Man who sued to stop pledge explains reasons for suit

SF Chronicle via AP ^ | 6/26/02 | STEFANIE FRITH

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow said Wednesday he was trying to restore the Pledge of Allegiance to its pre-1954 version because no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't believe.

But if the threatening messages on his answering machine are any indication, the American public is not thanking him.

[aristeides]

I suspect he moved from Florida to California because he knew he would have a better shot with the Ninth Circuit.

[I Luv Bush]

Real reason: He's a Fundamentalist Atheist who wants to force his beliefs on everyone else and suppress free speech and free thought.

Appy, I agree with you. I continue to be amazed that the only "compromise" that atheists are willing to accept is the one that allows them to get 100% of what they want. The guy's daughter might be forced to listen to something she doesn't believe in? She's in SECOND GRADE. She wasn't forced to say it--she just might HEAR it!! Un--frigging--believable.

[elephantlips]

If he thought that his daughter felt out of place reciting the pledge, wait until she gets back to school this fall. At least her problem was within herself, now everybody knows. Thanks, dad.

[mjf]

You know,... I hope they just keep saying it, right there in school, and I hope they come to know why it is a statement of love for a country which is not duplicated on the face of this earth.

I'd like to see and meet those who would arrest them.

Courts do not make law. The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America said "Congress shall make no law,..."

These FOOLS in the Judicial Branch think there is something in the Constitution of the United States of America that says something about a separation between Church and State.

I'd ask them, "where is this clause?".

It's not there.

It says in modern terms, "leave it alone you government bast@rds!" It's pretty straight forward.

So when did the Judiciary decide that they could make new laws anyway?

[prov1813man]

By what device were you able to devine that you are "more patriotic" than the rest of us ?

Aside from the fact that your premise regarding the "separation of Church and state" is wholly unfounded I would challenge the Idea that atheists don't believe in God.

You do believe in God, you just think you're Him. God being the Supreme Being, if there is none above you, then you're it. Must be why atheists are so nervous and trying to control the rest of us.

[rwfromkansas]

How was Jefferson attending church IN CONGRESS 3 days after writing his Danbury letter an example of his support for a radical separation of church and state like we have now? How is his giving federal financial aid to missionaries to spread Christianity to the Indians an example of separation of church and state? Explain these, and I will listen. Otherwise, I will continue to assert my statement as many times as conservatives on FR are misguided on this matter due to the 50 years of crazy court rulings.

[ijcr]

Pray tell, why can't I smoke a cigarette in a federal building, after all I am a minority,I pay extra taxes and indulge in a legal habit? These non smokers are an angry mob majority.

[Utopia]

It appears he did not seek damages

I stand corrected. Thanks for putting me straight. I got the opposite impression from an interview with him.

Ok - so the guy is doing this for ... his health? ... This has got to cost a pretty penny, what lawyer would take it on spec particularly since there was no award to gain by it? Who's financing this guy? If it cost Rummy in excess of $65,000 to file conflict of interest forms with the Government, what did it cost this guy to launch his "I hate America crusade?"

[monday]

"Is school itself unconstitutional?"

Public school is.

[TheOtherOne]

Judges who ruled Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional:

NAME: Alfred T. Goodwin
AGE: 78
EDUCATION: University of Oregon School of Law, 1951
OFFICE: Pasadena, Calif.
APPOINTMENT: President Nixon, 1971
EXPERIENCE: Oregon Supreme Court justice

NAME: Stephen Reinhardt
AGE: 71
EDUCATION: Yale Law School, 1954
OFFICE: Los Angeles
APPOINTMENT: President Carter, 1980
EXPERIENCE: Private practice, Los Angeles

Dissenting judge:
NAME: Ferdinand F. Fernandez
AGE: 65
EDUCATION: Harvard Law School, 1963
OFFICE: Pasadena, Calif.
APPOINTMENT: President Bush, 1989
EXPERIENCE: Federal judge in Los Angeles

AP-ES-06-26-02 2158EDT

[Revel]

