Replies

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.