The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

Ai Phling Pu · Post by **Ai Phling Pu** » 2002-07-13 12:58pm

Seems kinda funny to me that the thing started to fade from schools just before metal detectors and semiautomatic pistols started fading INTO schools... weird coincidence, huh?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-14 01:36pm

http://kier.3dfrontier.com/forums/showt ... adid=32140

Apparently, Newdow is frustrated because he's repeatedly sued his ex-"wife" (I put "wife" in quotation marks because apparently they were never actually married) for custody of their daughter and every time the court ordered him to pay her court costs, thus preventing him from getting custody by driving her into insolvency.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-14 02:04pm

Seems kinda funny to me that the thing started to fade from schools just before metal detectors and semiautomatic pistols started fading INTO schools... weird coincidence, huh?

Seems kinda funny handguns have been around for 150 years and moresome and we did not get overy-religious till the 50s(Conform or be conformed! generation)

Every point has a counter point and nothing is absoulte

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-14 02:05pm

I am a doulbe post ignore me or be destoyed

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-14 05:46pm

At any rate, the thing that annoys me most about this thing is how Mr. Newdow was presented as a hero fighting an unjust system, and it turns out he's nothing more than a selfish fucking Baby Boomer who's trying to use the law as a sledgehammer to change the world to suit him.

<rantmode = "on">

"Why should I be made to feel like an outsider?"

Cry me a fucking river, asshole! We are NOT guaranteed the right in our Constitution to feel included within society at all times! Go ahead and look - it's not in Article I, II or III, or ANY of the 27 Amendments! You LIED - you claimed that your suit was being filed because YOUR DAUGHTER felt "hurt and embarrassed" by "under God" - and it turns out that you first filed the suit when she was THREE YEARS OLD, years before she would have even started Kindergarten. It was thrown out then on the grounds that no perceptible injury could have been suffered by the girl. You've been using your daughter as a WEAPON against your ex-lover and against the system, and it MUST stop.
<rantmode = "off">

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2002-07-17 10:04am

Iceberg wrote:At any rate, the thing that annoys me most about this thing is how Mr. Newdow was presented as a hero fighting an unjust system, and it turns out he's nothing more than a selfish fucking Baby Boomer who's trying to use the law as a sledgehammer to change the world to suit him.

I wouldn't call him a hero, but he does have balls. And make no mistake: the system is unjust. Newdow may be a "selfish fucking Baby Boomer," but he's also using the law to reverse the damage that's already been done. This is long overdue.

Iceberg wrote:Cry me a fucking river, asshole! We are NOT guaranteed the right in our Constitution to feel included within society at all times! Go ahead and look - it's not in Article I, II or III, or ANY of the 27 Amendments!

Ah, but we are guaranteed that the government will remain neutral on matters of religion. When they changed the pledge to promote the beliefs of a segment of religious Americans, they violated the first amendment. Feeling like an outsider is a natural result of this unjust change and is felt by many non-religious Americans (myself included), not just Mr. Newdow.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 10:27am

Darth Jehovah wrote:Ah, but we are guaranteed that the government will remain neutral on matters of religion. When they changed the pledge to promote the beliefs of a segment of religious Americans, they violated the first amendment. Feeling like an outsider is a natural result of this unjust change and is felt by many non-religious Americans (myself included), not just Mr. Newdow.

Non-religious Americans are a minority. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the truth is that blunt. In our civilization, the majority is SUPPOSED to be protected from the tyranny of the minority, NOT the other way around. One of the causes of the Civil War was a minority (the Southern states) attempting to manipulate the legal processes of our Republic to achieve an unfair political advantage over the Northern states (specifically, by threatening to secede unless they got their way, up to and including attempting to alter the outcome of a Presidential election by secessionist threats). One of the results of the Civil War was to insure that a single state or a coalition of states could not hold Washington hostage by threats of secession.

Now, if you're in the minority and you don't like the way things are going, you have basically two options - suck it up and deal with it, or else convince the majority that your way is better. Bringing nuisance lawsuits is NOT the way to convince the majority. Judges have a surprisingly small ability to legislate from the bench - their decisions are binding only within their district, and subject to overrule from higher courts.

Now, Michael Newdow has proven himself to be a small-minded little man with no regard for anybody but himself (his attempts to gain custody over his daughter mostly involve trying to drive his ex-lover into bankruptcy). He's no fucking hero, by any definition.

Eleas · Post by **Eleas** » 2002-07-17 10:43am

"Now, Michael Newdow has proven himself to be a small-minded little man with no regard for anybody but himself (his attempts to gain custody over his daughter mostly involve trying to drive his ex-lover into bankruptcy). He's no fucking hero, by any definition."

