Mom: Daughter in Pledge Case Worships God

Fox News ^ | 7/11/02

[marshmallow]

SAN FRANCISCO

[flyervet]

Please do not change the subject or ask for my opinion regarding others. We are discussing Michael Newdow.

Yes, we are. Michael Newdow, a man who moved 3,000 miles to be near his daughter and pays nearly double his income in child support, whom you somehow consider to be a bad father. Darrell Scott is a man so obsessed with his daughter's death that he formed a ministry which has him away from home nearly 100% of the time, taking him away from his other children. I certainly wouldn't want to compre them either!

I don't think he's doing the right thing, as you say, if he's the cause of his daughter's grief.

How do we know his daughter has grief?

Is he even considering what all this is doing to her?

He did take her to court with him, and he's done his best to shield her in his interviews, taking total responsibility for the heat from the lawsuits. It sounds like he is thinking about his daughter.

No, all he can think of is how this affects him. He's got his moment in the sun, and at his daughter's expense. Don't tell me he's not enjoying his 15 minutes of fame...now he wants to be immortal. It's not enough for him to be...shall we say...infamous??

Tell me, does it hurt to make that many assumptions in such a short time?

Neither you nor I can get inside Michael Newdow's head and know to a certainty what his motivations and inspirations are. In the abscence of psychic abilities we are forced to deal with the facts and opinions as are reported. Anything else is pure speculation.

And yes, perhaps I am biased, but only because I know first-hand what it is like to be a daughter living with an abusive father, and this man cuts it way too close.

How do you know he "cuts it way too close"? The mother cerainly hasn't gone on record with accusations of abuse.

Or do you consider filing lawsuits to be a form of abuse? And if so, why aren't the parents in the Ohio school vouchers case abusive?

Considering that you are constantly taking his side and defending him, even at the cost of looking bad yourself--as evidenced from some of the replies I've been reading on this thread--leads me to these conclusions; either you know this man personally, and/or you believe in his cause--which is fine. For all I know, maybe you're Mr. Newdow himself.

Wait a minute. You know intimately the secret motivations and inner family life of a man you only know through media appearances. You are privy to his private thoughts and feelings, and not only that, you know to an absolute certainty his motivations and desires. So why does your mojo stop working on someone you're actually communicating with?

Oh wait, I think I figured it out.

:-)

However, others don't necessarily agree in this opinion forum and you are really going nowhere trying to convince them to think otherwise. We've already seen and experienced enough of this guy to last a lifetime.

I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I just enjoy defending the underdog, especially one doing such an admirable job as a father. However, judging by my Freepmail, I am making remarkable, if unintentional, headway with a number of people. And clearly you personally haven't seen and experienced enough of Michael Newdow, considering the energy you have expended on him. Moreover, judging by the number of responses posts about him attract way too much attention for Freepers in general to be tired of him.

The subject of this discussion is a very troubled man and in need of therapy, and I sincerely hope he gets it before he irreparably destroys all the precious relationships he does have.

Ah, there's that psychic ability again.

I'll ask again: why is Michael Newdow a very troubled man in need of therapy and Darrell Scott isn't? Why do you assume Michael Newdow is irreparably destroying all his precious relationships and Darrell Scott isn't?

I think the answer lies within you and your prejudices and fears. I think the fact of the matter is that Michael Newdow won a decision you disagree with and has come to represent a quality which you find repugnant, namely the abscene of faith. I think that because of this you are forced into the position of villifying him in any way that you can, regardless of facts, logic, and ethical consistancy.

[pray4liberty]

Well, you seem to be driven by a dire need to be right at all costs, judging from all the accusations you've been flinging far and wide. Hope you're happy being "right." And from what has been reported, "wonderful dad" hasn't paid a penny in child support. Ask homeschoolmama about that, as she is personally acquainted with the mother.

This guy hardly behaves like an underdog...however, in the immortal words of Andrew Carnegie, 'As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.'

