Posted on 07/01/2002 12:02:46 PM PDT by Stand Watch Listen
In a perfect world, we could take a horsewhip to Michael Newdow.
Who?
Michael Newdow, a Sacramento physician and atheist who wants to remove any and all mention of God from society.
Newdow is the horse’s ass who filed a federal suit against having students recite the Pledge of Allegiance in school.
His case went before the Federal Appeals Court for the 9th District, a collection of left-wing California-based loonies who routinely make a mockery of the law. The court holds the current record for having decisions overturned
They upheld Newdow’s lawsuit and ruled the Pledge unconstitutional because it contains the words “under God,” thereby violating the laws of separation of church and state.
Legal scholars and politicians alike gasped at the ludicrous verdict, predicting it would take a higher court about 14 seconds, at most, to tell the 9th District to stick their decision where the sun never shines.
Newdow never got a chance to celebrate his so-called victory. The day after it issued the stupid ruling, the same court stayed the decision, pending appeal. Even the most ardent civil libertarians admit the short-lived decision doesn’t stand a chance in hell of ever becoming law.
This, of course, pissed Newdow off big time. He plans not only to keep fighting to rid schools of the horrid pledge, but wants any and all mention of God stripped forever from society.
“Our money says ‘In God We Trust’ on it,” Newdow says. “That’s also unconstitutional.”
If anything should be unconstitutional, it should be Newdow and his blithering idiocy. The man should be horsewhipped, at the very least, and – even better – castrated so that he can’t bring any more children into his Godless view of the world.
Newdow already has a daughter that he exploited for his so-called legal crusade, saying the teacher-led pledge forced God on her young mind (we can only hope something is bringing God into her world since she isn’t getting any religious reality at home).
If I could find a way to file child abuse charges against Newdow, I’d gladly pay a lawyer to do so. In a perfect world, such things would be possible.
But this ain’t a perfect world. It’s an imperfect system called Democracy where even lunatics like Michael Newdow can spout his atheist rants under the full protection of the very constitution that he wants to gut.
Newdow doesn’t believe in God. Unfortunately, that’s his right. I don’t like it, but in a free society, I have to live with it.
I also don’t like lunatic judges who let fanatics like Newdow twist the law to serve their disruptive agendas. Fortunately, we can count of cooler heads to, once again, toss another stupid legal decision into the scrap bin of irrelevance.
And I can live with the knowledge that both Newdow and the 9th District Federal Court is in California, where lunacy is both legal and an accepted lifestyle.
As long as Newdow stays in California, everything is cool.
If he comes East, I’ve got a horse whip handy.(Doug Thompson is the founder of Capitol Hill Blue. The Rant appears whenever the mood suits him)
But you should note that the horse whipping comes first. The best part is always left for last.
I'll be standing by with my magnifying glass. Give a holler when it's time.
I found nothing "liberal" in his post. Which statements show him a liberal?
As opposed to violating the Constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment, I'd much prefer amending the Constitution to allow recall or term limits on the Federal Judges who issue stupid rulings such as the 9th Circuit did last week.
I'm willing to allow God to deal with the fool who filed the case. I wouldn't give him the satifaction of a moment of my attention.
Second, at the risk of being branded a liberal athiest commie-lover etc., I have only two comments:
This is the most-overruled court in the country at that level, but even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn!
If this makes you a liberal, I'm Teddy "Swimmer" Kennedy.
Where can I get the 'stated reasons'. I listened this morning on a local radio program to the 90 year-old Minister who gave the sermon that lead Ike to introduce the bill adding 'under God' in 1954. He was still very alert. He was asked if the word God meant the Juedo-Christian God and he strongly said no and he even explained that in his sermon all those years ago. When the bill was introduced, he was deluged with requests from Congress for copies of that sermon and he delivered them. The idea was totally non-deniminational. It could be any God. He said that he thought the words were appropriate because this nation was founded on principles derived from higher authority and he saw the word God as the universal expression of that higher power.
My understanding is that he is an operating room technician, turned lawyer/"Professional Atheist". Nothing wrong with being an atheist, not a in free society, but there is something wrong with forcing everyone else to cater to your beliefs, or lack thereof. The pledge was long ago made optional, again proper in a free society, but to foribid it, especially considering that one can merely pause while everyone else is saying "under God", is a violation of the second part of the first amendment's strictures on government and religion, the one that reads "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
When exactly did local schools, which were once entities almost completely separate from even local or state governments, let alone the federal one, become "Congress" or even government? I think it was about the same time they started going downhill as educational establishments.
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.