I thought we were discussing the man's arguments, not his character. The fact that he's an asshole should have no bearing on the fact that the pledge is unconstitutional.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2002-07-17 12:06pm

Iceberg wrote:Non-religious Americans are a minority. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but the truth is that blunt.

I see. Does that mean it'd be okay with you if the pledge was changed to "one white-Christian nation, under God..."?

Iceberg wrote:In our civilization, the majority is SUPPOSED to be protected from the tyranny of the minority, NOT the other way around.

Tyranny of the minority? ROTFLMAO!!!

Iceberg wrote:Now, if you're in the minority and you don't like the way things are going, you have basically two options - suck it up and deal with it, or else convince the majority that your way is better. Bringing nuisance lawsuits is NOT the way to convince the majority.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. No one's trying to convince "the majority" of anything. Majority opinion is irrelevant where our constitutional rights are concerned. This is about convincing judges. It's about reminding them of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state. Of course religious bigots are up in arms! The status quo gives them the upper hand. They've been successfully subverting the constitution since 1954 so it's no wonder they're fighting this tooth and nail.

Ultimately, I hope it'll result in the restoration of the Pledge of Allegiance back to the way it used to be when it was a genuinely patriotic expression of unity for all Americans, not just the bigoted subset of religious fanatics who believe they deserve an endorsement of their faith by the government simply because they're "the majority."

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 03:05pm

Darth J: Feel free to keep misinterpreting. I would simply like to point out that the minority has no right to impose its will upon the majority.

Please, everybody, note that I did NOT say that the minority has no right to be heard. As should be obvious to anybody with even two neurons to rub together, everybody does. However, there is a difference between being heard and making your opinion law when it is against the will and desire of the majority of your countrymen. The USA itself is purposefully designed so that the will and desire of the majority of its people is the law, enacted through the proxy of duly-elected representatives.

Secondly: Tyranny of the minority. Sounds stupid, right? OK, so tell me, what were the causes of the Revolutionary War? If you said "Unfair taxation and punitive measures enacted for the bold crime of demanding representation in Parliament," good for you. Parliament (a minority), at the behest of His Late Majesty, King George III (a minority of one), enacted unjust laws to punish the patriotic citizens of the Colonies (a majority), who until that time had been loyal subjects of the Crown. If His Majesty and the Parliament had been more receptive to American desires, then we might be part of the Commonwealth today. One of the causes of the American Civil War was the South (a minority) holding the will and desire of the North (the decided majority; 21 million citizens of voting age vs. 3 million) hostage by threats of secession, up to and including attempting to alter the results of a Presidential election.

Typically, you miss the point. I never said that the minority has no right to be heard. What I did say, and I stand by, is that the minority has no right to enshrine its own desires into law contrary to the clear will of the majority. And this has nothing to do with the pledge issue.

Galvatron · Post by **Galvatron** » 2002-07-17 04:14pm

Iceberg wrote:Darth J: Feel free to keep misinterpreting. I would simply like to point out that the minority has no right to impose its will upon the majority.

No argument there. That's democracy.

Iceberg wrote:there is a difference between being heard and making your opinion law when it is against the will and desire of the majority of your countrymen.

Newdow didn't make his opinion law. He only griped loudly and often enough to convince the courts he had a legitimate case. The judges are the ones who decided in his favor. Not because it was their "opinion," but because they found the pledge to be in direct violation of the Constitution.

What you're really upset about is the Bill of Rights and the separation of church and state. Don't worry, you're not alone. You're in the company of Rosie O'Donnell and Pat Robertson.

Iceberg wrote:Secondly: Tyranny of the minority. Sounds stupid, right?

Exceedingly, yes.

Iceberg wrote:OK, so tell me, what were the causes of the Revolutionary War? If you said "Unfair taxation and punitive measures enacted for the bold crime of demanding representation in Parliament," good for you. Parliament (a minority), at the behest of His Late Majesty, King George III (a minority of one), enacted unjust laws to punish the patriotic citizens of the Colonies (a majority), who until that time had been loyal subjects of the Crown.

WTF?? You're defining the British government as a minority? LOL!!!

Check the definition of minority some time...

http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=minority

Only in the absolutely strictest sense of the word can a nation's government ever be considered a minority, and only then by twisting one of several definitions of the word to do so.

Iceberg wrote:Typically, you miss the point.

LOL! That's rich!

Iceberg wrote:I never said that the minority has no right to be heard.

Er, okay. I don't remember accusing you of such a thing.