[pray4liberty]

By the way, I'm hardly villifying him. He's doing a good enough job of that himself. However, I do feel sorry for him and even worse for his daughter, for what that is worth.

[flyervet]

My apologies for not responding sooner. We were on vacation.

I don't know that we can take HSM's word on anything having to do with this case. We don't know for a fact that she knows the mother, and in fairness to her, there is no way to know that to certainty. Assuming she does know the mother of Michael Newdow's child, we do not know how well she knows the mother, if she's reporting what the mother said to her directly, or what HSM heard the mother had said to someone else. Moreover, we don't know that the mother is even being honest in that statement, assuming she actually made it in the first place.

Personally, I prefer to rely on the facts as they have been reported rather than rumour, conjecture, and innuendo.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot endorse religious belief precisely because such an endorsement alienates nonbelievers. Nevertheless, in 1954 Congress passed a law endorsing monotheism, which alienates atheists, to say nothing of religions which have more than one god. I still have not seen a single statement of fact which refutes this.

Every opposing argument has consisted of legal technicalities and personal attacks on Mr. Newdow, which have no bearing on the merits of this argument. Is there anyone out there who can find fault with the argument and not the man?

[homeschool mama]

***I don't know that we can take HSM's word on anything having to do with this case. We don't know for a fact that she knows the mother, and in fairness to her, there is no way to know that to certainty.***

You wouldn't believe it no matter what, flyervet. For your information...that you do not believe...I *do* know Sandy and her daughter.

In the future, if you're going to smear my name as untrustworthy, ping me to it. Doing it behind my back is SO tacky. But typical of your ilk.

[homeschool mama]

**Hard_Pill_To_Swallow signed up 2002-09-09. **

Not surprised.

[flyervet]

Good night, woman. Don't you have any sense of personal dignity?

You asked me to enter into an agreement with you not to exchange posts. Okay, I said, I will if you will. Then you go on to not only post at me, but to send Freepmail to me as well. I reminded you of our agreement, and once again, you agreed to abide by it, after posting a few closing shots and posting some nasty lies about me (without pinging me, I might add). Oh well, simple tactics for simple minds. A scant few weeks later, you forgot yourself and began posting at me again. I reminded you of your agreement and asked if you wanted to begin posting at each other again, at which point you began foaming and spitting at the mouth and said "no", continued to post at me, and then posted some more nasty lies (without pinging me, I might add).

Look, it really makes no difference to me if you wish to abide by agreements you make or not. I would just like an honest answer for once. I agreed not to post at you, so I said nothing about the several nasty, personal comments you made about me to other posters. You, on the other hand, are either so emotionally fragile that you can't handle the truth (i.e., there is no practical way to prove you know this woman) or you are obsessed with me. Either way. I have no intention of abiding by an agreement which you requested to begin with and have shown absolutely no intention to honor.

Congratulations, you've dug an even deeper hole in your credibility on this issue, for now not only are we faced with the original problem, i.e., there is no practical way to prove that you know this woman, we are also faced with the fact that you frequently say things you do not mean and behave in a hypocritical manner. Given your track record, it's apparent that you will say almost anything. This is not the hallmark of someone who's word should be taken on face value.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

You replied: "Not surprised."

Could you please be more explicit.

[Tired of Taxes]

Every opposing argument has consisted of legal technicalities and personal attacks on Mr. Newdow, which have no bearing on the merits of this argument.

Well said. To be honest, I'm not crazy about Newdow, either. It's his position on the Pledge that I support. But, I also support the position of Christian and other religious parents who don't want their children taught a non-Christian or anti-Christian or anti-religion agenda in public schools. I just wish they would extend the same respect to my family, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it. ;-)

BTW, welcome to Free Republic. If you support separation of church and state, don't expect to make any friends around here.

