Atheist Seeks End to Hill Chaplaincies (Michael Newdow at it again)

Washington Post ^ | August 30, 2002 | Jim VandeHei

[Catspaw]

The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress.

Michael A. Newdow, a lawyer and emergency room doctor, this week filed suit in federal district court in Washington contending that it is unconstitutional for taxpayer-funded chaplains to pray in Congress and minister to lawmakers. He wants the court to prohibit the House and Senate from employing spiritual chaplains, who are paid by Congress to lead prayers, counsel members and perform other religious tasks. Chaplains make as much as $147,000 per year.

[jas3]

"Believing that the Earth just happened to be positioned perfectly to sustain life..."

If life can adapt to its environment more rapidly than the environment is changing, then its silly so say that because life is adapted to its environment there is proof of a deity.

In the Carboniferous period, the atmosphere was nearly 40% oxygen, which allowed much larger insects to evolve than we see flying around our porch lights today. (An upward limit to insect size is their relatively unsophisticated respiratory systems and thus their ability to metabolize oxygen). Today insects are much smaller.

Was the Carboniferous atmospheric oxygen concentration "positioned perfectly" to sustain BIG bugs, or do bugs specifically and other lifeforms generally adapt to their environment as it changes over time? As a hint, note that today, with much lower environmental oxygen concentrations, bugs seldom crash through the windscreen on your car.

Remember that life has adapted to some rather unbelievably hostile conditions on this planet, including temperatures above the boiling point of water. Check out this link for additional info. on extremophiles (which oddly does not include any references to recently deposed Rep. Cynthia McKinney). Earth is quite suitable for the life that has adapted to it as it has changed over the millenium, which doesn't support the argument of intelligent design.

jas3

[pankot]

Or a bolt of lightning...

[f.Christian]

Welcome!

Free Republic is an online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We're working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!

You want to give me advice---directions?

How about a designated thinker---guide for you!

[MEGoody]

"Why do atheists hate religious people, especially Christians, with such a vengeance? Read the remarks in this thread and you will be enlightened."

I have a theory on that. The ones who rant and rave and carry on really do believe in all that Christians claim, but they don't want to submit themselves to God. This is their way of shaking their fists at Him. (Of course these same atheists would say my theory was wrong, but watch the way they do it. Their reactions seem to prove my theory correct.)

[MEGoody]

"I haven't seen any examples of atheists hating religious people, but there sure are a lot of religious people who hate Michael Newdow."

Have you read the posts? Assuming you are not a person of faith yourself, naturally, you would not have experienced the venom, but I would think the words on this thread should provide clear testimony.

[flyervet]

I don't really care where you get "advice---directions" from. Clearly you've got some kind of problem today, because you keep directing posts to me that have nothing to do with anything I've said and very often have nothing to do with the thread whatsoever. A few haven't even been in English. Whatever your problem is, I'm sure it's difficult to pronounce. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's not insurmountable. Good luck.

[flyervet]

Exactly what words on this thread are indicative of atheists hating religious people?

[f.Christian]

Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE

[Judith Anne]

Haha! You have to see this! We are right to refuse to respond to flyervet, he's obviously blind, deaf, and extremely dumb!

[Judith Anne]

After reading this:

"I don't really care where you get "advice---directions" from. Clearly you've got some kind of problem today, because you keep directing posts to me that have nothing to do with anything I've said and very often have nothing to do with the thread whatsoever. A few haven't even been in English. Whatever your problem is, I'm sure it's difficult to pronounce. Nevertheless, I'm sure it's not insurmountable. Good luck."

I am amazed that you are still civil. But you are casting pearls before swine.

[f.Christian]

Par for the FR course...half way house!

[Spiff]

Your pocketwatch example is irrelevant. A pocketwatch is not something that occurs naturally.

Naturally!? So, if evolved life is so "natural", then why have we not seen any evidence of it on other planets? What is natural!? Is it something you assume occured through an evolutionary process where committees of one-celled organisms got together and decided to evolve over time into erect bi-pedal creatures who would build computers and rocket ships and have indoor plumbing? Or is "natural" the process of a supreme being creating this world and his people for a purpose - It is to me. Your explanation, however detailed it may be and however much faith you have in it, is actually the most unnatural.

I shudder to ponder an existence wherein there is no Heavenly Father and no Savior - such an imaginary dimension is so alien to me that it is beyond my imagination. I feel pity that you believe that you live in such a place.

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

I sure would like to see this guy get his JUST DUE!Signatures of 10 million are being gathered at Wepledge.com,check it out.

[flyervet]

I am amazed that you are still civil.

How can you tell?

[Judith Anne]

HAHAHAHAH!!! Halfway house! A good one! ;-D

[gc4nra]

Jack of all trades, master of none!

[rdb3]

Why do atheists hate religious people, especially Christians, with such a vengeance?

You'll never get an honest answer to that question. They'll act just like you've described, but they won't admit to "hate" even though that's what it clearly is.

[rdb3]

Now, who steps into the ring in OUR corner?

Allow me. I'll wipe the floor with him.

[Tired of Taxes]

In answer to your question: (1) We don't know if life exists on other planets, and (2) briefly, I would define "natural" as something that simply isn't "man made". The earth, a flower, a tree, another human being, all occur "naturally".

I will never understand how anyone buys the theory that a "supreme being" created the universe and continues to create everything in it when (1) no one has ever been able to define "supreme being" in any comprehensible way; (2) any definitions that are provided are extremely limited and obviously a construct of the limited human imagination; (3) you have absolutely no evidence that such a thing that you cannot even describe exists; and (4) throughout history, the idea of a "god" or "gods" has always been subject to change according to the whims of the people.

BTW, I know and I am related to Christians, whom I like very much and get along with very well. Continue to believe if it helps you get through life, but don't insist that the rest of us have to believe it.

[ER_in_OC,CA]

All,

As a Christian, I am very glad that Michael Newdow is in the public eye. Those wanting him to be less visible need to understand how public impressions are created in today's mass media.

Listen to Newdow, he rants and raves on radio talk shows. He gets exposure on TV shows. He gets coverage in the paper which quote some of his most outrageous statements. And he comes off poorly in every medium. He harms his cause every single time. Not since Madlyn Murry O'Hair (sp?) have Atheists had such a repugnant spokesperson.

Sure, he might rally the "American Atheists" bunch, but firing up the march-on-washington-Atheist crowd doesn't really do much.

People need a "foil" to personify a cause. Recently in the public square, we've seen atheism be associated with the "more learned than us poor saps PBS-pundit type." You know, Stephen Hawking, Stephen Jay-Gould, Douglas Adams, etc. These guys are/were smart, thoughtful men. And they had been seen as "poster children" for atheism. And for those atheists who actually "evangelize" for their belief system, they are/were assets

But with Newdow as the "poster child" for atheism, his cranky demeanor, meddlesome lawsuits, and confrontational statements do his cause harm. And that's not so bad.