New twist to pledge case. Little girl wanted to say 'under God'. Dad used her.

[Jack the Bodiless]

In the paper today there is an article reporting that a group has offered legal representation to defend the girl's name.

..."Defend the girl's name"???

I presume that they are going to bring action against the father. The father has gone on record as saying that he deliberately kept the girl's name off the case record because the action was more about him than her.

So Newdow's tried not to involve his daughter more than he is required to in order to bring the case at all, but a bunch of "Christians" want to drag her right into the middle of the limelight and use her to attack her father.

So who is it who has "no regards for the child's feelings"?

[Lincoln]

You are a master at the spin technique Jack. Let's start from the beginning shall we?

1. Little girl goes to Sunday school every week with her mother and believes in God.

2. Mother and father get divorce (or seperate).

3. Dad doesn't like God even though he claims that he doesn't esist.

4. Dad decides to do something about the fact that HE doesn't like God.

5. Dad USES his daughter who believes in God along with her mother to further HIS agenda even though HIS OWN DAUGHTER prefers to say the words 'under God' and is supported by her mother.

6. Now the mother is angry that her daughter is Being used by the father so she fights back.

7. The daughter is in the middle and is being used as a pawn by both sides thanks to the insensitive actions of the father.

Jacks solution: The father should not be opposed because he is an atheist so he mist be right.

[mactbone]

OR, the father was being slandered and realized that others might be as well. He didn't want to bring up a suit against his daughter because he knew she was being told to say the slander. Now, Fundies want to attack not only the father's position but the father himself.

BTW - I used to say "under God" (note the capitals, meaning Judeo-Christian guy) along with the rest of the class. I am now agnostic, and I don't exactly like the way school systems not only preclude the belief of "God", but also that there is a Christian majority (Protestant really), so that's the right religion. I didn't even know about not believing in God or agnosticism until High School when I saw the movie Alive! Can you freakin' believe that! I had no idea that my questioning could actually be answered - there is no Christian God. Holy bejeezus. Freakin' Fundies.

[Jack the Bodiless]

You are a master at the spin technique Jack. Let's start from the beginning shall we?

From you, Lincoln, that is a compliment!

OK.

1. Little girl goes to Sunday school every week with her mother. Her mother says the little girl believes in God. Her pastor says the little girl believes in God. Does she? Who knows? She's a nice little 8-year-old girl who says whatever makes Mommy happy.

2. Mother and father get divorce (or separate).

3. Dad doesn't believe in God.

4. Dad decides to do something about the fact that HE doesn't like his daughter being turned against him by her teachers (he knows that he has no say in what Mom and Mom's pastor teach his daughter).

5. Dad USES the courts to further HIS agenda even though his own daughter allegedly prefers to say the words 'under God' as claimed by her mother. Does she? Who knows? The fact remains that all of the other authority figures in this little girl's life are teaching her that Dad, as an atheist, doesn't belong in "one nation under God" and this is a Bad Thing.

6. Now the mother is angry that the father is interfering with her daughter's indoctrination so she fights back.

7. The daughter is in the middle and is being used as a pawn by both sides thanks to the insensitive actions of both parents. Or is it the sensitivity of a father who doesn't want his daughter turned against him? Who knows?

Jacks solution: Nobody else should interfere in the internal affairs of this family. ESPECIALLY nobody with the avowed aim of "defending the daughter's name" (implying that her honor has been called into question, presumably because she was spawned by a vile atheist) and bringing "action against the father" (for what, exactly, and how will this help the situation?)

No good can come of this.

[Lincoln]

So because of a movie you don't believe in God? And you feel free to slander others because they do not believe as you do?

[Lincoln]

So the mother is not a part of the girl's family? Or do anly atheists have a right to infuence their kids?

[Jack the Bodiless]

So the mother is not a part of the girl's family? Or do anly atheists have a right to infuence their kids?

There is absolutely no indication whatsoever that the father wishes to teach his daughter anything negative about Christians or Christianity. In fact, we know that Newdow never claimed that his daughter was an atheist. There is no indication that he intended to raise her as one.

All we know is that she WAS being subjected to Christian indoctrination (Sunday school) by her mother, and being taught in school that her father was not part of the allegedly inclusive family of "one nation under God".

[Chris 62]

The Zeal of the Crusader

All we know is that she WAS being subjected to Christian indoctrination (Sunday school) by her mother, and being taught in school that her father was not part of the allegedly inclusive family of "one nation under God".

Sounds like a movie line from the "Manchurain Candidate".

