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.

[JessicaDragonet]

Why is the left always so intolerant?

Did you know that the word "Left" in latin means sinister?

[bannedonce]

As an atheist, I have to respond to the comments on this post:
First of all, you would think conservatives would support a return to the pre-1954 pledge which I support. I loved the wording of the pledge before it descecrated with religion. I'm a veteran and more patriotic than any of you. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 'Under God' is an establishment of religion. Someone mentioned if they were the minority religion they would leave...our constitution protects ALL of us, even the smallest of minorities against the "angry mob' majority. I would love to know if this person follows through on his word when in 50-100 years from now Islam is the majority religion.
How is this man taking away your freedoms? Your free speech? If you want your children indoctrinized in religion, try church.
The man has received death threats and threats of violence? How Christian of these people. Oh wait...violence is a popular theme in Christianity. Finally, you attack his sexual orientation and his funny name...
I guess when you can't win an arguement with logic, try name calling.

[Lady Jag]

squeaky wheels get the grease

It use to be majority rules. What happened to that?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

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

I would like for this Clymer, Michael Newdow to define "overpowering".

I think he's overstating things a bit.

[rwfromkansas]

Well, they could, but that would be supporting a stupid ruling. 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

[jackbill]

Let's see if the Lame-assed Republicans can make something of this. The DemocRATs on the Senate Judiciary Committee - Leahy, Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, et al, complain that President Bush's nominations to the federal courts are not "MAINSTREAM" judges. The two judges who decided this case are what Leahy, Durbin, Schumer, Feingold, et al consider to be MAINSTREAM".

The question that the Republicans should be asking in every Senatorial race this year is: "Is this the kind of judge that you want?"

[artios]

He said "it was wrong to require her to listen to it when she doesn't believe in it, " - So does that mean I don't have to be subjected to the filth that he spues out? Can I make HIM unconstitutional? Can I make the liberals and the NEA and Paul Wellstone unconsitutional becuase I should not have to be subject to hearing things I don't believe in?

[IamHD]

LOL!

[TheOtherOne]

It only took me 37 posts until there was one with some logic. Thank you. There are some issues that seem to cause temporary blindness.

"Too much light often blinds gentlemen of this sort. They cannot see the forest for the trees."

[rwfromkansas]

I have tried to find the loser's phone number. I haven't had luck, but apparently some in CA know it since he has been getting phone calls. Here's hoping to some assault and battery on the guy.

[Doc On The Bay]

ALAS!! .......You're probably Correct!!

The "Atheists" have "Mutated" into a "Certifiable Religious Belief System!," & are due NO MORE RIGHTS than the "Rest of Us!!" "ONE NATION, UNDER GOD...." is NOT a Religious Statement, it is a Statement of Cultural Humility!! WE (OUR NATION) are stating that there are Forces "Beyond our Control" which seem to have conspired to give us the extraordinary gift of Self Determination!!

Our "Pledge" simply acknowleges that we MAY BE "Beholden to" "POWERS" that we do not understand!

Our "Forefathers" reconned that our Survival as an Independant Nation HAD to be "Divinely Ordained!!"

.......HENCE,..."One Nation, Under God!!......"

In the "Pledge," the "Under God" reference was an acknowlegement of the Possible Intervention of a Deity in the GREAT GOOD FORTUNE that we ( a Horribly Flawed Collection of Warring Beings) had SOMEHOW managed to create a Civilized Society!!

"One Nation Under God" has NO "Religious" Connotations!!

Any unfortunate soul who thinks that America promotes ANY Religion is in SERIOUS NEED of Psychiatric Counselling!!

Doc

[John W]

What do you make of the God and Creator references that the Founding Fathers included in the Declaration of Independence?

[Illbay]

...no one should be forced to worship a religion in which they don't believe.

What religion? What worship?

Mahatma Gandhi's last words were "Oh, God."

The term "God" is generic; it can mean Allah, Jehovah, the Pancreator, The Deity, whatever "God" means in your mind.

Secondly, this man, and atheist, certainly has no trouble forcing US to "worship" at HIS altar. Atheism is nihilism; it is the worship of NOTHING. Since he wants to replace "God" with "Nothing" I submit he is forcing HIS religion on US.

I tell you, this ruling is going to be as far reaching in galvanizing public opinion and action as Roe v. Wade. There is going to be a sea-change, I fully believe that. People who care are sick and tired of being pushed around by a micro-minority.

Watch the tidal wave erupt.

[rwfromkansas]

Look, ignorant fool, 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

[JennysCool]

I bet she has a swell day at school when she goes back.

Poor kid, anyway. Mostly for having a father who uses her as a tool to advance his own agenda. That's unforgiveable in my book.

[Illbay]

I don't think he realizes WHAT lawsuits are going to do the "hopping off," though. His pissant little crowd is NOTHING compared to that of the activist people of faith in this nation. Now they're riled. He's going to be shocked at what happens next.

[rwfromkansas]

On another thread, it has been reported the Senate Repub group will be sending memos to all Repub senators, urging them to support defying the order. Also, the memo will be supporting pressing the judicial nomination issue for the fall campaign. Also, the White House has said the Justice Department will be looking at seeing how to stop this ruling.

[rwfromkansas]

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

[Alabama_Wild_Man]

Just watched that Godless, moronic, spineless weasel on H&C - That one is a prime candidate for the "Living Darwin Award".

Wanted to start his suit because he 'was buying soap and noticed that his money had 'In God We Trust' on it and wanted it removed - but, thought that he had a better case by attacking a Public (Read: Tax Payer Funded) School.

PLEASE !! - -- - Is there anyone that explain to this dumm old country boy just where this "Mandate of Seperation of Church and State" is in our Nation's Constitution ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

As I understand it - it was only a idea of Thomas Jefferson's written in a letter to the Danberry Church. . . and, as far as I know, that particular letter wasn't included (in whole or in part) in either of the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights or the United States’ Constitution . . .