Iceberg wrote:What I did say, and I stand by, is that the minority has no right to enshrine its own desires into law contrary to the clear will of the majority.

Before I "misinterpret" you again, which minority are we talking about now? The US government or non-religious Americans?

Iceberg wrote:And this has nothing to do with the pledge issue.

Oh really? When did the subject suddenly change and why didn't anyone tell me?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 04:39pm

Wow, J can really cook an ad hominem when he wants to. You must be so happy you think you can shut somebody up by comparing them to Pat Robertson. And if you think I'm anything like Pat Robertson just because I disagree with you on what constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion (and sorry to tell you this, but interpretation of the Constitution is almost as thorny a field as interpreting Holy Writ), well, how about if I give you a spoon and you canEAT MY ASS?

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 04:55pm

Ice's Rule #1: The people who whine loudest about the intolerance of others are those who want to distract attention from their own intolerance.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-17 05:14pm

Wow, J can really cook an ad hominem when he wants to. You must be so happy you think you can shut somebody up by comparing them to Pat Robertson. And if you think I'm anything like Pat Robertson just because I disagree with you on what constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion (and sorry to tell you this, but interpretation of the Constitution is almost as thorny a field as interpreting Holy Writ), well, how about if I give you a spoon and you can EAT MY ASS?

How about you stow this Christian knee-jerk reaction bullshit whenever atheists point out that religious people have zero place purporting their views within the government or by using the government? "Under God" is an establishment of monotheism and religion in general. That's not allowed. Case closed. You lose. You enjoyed governmental endorsement for fifty years or so, and now you're pissed that your religion isn't the official one anymore. Sorry, but cry me a fucking river. Believe what you want, but don't try and shove it into everyone else's face.

If you think that it's OK for it to be there because the majority wills it so, then you're just as bigoted as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and the Ku Klux Klan, who all believe that America is a Christian nation and that since Christians are the majority, everything should cater to them.

What about Martin Luther King Jr.? What about when he "made his opinion law against the will of the majority of his countrymen"? Or when Abraham Lincoln did the same thing when he freed the slaves? Should they have not fought for legal repairs because the majority disagreed?

Don't you get it? Some things are just wrong. This is one of those things. If the majority thinks it's OK, fuck the majority. The majority of people hate taxes and don't want them, but guess what? Taxes still exist. Religion is personal, and shoving it out into the public like this was exactly what the establishment clause was written to prevent.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

This does not set an upper limit with respecting religious establishments. It sets a lower limit. In order to maintain a wall of separation, the government must be totally neutral on religious matters. Would you interpret "You can't kill a person" to mean "You can't kill a single person, but feel free to kill many"? Same with the establishment clause. You can't respect one religion; you can't respect many religions; you can't respect all religions.

Ice's Rule #1: The people who whine loudest about the intolerance of others are those who want to distract attention from their own intolerance.

People tend to have a hard time noticing bigotry if they're not on the receiving end of it.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 06:00pm

Learn the fucking difference between "honest disagreement" and "bigotry" before you post your ignorant bullshit, you cocksure, arrogant, holier-than-thou son of a bitch. You, Durandal, are just as bad as the idiot Republicans who think that the only two kinds of Americans are those who agree with them, and traitors.

In case you didn't notice, the majority of people AGREED with people like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., D.D. That's why there are Federal Civil Rights laws now. Because people like him KNEW that the law was unfair and lobbied and demonstrated to raise the understanding of the apathetic majority, to get THEM to realize that the law was unfair and rouse them to action, and when a majority of people understood that the law was unfair, THE LAW WAS CHANGED.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-07-17 06:13pm

Durandal wrote:[How about you stow this Christian knee-jerk reaction bullshit whenever atheists point out that religious people have zero place purporting their views within the government or by using the government?

How about you stow the atheist knee-jerk bullshit when religious people let their beliefs affect their decisions.

Believe what you want, but don't try and shove it into everyone else's face.

Practice what you preach Durandul.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-07-17 06:52pm

Learn the fucking difference between "honest disagreement" and "bigotry" before you post your ignorant bullshit, you cocksure, arrogant, holier-than-thou son of a bitch. You, Durandal, are just as bad as the idiot Republicans who think that the only two kinds of Americans are those who agree with them, and traitors.

Oh really? Yes, damn me for standing up for my rights guaranteed to me by the Constitution. When did I ever say that Christians shouldn't be allowed to worship as they please? Why is it bigoted to demand that the government follow its own rules?

Furthermore, what about the slavery era? Don't you realize that the majority can be wrong? The entire Southern United States didn't want civil rights for black people, and black people are discriminated against heavily even today. But that's OK, because whites are the majority, right? Blacks should just "suck it up," like atheists, right?

