Here's a start:
Posted on 11/13/2005 10:28:07 PM PST by Jacob Kell
Michael Newdow, perhaps America's best known atheist, has a new target in his personal war against God in the public culture: "In God We Trust" on U.S. money.
"I am about to file to get 'In God We Trust' off the front of our currency," he told the Oklahoman. "I plan to do that this week."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Here's a start:
Related thread here. Why did you excerpt a WND story?
Michael Newdow, perhaps America's best known atheist, has a new target in his personal war against God in the public culture: "In God We Trust" on U.S. money.
"I am about to file to get 'In God We Trust' off the front of our currency," he told the Oklahoman. "I plan to do that this week."
Newdow, of Sacramento, Calif., made the remarks Saturday night shortly before addressing the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma Foundation Bill of Rights Celebration.
Michael Newdow"The key principle is that we're supposed to treat everybody equally especially in terms of religious belief," Newdow told KWTV in Oklahoma City. "Clearly it's not treating atheists equal with people who believe in God when you say 'In God We Trust' or we are a 'nation under God.'"
"People say, 'Are you an atheist activist?' And I'm not," he continued. "I couldn't care less what anyone believes. I just care that our government treats everybody equally."
In September, a federal judge in Sacramento ruled the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is unconstitutional.
The pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God," said U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton.
Karlton granted legal standing to two families represented by Newdow, who lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.
The judge, nominated to his seat by President Carter in 1979, said he was bound by the precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' in 2002, which favored Newdow.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Newdow's case 8-0 because he did not have legal standing to represent his daughter, who is under sole custody of her mother.
In January, however, Newdow filed a complaint in federal court in Sacramento, Calif., with eight new co-plaintiffs, seeking to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds it violates the so-called "separation of church and state."
I didn't know it was already posted.
He thinks he is on a roll
"In God We Trust" is our national motto.
Maybe Newdow needs to go to some atheistic country, like China or North Korea.
On July 30, 1956 it became our official National Motto.
On July 24, 2000 the U.S. House of Representatives (106 Congress)
unanimously passed a resolution (H. Res. 548) encouraging the display of our
National Motto in all public
buildings and classrooms in the nation.
Excerpt from http://www.afaofpa.org/in_god_we_trust.htm
I suppose I'll ping this out tomorrow.
Newdow looks like a crosseyed fat weasel.
As an agnostic, I really wish this guy would get a life.
Loser pays.
Would he rather see "In Government We Trust"? "Trust in Nothing"?
What's wrong with wnd?
"Mind Your Business" worked well for the Continental Congress.
This may sound like a joke, but does anyone here have enough background in the law to know if we can sue this guy in a class action lawsuit for the taxpayer money he has wasted? Seriously... Then, anytime he so much as breathes the whisper of wanting to have another lawsuit for ANYTHING,we sue him again? Enough is enough-----
Geez- I'd even be willing to testify that he causes me high blood pressure therefore shortening my life ( reducing my real income ) and causes my wife and I emotional distress as I am always having to talk myself out of breaking something whenever I see his name in print.... ( which of course, makes my wife wonder if I'm losing my marbles) :-)
Nice pic :) (good material for fireplace!)
If I had a dime for every time the better half and I squabbled over a thread on FR..
having recently met a gentleman who claims to know this newdow character, i was quite surprised by what he told me. and then upon reflecting, i was not surprised at all. it appears mr newdow has taken on this crusade in order to punish society for the treatment he recieved when he was divorced. as you can see, the supreme court said he cannot represent his daughter. his friend told me this is exactly why he is going to pursure all avenues of punishing society until he gets his way. i believe in god, however, the family laws in this country absolutely crucify the man usually. again, im not defending mr newdow, but this is an interesting motivation for his actions if true. we often see men go beserk and end up killing divorce attys and ex wives, i would think this angle on mr newdow needs to be explored, if it is true. i am not sure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
