SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by molly bloom
In that case, I look forward to all the religionistas abjuring their particular deities, stamping on the cross, desecrating the host, et cetera.

Uh, no. Notice how I never justified the "under God". I think it's blatantly unconstitutional. I also really don't care, and I'm saying that you shouldn't either. It's not that big of a deal. And, given both that and the fact that there are a frigging HUGE number of Christians in this country, it becomes much easier to just leave it alone.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by molly bloom


Then why put the words in the pledge? Are you saying that affirming a belief in god means nothing? Doesn't reflect well on you, does it? Would having to affirm a belief in Vishnu harm 'physically' or psychologically Christians?

So, that for instance, instead of saying the name of Jesus, you'd say, Mrs Brady, or Banana, or Kiss Me Quick.

Exactly which group is it, that has or had laws relating to blasphemy?

You think that atheists have a lesser standard of belief in their principles than religious types? I can't speak for Kucinich, because it seems that at the first sign of any effort, his principles are up for grabs, but I hold myself to a fairly high standard.

In any case, it's up to neither you nor Kucinich to decide who is harmed by what, nor how.

Affirming a belief in God is obviously of importance to those who have faith in God. Which is why it is important that atheists have the freedom to choose not to say the pledge, since they do not believe in God.

I'm not deliberately trying to be malicious towards atheists by implying anything like that "atheists are not deserving of respect for their own principles" -- even as I disagree with those principles, I can respect them.

Just like atheists should respect the religiously faithful who wish the freedom of expression to say the pledge. I never feel threatened by atheists -- it does not matter to me whether or not God is in the pledge.

What irks me here is that it seems that some atheists are blowing a quibble into something out of proportion.

[Berzerker]

Elok -

And I maintain that Newdow's "rights" weren't violated in the first place. Which is what SCOTUS said.

The SCOTUS said he lacks standing because he has only partial custody, i.e., the mother has the "official" standing. His right's, and all our rights, are violated by the pledge, even the people who want it. But most people are quite happy to sacrifice rights they don't care about (as this thread shows) but then hypocritically complain when the rights they do care about are sacrificed by others using the same "democracy" they used when sacrificing the rights others cherish. We have a right to not have our state coerce us to pledge allegiance to both the state and the state's "God". We have a right to raise our kids with our value system be it religious faith, atheism, or whatever may be found in between.

I actually had some degree of sympathy with him until I heard the numbnuts didn't even have custody, and the person who did was for the clause in the pledge.

He has partial custody, the fact a court ruled the Mother gets the majority doesn't mean he has none. As for what the Mother wants, that's irrelevant - if she wants her kid to recite the pledge she can have that done in her home on her own time without using other people's children. If she wanted her kid to be a Christian should the school coerce everyone else's kids to convert? Illogical... She has a right to instill her values in her kid, but she does not have the right to instruct the state to coerce other people into acquiring or affirming her values...

If Newdow had custody, I would merely consider him fairly whiny, plus I'd be inclined to think of him as a doofus for being an angry, outspoken atheist (Pascal's wager and suchlike).

The only "good" atheist is a silent atheist. It's no wonder why our freedoms keep getting stomped on by government with people like you around. But when a freedom you cherish is removed and you argue for it's restoration, let us know so we can comment on your "whining".

Kucinich -

I think I can safely claim you were not psychologically traumatized by two words in the pledge...

For many religious folk, the pledge was/is idolatry and endangers the soul for the afterlife. You don't think that has a psychological impact? Don't assume to speak for them... And I'll repeat this once more for you and Mr Fun who shares your mental block , it's not about "two words", it's about having to state those words as an affirmation of belief.

Uh, no. Notice how I never justified the "under God". I think it's blatantly unconstitutional. I also really don't care, and I'm saying that you shouldn't either.

I care about the Constitution, sadly, the majority shares your apathy.

Why do you keep throwing those at me? I really couldn't care less about what some old dead guys are saying, as it has nothing to do with my point, which is get over it.

So you agree it's unconstitutional. And your point? Oh yeah, stop complaining about violations of the Constitution. Thanks so much for your contribution.



Mr Fun -

Affirming a belief in God is obviously of importance to those who have faith in God. Which is why it is important that atheists have the freedom to choose not to say the pledge, since they do not believe in God.

It isn't a free choice when the answer may get you either beat up or mistreated. If school kids came up to you and asked if your were homosexual, can you honestly say you'd answer "yes" with absolutely no fear of the consequences?

[Berzerker]

Oh, I don't want to track down the post or the postee, but to whomever defended O'Reilly's smear of atheists, O'Reilly said another atheist would come out of the woodwork to challenge the pledge. You said he wasn't calling athiests "cockroaches", just the atheist who comes out of the woodwork to challenge the pledge. Does an atheist become a cockroach only when they leave the woodwork? What are the cockroaches who remain in the woodwork?