The founding documents to not state that America is not a Christian nation. It is. It does not state that you will never have to listen to statements made by Christians. You do. They simply mean that no one can force you to practice any particular religion. On the other hand it does not even give you the right to practice a religion that is destructive to society...such as Satanism. Because that goes against all the laws of this nation. Those original laws are all founded on Christian principles. That is because it was intended that this was a Christian nation. Personally I don't think the founders ever envisioned all the crap that would come about in these Godless times. I think they were referring to things more along the lines that the government can't force you to be Catholic vs Protestant. More along those lines. And if you are an atheist they can't force you to be Christian. But they can still force you to follow the laws of this nation. And they were Christian. So you do not have the right to basically tell Christians to shut up in a public place. If you don't agree then you can even say so...But you don't have the right to twist every thing to try and take God out of this nation. That is what has been happening and what do we have now. We have a sewer of a country and it is getting worse all the time. Crime is sky-rocketing. Spousal cheating is souring. Aids is souring. Children are killing there parents. Parents are killing there children. Heck people are eating each other. People are becoming completely self centered. You can't leave your doors unlocked. You can't walk down the streets safely in places that you always could.
And all the while more and more ridiculous laws are being made that take away all your constitutional rights. Laws to watch you...control you and punish you very seriously for things that were not even a crime back then. Like you could get more time for cheating the IRS than for murder. And you call a decision like this a return to freedom. WRONG... What this causes is a destruction of the very code that allowed us to be free. Exactly opposite of what this guy is claiming. This is overall a great net loss of your freedom in the end. All you have to do is look around and notice that since God and the Ten commandments have been thrown out the whole country is self destruction.
Even those that claim to be Christian often don't practice the moral codes of there religion because it has been so cheapened. Now it is the financial corruption that is bringing us down even more. All because there is no moral code left...No fear of the ultimate judgment. And in my personal opinion also because God is turning his back on a nation of people who no longer follow him over all.

[aristeides]

Another argument for recess appointments!

[mjf]

You know what I'm thinking?

The best thing about this is that children usuallly rebel against their parents. This may be a good time for a rebellion!

[bannedonce]

Then why didn't they plaster God throughout? Because reasonable people prevailed.

[rwfromkansas]

Was Jefferson violating his own separation of church and state when he went to church (yes, I understand he was a deist in reality) in CONGRESS.....a government building...3 days after writing the Danbury letter (reported on the Library of Congress site)? Was his violating his separation of church and state by giving money to Christian missionaries?

I have no intention of going into a bit pissy fit here, but I wanted to mention those to issues. I have about 50 pages of mostly primary source information. And my opinions don't rely on the mostly false quotes so often used by Christian conservatives to "prove" their point. They are interesting valid quotes AND events that I have found.

[Publius6961]

"People have to consider what if they were in the minority religion and the majority religion was overpowering them.

A neurotic emergency room doctor?
Hmmmm.

Would a normal person consider listening to anything as a means for others to "overpower" him?
I don't think so.
If I can tune out rap noise while driving around town, certainly, with very little effort... never mind.

Being a professional whiner takes a special type of personality.

[sport]

Ref. your post # 36.
I agree and throw dan rather in to boot.

[aristeides]

Newdow isn't just an M.D., he also has a law degree from the University of Michigan. I wonder what he had in mind, getting both those degrees.

[rwfromkansas]

I am not feeling to charitable to this guy and am venting.

But, about the issue at hand, how does a Pledge, in which one can simply skip the words "under God," violate a person's rights?

Furthermore, if you can provide the following, I will begin to believe the Pledge is unconstitutional for having "under God":

1) historical evidence that "under God" is unconstitutional *evidence from the founding to the year 1900 in a continuous stream of similar attitudes against religion in the public sphere*
2) judicial precedents from the same time period, both at the state and national level
3) citations from the Constitution and founding fathers to support your position
4) Actions of the founding fathers in positions of power that support your position

[muawiyah]

No doubt this guy belongs in the Navy lockup in Charleston with Mr. Padilla, and the two judges who made the ruling.

How long, how long until "W" picks these guys up?