The Constitution guarantees rights to all, you ignorant, bigoted fuck. You've failed to produce one, solid legal argument for "under God" in the Pledge. All you've done is rant about how Christians are the majority and so you should get every break, and anyone who disagrees should "suck it up," and stand by while the government violates their rights. Then you act surprised when people compare you to Pat Robertson, even though you both share the exact same beliefs!

"America is a Christian nation, and people can practice their beliefs so long as they realize that the government considers them second-class citizens."

Fuck you. You've given no basis for your comparison of me to Republicans. I want an America where everyone can say the official Pledge and no one is excluded. You want to exclude American citizens from saying the official governmentally endorsed Pledge.

In case you didn't notice, the majority of people AGREED with people like Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., D.D. That's why there are Federal Civil Rights laws now. Because people like him KNEW that the law was unfair and lobbied and demonstrated to raise the understanding of the apathetic majority, to get THEM to realize that the law was unfair and rouse them to action, and when a majority of people understood that the law was unfair, THE LAW WAS CHANGED.

OK, what would you have said if the majority didn't agree with King? Do you always place such faith in majority rule? Or do you only agree with the majority when it caters to your own beliefs? What if the majority doesn't understand that the law is unfair?

How about you stow the atheist knee-jerk bullshit when religious people let their beliefs affect their decisions.

I'm demanding that the follow the fucking law, Graeme. I know you're enjoying your self-appointed position as my own personal police officer, but try and make the distinction.

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2002-07-17 06:56pm

*rings bell*

Moderator?

Mod..Mod...Moderator? Anyone? IDMR?

His Divine Shadow · Post by **His Divine Shadow** » 2002-07-17 07:15pm

LMSx wrote:*rings bell*

Moderator?

Mod..Mod...Moderator? Anyone? IDMR?

Shh, I just got the popcorn ready.

Graeme Dice · Post by **Graeme Dice** » 2002-07-17 07:17pm

[quote="Durandal]How about you stow the atheist knee-jerk bullshit when religious people let their beliefs affect their decisions.[/quote]

I'm demanding that the follow the fucking law, Graeme. I know you're enjoying your self-appointed position as my own personal police officer, but try and make the distinction.[/quote]

If you want religious tolerance to be practiced by anyone, then you must practice it yourself. I realize that would be a major change for you.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-17 07:18pm

Shh, I just got the popcorn ready.

I call the Lazy-Boy!

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2002-07-17 07:20pm

Did somebody forget to give Durandal his fucking rabies shots or something?

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2002-07-17 07:26pm

Did somebody forget to give Durandal his fucking rabies shots or something?

This from the guy who posted

well, how about if I give you a spoon and you can EAT MY ASS

Learn the fucking difference between "honest disagreement" and "bigotry" before you post your ignorant bullshit, you cocksure, arrogant, holier-than-thou son of a bitch

*Hits Recline on the lazy-boy

LMSx · Post by **LMSx** » 2002-07-17 10:05pm

I'll drop my complaint if the Lay-Z-Boy's got a massage function.

And lotsa butter on the popcorn. My arteries have had it too good for too long!

Martin Blank · Post by **Martin Blank** » 2002-07-17 10:24pm

I find it rather amusing that because Mr. Newdow does not have custody of his daughter, and that neither his daughter nor the child's mother has ever claimed any sort of harm, the case may be thrown out not on merit of argument but rather on technical grounds that he may not have had standing to bring the case to court in the first place.

That being said, the arguments have certainly been made a number of times over, and some very persuasive people on both sides of the issue have come forth with their views on the case. I am rather disheartened, though, by the relatively tiny number of people who have actually read the decision and are instead working off of what they hear from others or the media. There is a very complete discussion by the majority opinion of what evidence was used and by what means they came to their conclusion. Even the minority opinion agrees with much of the logic used in the majority, but disagrees with the outcome regarding the potential harm done by the phrasing.

Simply using a media outlet -- whether AP, Reuters, ABC, Rush Limbaugh, Trinity broadcasting, or the White House Press Office -- is not the best way to view a case of such obvious importance to so many American people such as this. The decision is not hard to read, and is only about 30 pages. It took me around a half-hour or so to do the first time around, and a little bit longer the second time. I don't imagine that's all too much time for many people here to take out of their schedule so as to obtain a more complete understanding of the issue.

Edit: I thought I should probably throw the link in, as a courtesy to those who wish to read the decision.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The pledge ruling and Michael Newdow

Do you agree with the pledge ruling?

Of technical issues and case merits...