[homeschool mama]

How 'bout you stick to the point, flyervet? You said there's no way to trust that I truly know Sandy Bannon. I do know her and her daughter. Stop your attacks. Period.

[flyervet]

Nope, no sense of personal dignity at all.

You said there's no way to trust that I truly know Sandy Bannon

Actually, I said, I don't know that we can take HSM's word on anything having to do with this case. We don't know for a fact that she knows the mother, and in fairness to her, there is no way to know that to certainty.

Anyone who's spent any time on the web at all knows that many people take advantage of the anonymity of the web to make all sorts of claims. A rational person takes these claims with a huge grain of salt, knowing that posters are cloaked in anonymity and are pretty much completely free from the usual consequences of lying.

Now, all we have is your word that you know this woman. There is, essentially, no difference between your claim and someone else's claim that they are one of the Bush twins hoping to meet a lonely geek for some hot IRC action. And since there is no practical way to prove that you know this woman, it is wisest to take that claim for what it is- an unverifiable statement made by an anonymous web poster.

[homeschool mama]

You're hopeless. If it was a snake ready to bite you, you wouldn't believe it. Amazing.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

I'm still waiting to hear the counter-argument.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot endorse religious belief precisely because such an endorsement alienates nonbelievers. Nevertheless, in 1954 Congress passed a law endorsing monotheism, which alienates atheists, to say nothing of religions which have more than one god. Therefore the 1954 Act of Congress inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional breach of the establishment clause.

[flyervet]

Dont' be ridiculous. If a snake was ready to bite me, I would move out of range. If someone told me a snake was ready to bite me, I would reflexively look around to find out if that were true and, if so, to figure out where the bugger was so I could avoid it. But if someone with a track record of saying things she didn't mean were to tell me that an invisible snake only she could see were about to bite me and insisted I take her word for it, I would be quite skeptical.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

I believe that parents not only have the right, but the duty to introduce their children to their system of beliefs. I believe that every child is capable of arriving at their own conclusions about what they have been taught. No matter how impressionable a child is, at some point they will start to think for themselves and it is important for every child to have the benefit of the experience of both of their parents so they can make the most informed decision possible about their own belief system.

I am a very strong supporter of separation of church and state. The nations of the Middle East are perfect examples of what violations of that boundary can produce. The problem is that religions tend to be too inflexible. The problem is that government must be accountable to the people, but when it starts claiming supernatural authority, it can ignore the will of the people.

I don't know what Mr. Newdow's true motives are in bringing forth this case and I don't care to speculate. Even if they are less than pure, his argument is a valid one and therefore I will defend it. The bottom line is, the US Constitution specifically denies the federal government the right to promote or endorse any religious beliefs through legislation, no matter how commonly accepted those beliefs may be to the majority. Just because it has been allowed to get away with it for a very long time still does not give it that right.

[homeschool mama]

At most you're amusing.

Fact is, Sandy and I *do* fellowship at the same church and know each other. Calvary Chapel Laguna Creek.

Please know that anytime you choose to attempt to defame my character on FR (and I hear about it) I will defend myself.

[flyervet]

Sorry, Mama, but stating the indisputable fact that there is no practical way to verify that you know this woman, and that you know her well enough to be privy to her private financial dealings, is in no way an attempt to defame your alleged character. I suspect that even you must realize this, and only seek to indulge your obsession with me. Either way, I do so enjoy the attention of my fans.

I have saved your quote about posting behind the backs of others as being tacky and intend to trot it out the next time you start posting behind my back again. If honoring your word means nothing to you, perhaps humiliation does. If not, well, then it will serve to let others know just who they're dealing with, won't it?

[homeschool mama]

I have no obsession with you...how very conceited you must be. Or hopeful. Whatever...

You have proven yourself over and over again to be a fool. This is no exception.

[Dutch Boy]

If the daughter was not harmed then the father lied in court. He filed a fraud lawsuit. Why isn't he in jail right now for purjury and contempt?