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.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Well, I am tired of it too, but I think we would just have to disagree about how t should be dealt with.

.....or maybe we are disagreeing with what it is we are seeing.

I think their agenda is plain to see. I'm not talking about fighting them over some trivial matter when the time comes. I'm talking about a long standing pattern evolving from Political Correctness to the outright Orwellian tactics of the leftists in this country.

Are you surprised that a liberal court issued such a ruling?

Will you be surprised when some leftist judge issues a ruling denying you the right to vote if you are a Christian, because it 'violates' the separation of church and state?

Will you be surprised when they issue any proclamation they want to, barring Christians from all aspects from public life?

Anybody.......will you be surprised?

[He Rides A White Horse]

I've not seen any organized effort to prohibit individuals from expressing their religious beliefs.

Go back to sleep Dimensio. Or is that Rip Van Winkle.

[Dimensio]

So rather than respond to my post with an example of evidence to the contrary of my statement you simply tell me to "go back to sleep". Well, you've certainly made a brilliant case.

I'll just state it again. I've not seen any organized effort to prohibit individuals from expressing their religious beliefs.

[Dimensio]

Well, I would be surprised.

I was checking alt.atheism last night. The long-standing problem that the denizens of alt.atheism had with the "under god" wording as well as the IGWT wording on paper currency was the implication that those who did not believe in a god were somehow less of a citizen -- the IGWT on bills implied that those who do not trust in God are not part of "we". The fear was that the wording would be used to support the notion that this country should revere a specific religion and that non-believers should be considered second-class citizens if citizens at all.

For some reason I'm seeing a parallel between their fears and many of the emotional reactions from the posters here at FR, even though the fears themselves are markedly different.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Play your little game. It's like I said, I don't care if you get it. Or pretend not to get it. Like you folks always do.

I would encourage others to ignore the likes of you.

Dimensio can't see the evidence, he's been asleep for the last twenty years of political correctness. Dimensio thinks because we are not appealing to his 'superior' liberal mindset, we're wrong, and therefore can't do anything about his kind.

Keep thinking like that, lib.

[DJ88]

"Really? I hadn't noticed that. I've heard a lot of people whining about how this ruling somehow forbids anyone from uttering the pledge of allegiance with the "under god" insertion, but I'm intelligent enough to know that those people are either lying or they haven't actually looked at the ruling."

Have you read the ruling????? The judge in CA RULED that because the Pledge of Allegiance has the words "UNDER GOD" in it, it is a violation of the "separation of church and state" and therefore it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is now ILLEGAL to say it in any public funded place, including schools, parks, stadiums, etc.

ILLEGAL means AGAINST THE LAW. Get it?

While you guys are sitting here arguing your pitiful points, our nation is RISING UP and telling the MEN AND WOMEN WHO RESIDE IN WASHINGTON THAT WE ARE NOT TAKING THIS POLITICAL CORRECTNESS CRAPOLA ANYMORE.

And if you ask me, it's about time Americans got off their butts and started telling our lawmakers that we are NOT gonna stand for some punk in CA or the judges out there telling US what we can and cannot do. As a matter of fact, my kids go to Catholic school, and Oh my Lord...yes, the recite the Pledge of Allegiance everyday, they say the Our Father, the prayer of St. Francis of Assisi, the Hail Mary. I pay for them to be able to do this, however, my tax money also goes to public schools and therefore, as a taxpayer, I have every right to have my voice heard on this issue, and I have every intention of doing so.

And, one other thing: if it isn't such a big deal, then why does every talk show on this morning, every tv show this morning have this as their top story? For goodness sakes, even MSNBC is laughing at this ruling. Now that is progress.

[TheLooseThread]

"Mighty white and Christian of you."

You are a racist.

[Dimensio]

The judge in CA RULED that because the Pledge of Allegiance has the words "UNDER GOD" in it, it is a violation of the "separation of church and state" and therefore it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is now ILLEGAL to say it in any public funded place, including schools, parks, stadiums, etc.

