list the cases, if you want the sources.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). One of the tenets of the test was the government's principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion.

You doubt that a government established currency which states "In God We Trust" (national "motto") is promoting a belief (in God)? I am sorry, but this fails to register with my common sense, Common Sense. You also doubt that the ADDITION of "Under God" is not doing the same thing here? Are atheist citizens not part of the same nation? Why, then, should they be subject to such obvious endorsement of THEISM? You think a Christian would feel the same way if the pledge said "Under No God(s)" or "In NO God We Trust"? We, as atheists, are not asking to change these things to atheistic statements, just neutral statements-- ALL inclusive.

ID is a religious doctrine. It is inconsistent with SCIENCE. Sure, teach it in philosophy class if you want, but public schools should stick to science not religion.

You are worried about "over-militant" atheists?!? Ha ha! What's that? Much less than 1% of the world's population? Michael Newdow is NOT a "militant" atheist. What kind of an atheist are you, anyway? You sure defend theism vehemently.

THIS IS a fundamental freedom issue. NOT a democratic MAJORITY RULES issue! You can sit down and let theists override the Constitution and smirk all you want, but at least people like Newdow are standing up for Atheists' EQUAL RIGHTS not to be treated as Second-Class citizens! I applaud Newdow and I am glad that there are atheists out there that stand up for their rights. The reason that "God" saturates our society is that atheists like you "don't care" and even defend theistic stances EVEN when they are blatantly obvious PRO-theist in our government! That confuses and saddens me.

If this is the case, I wish there were more Newdows and less "Common Sense"-type atheists. For someone who seems very intelligent (as I believe you are), this type of argumentation and attitude truly stuns me.

 

That's not necessary, I understand now. I got confused because of the Supreme Court ruling in supporting the pledge. The problem was I didn't know which case(s) you were refering to.

My point is that a distinction can be drawn between actually pushing a consistent belief system on people and a series of largely empty words, like "In God we trust" or "under God." The latter scarcely asserts anything at all, while the former does so to the point of dogmatism. The former should not be permitted, but the latter is okay. And yes, adding "under God" to the pledge is the same thing. If I were alive in the 50's, I probably would have opposed it. Today, however, it's the status quo.

Even if it were taught in philosophy classes, the point still stands. In that case, atheists again would be alienated. If I understand your position correctly, anything that alienates others should not be endorsed by the government. That means that philosophy and religious studies should not be taught in public schools, which I think is a real shame. Anything controversial, anything that people disagree about, is a potential source of alienation.

I understand that they are only a small portion of the population but that doesn't make them somehow immune to criticism. Second, I don't see this as an issue of theists against atheists, I see it as an issue of ethics, democracy, and political correctness gone too far, the last of which I do vehemently oppose. If a theist came here and wrote a post defending the existence of God, I'd oppose him, and that's what I thought was the only criterion for being an atheist.

I'm not on the atheist "side." I'm not on the theist "side." I'm on my side, and I certainly don't feel like a second-class citizen.

Well, you can relax. I don't even live in your country. This is just an intellectual exercise for me. I don't even feel very strongly about the issue one way or the other, since it's really none of my business and won't effect me in the least. However, since you clearly do feel very strongly about this issue and I respect your opinion, good luck fighting the good fight.

 

whoever this person is i fail to see why we should be concerned about individual personalities here. as for claiming athiests are not oppressed in western society i find that a bit of a stretch. any time it takes an act of heroism to be objectively honest, i at least, and somehow i suspect i am far from alone in this, i would call that tyranny. reguardless of idiology, economics or belief. also i question this use of the phrase "civilized society". WHAT civilized society? where?

whenever i see someone being attack, as this thread starts out doing, i have to ask myself what has so moved the attacker to doing so.

if you're selling watchtowers go stand on the corner with your brats like the rest of them.

isn't it just a tiney bit self contradictory to call a government "christian" or any other dog'mian, while trying to pretend at the same time that it respects the dignity and integrity of fallowers of all faiths and no faith, let alone without bias or coersion?

privelidged? priveledged to live where it is frowned upon not to endorse the very priorities that are destroying everything that is worth a dam, and more then frowned upon if nothing is done to reverse the trend of doing so?

 

It depends on what part of western society you mean. We(atheists) aren't oppressed in Western Europe really, but theres a lot still in the U.S. Granted, in the more liberal areas this isn't really present.. But there are still vast areas in this country where you'd be possibly taking your life into your own hands by openly revealing your an atheist in public.

I don't openly reveal it or talk about it where i live; I genuinely fear physical assault or worse.