Your argument might carry more weight Jack, if you didn't have this heavy anti-religion bias.

Your as bad as the ol time bible thompers, they used to say how God would git ya!

You say the god squad I'll git ya!

The names change, but thus song remains the same, just another form of thought control.

[Lincoln]

One thing we know for sure and that is that the father used his little girl to further his own agenda. You may twist that fact however you want but it will not change it.

[- Groucho -]

You're amazing, Chris62. You belittle Jack and then accuse him of using improper tactics in an argument. Since when have ad hominens become fair play?

As for your own assertions that "majority rules", I give up. If you can't see that the constitution is fundamentally about making sure that the majority can't trample on the minority then there is no point continuing this with you. The right to bear arms is not about making sure the majority has enough guns to shoot the minority. Freedom of speech is not about allowing the majority to shout loud enough to drown out the minority. These protections are all about making sure the majority can not use its numbers to trample the fundamental rights of the minority. If you can't see that then there isn't even enough common ground here to have a sensible discussion.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Chris: ...so kids aren't taught the Christian religion in Sunday school?

It may not be a very efficient form of indoctrination, but it's certainly attempted indoctrination.

Lincoln: Sure. But what is "his own agenda" exactly? It surely includes his desire to stop his daughter (and the kids of other atheists) being encouraged to believe that nonbelief is weird, bad, or un-American!

This is a Bad Thing?

[Lincoln]

No atheism is not 'wierd, bad or un-American', it is just illogical. I guess people are free to remain ignorant if they want. After all this is America.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Echinda
You're amazing, Chris62. You belittle Jack and then accuse him of using improper tactics in an argument. Since when have ad hominens become fair play?

Motivations are the issue, as a crusader, he never had an interest in the other side of the argument, it was already decided in his mind, so he was wasting my time.

As for your own assertions that "majority rules", I give up.

You should give up, because if you can't grasp this, you have no conept of western society.

If you can't see that the constitution is fundamentally about making sure that the majority can't trample on the minority then there is no point continuing this with you.

I never once said other wise.
The real danger is when you not only assume, as you did, but then act on your assumption.

The right to bear arms is not about making sure the majority has enough guns to shoot the minority.

How many more absurdities will you post?

Freedom of speech is not about allowing the majority to shout loud enough to drown out the minority.

Nobody said it was, nobody said anything about "shouting down", your as bad as the other guy who made the "mob" connection, you assume that majority rule means stealing the rights of the minority, which it never does.
It means that when we have an issue, we vote on such things, and in democratic fashion, the majoritry rules.
Why are you having so much trouble grasping this.
Are you so indoctronated in that PC crap that you can't acknowledge a simple truth?

These protections are all about making sure the majority can not use its numbers to trample the fundamental rights of the minority.

It also means the minority cannot carry out the inverse, which is what this is all about.
At NO TIME did I say that rights would be violated by a majority decission, YOU ASSUMED IT.

If you can't see that then there isn't even enough common ground here to have a sensible discussion.

If you would stop assuming, we might get somewhere.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Chris: ...so kids aren't taught the Christian religion in Sunday school?

A Sunday school.
Is that not specific religous instruction?
Nobody says it's not.

It may not be a very efficient form of indoctrination, but it's certainly attempted indoctrination.

Ever been to Sunday school?

[Ned]

Mother to Intervene

On CNN right now:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- The 8-year-old girl whose father successfully sued to have the Pledge of Allegiance declared unconstitutional has no problem with reciting the pledge at school, her mother said Thursday.

"I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God,"' Sandra Banning said in a statement. "We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."

Banning never married Michael Newdow, the third-grader's father and the atheist behind the pledge lawsuit. She has full custody of the girl, which Newdow is challenging in court.

It was Banning's first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "under God," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The ruling has been put on hold pending appeals.

Banning, who has hired lawyers in part to explore intervening in the case, said she hopes her efforts will lead to a reversal of the ruling. She also said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling. In his lawsuit, Newdow argued that his daughter was "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified School District.

He said Thursday that he has the right to determine how she is raised.

"I have a right to send my child to a public school without the government inculcating any religious beliefs," he said. Newdow also said that taking an 8-year-old to church doesn't mean the girl is choosing to be religious -- and at any rate, it doesn't matter what the child believes.

"The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me," he said.

Some legal experts said the mother's revelation that the girl herself willingly recites the pledge in class could cast doubts on the legitimacy of the case.

Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case, said Rory Little, a Hastings College of the Law professor who follows the 9th Circuit.

The federal courts can't address anything unless it's a case of controversy," Little said. "You have to have injury."