Uh, no, the ruling was that it cannot be uttered as a function of the school. That means that a teacher cannot say it as part of an official public school event, however it does not prevent a student, a teacher or the school principal from uttering it on their own time even while in a public school building. It certainly wouldn't be illegal for me or for anyone else to go to a public park and say "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of American, and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Like I have said before, people are too busy criticizing a misinterpretation of the ruling to actually bother to understand the real implications of the ruling and you are going to have a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over something that isn't there -- of course, that won't stop the Legislature from doing something about this nonexistent problem.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Keep thinking it as you board the plane, bound for the Third World hellhole you and your friends will be calling 'home'.

[Dimensio]

Oh yes, my opposition to gun control, my stance on abortion, my opinion of what should be done with illegal immigrants and my absoute contempt for the welfare system surely brand me as a typical liberal.

You know, I'd stop saying such bothersome things if you would actually present evidence that contradicts my statement. What organized efforts in the past twenty years have been an attempt to stifle individual expression of religious beliefs?

[Dimensio]

Once again, all bluster and no facts to the contrary...

Why would we want to be boarding a plane to a Third World hellhole? Oh, wait, I know -- there's an organized effort to have all non-believers deported! See, I can play the paranoia game too!

[He Rides A White Horse]

Oh, wait, I know -- there's an organized effort to have all non-believers would be totalitarians deported!

There. All fixed.

[Dimensio]

So why are the denizens of alt.atheism (those that live in the US) wrong about their paranoia regarding "under god" and IGWT on paper currency wrong and you correct with your paranoia regarding an establishment of "Neuremburg laws"?

Also, what significant event in the past twenty years (or even fifty years) has been an organized effort to stifle individual expression of religious belief?

[He Rides A White Horse]

Have you read the ruling????? The judge in CA RULED that because the Pledge of Allegiance has the words "UNDER GOD" in it, it is a violation of the "separation of church and state" and therefore it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and is now ILLEGAL to say it in any public funded place, including schools, parks, stadiums, etc.

ILLEGAL means AGAINST THE LAW. Get it?

Dimensio, you simply want to play games.

DJ88, tell me 'pitiful' point I am arguing? That the likes of Dimensio deserved to be ignored? As he sits there and confirms every single thing I am saying about him and his friends..........?

[Dimensio]

I want to play games? I'm pointing out the difference between the actual implication of the ruling and what people seem to think that it implies when it really doesn't. How is that a game? What have I "confirmed" about myself and my "friends"?

Do you actually have any facts to counter me or do you just want to insult me? You are apparently asserting that there is an organized attack on individual expression of religious belief in this country. I'm asking for evidence of said attack, and you so far haven't offered anything apart from claiming that I've been asleep for the past twenty years. Belittling my skepticism of your claims does not strengthen your position.

[Delbert]

There are no atheists in heaven , There are several atheists that go to hell. But once they get there they are no longer Atheist. They do believe, but it's too late.
A few thousand years of wailing and gnashing of teeth will change this clowns tune!

[Howlin]

Ahhh,Howlin,you are reverting to type. It's all about "belonging",isn't it?

Only in your mind. What a pitiful reply.

[browardchad]

South Florida is insane bump.

Hey, at least the guy had the sense to move to Kalifornia -- so I guess we haven't descended to the morass of the 9th District -- yet.;>)

Newdow also tried to sue the SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, on the grounds that he intended to move there, and put his daughter in school. (A little forward-looking lawyering, which I'm surprised wasn't upheld by the 9th District as yet another victory for judicial activism.)

I hope he enjoys living in something like the witness protection program, since he seems to have picked the wrong time to make his America-bashing stand.

[Khepera]

Wanna bet he disappears sometime in the near future never to be found.

[Dimensio]

There are no atheists in heaven , There are several atheists that go to hell. But once they get there they are no longer Atheist. They do believe, but it's too late. A few thousand years of wailing and gnashing of teeth will change this clowns tune!

Can you support this assertion with evidence?