Replies

As an atheist, I can tell you that there's no such animal as an "atheist church". Even American Atheists, though they're supportive of his case, pokes fun at people who start-up "atheist churches" and so on because such people miss the point entirely. "Atheism" means literally "without theism" or "without religion" or "without a belief in a god or gods".

However, he's not forcing his beliefs onto anyone UNLESS he wanted to change the Pledge to "one godless nation" or "one nation without a god"; then THAT would be forcing his views onto others. By leaving religious references out altogether, we simply restore the Pledge to its original version pre-1954.

As an atheist, I can tell you that there's no such animal as an "atheist church".

You mean you don't trust Newdow's own opinion of himself, his church, and his cause?

from One Nation, Under ... Who?

His passion is his legal work. He signs legal pleadings “The Rev. Doctor Michael A. Newdow.” In 1977 he was ordained minister in the Universal Life Church. Its adherents believe that rational thought, not God, is the guiding light of life on earth. Most Americans wouldn’t consider that church a church, or Newdow a reverend. But hey, it’s a free country.

Yes. It's a free country and Newdow is getting to define atheism the way he wants in the federal courts.

His atheism includes churches and (he hopes) plenty of followers of ministers like him. Too bad his daughter doesn't attend his church. I wonder how many disciples he has?

However, he's not forcing his beliefs onto anyone

If he weren't trying to force his beliefs on others, he wouldn't have lied to try to win a case. He's lied in order to try to force others to accept his view of things on his schedule. He originally brought the case up when his daughter was not old enough to have any problems with the pledge in school (according to the Judge who dismissed the case in Florida in 1998 or 1999).

Aren't you concerned that the atheist who is bringing the lawsuit is perverting the meaning of intellectual honesty? Most atheists seem concerned about being true to themselves and to others and are proud about shunning half-truths and myths.

But Newdow is an atheist who is now an infamous myth-promoter (aka liar). He has said he wants his daughter to get to be true to herself and not have to speak the words "Under God." But he was not being truthful when he said his daughter would be harmed when she refused to recite the pledge.

People with weak arguments try to force their opinions on others by lying when they give testimony. I don't like financial officers who lie in company reports, and I don't like folks who lie when bringing lawsuits. They wreck society by promoting distrust.

But, let's get beyond personalities and down to basics.

If Newdow had such a wonderful cause why did he feel he had to lie?
Why hasn't a more honest atheist won a federal lawsuit to remove the words?

No wonder the ACLU has distanced itself from him. Could be that many more ethical atheists will soon be running the other way from the"ethically challenged" Rev. Dr. Newdow, Esq..