Atheist Files New Suit, with Parents, Over 'Under God'

from JoeUser Forums
From The Washington Post, Nation in Brief, page A20, Thursday, January 6, 2005

In a new case which seems to filed to prove that some people can't be called to meet their maker soon enough, we have the following:

SAN FRANCISCO--Michael newdow, an atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, has filed another lawsuit--this time with other parents.
Newdow won his case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.
In June, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary-school-age daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.
In the latest challenge, filed Monday in federal court in Sacramento, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said


So Newdow has somehow found 8 others to join in his lunacy?

Again, please, please, please have this case decided once and for all with a total slap down to Newdow and others like him. Lets end this stupidity once and for all with a decision that tells idiots like this that they too have to be tolerant of the desires of others who WANT "under god" to be said in the pledge while tolerating others that don't want to say the pledge at all, or don't want to say "under god".
politics
24,702 views 99 replies
Reply #1 from PolMach Forums Top
how many billions of people in this country


quick correction, approximately 280 million people are residents of the U.S.A. (according to recent census reports).
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
or the children themselves,

Minors can legally sue??

So eight people are going to try and force a change on how many billions of people in this country....? Good grief.
Offworld Trading Company
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
approximately 280 million people are residents of the U.S.A.


LoL...okok...but my point still remains...8 are trying to force the 250 million.... (pro'lly 30 million that agree...but hey)
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Uh, this never stops does it...if only people would learn that no one is making them say it and they have to be tolerant of others....it seems like so many minorities(not just racial) are intolerant in their fight to demand tolerance....eh, what can you do.....legally?

~Zoo
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top

But in their world, tolerance only applies to minorities. That is the problem.

Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
But in their world, tolerance only applies to minorities. That is the problem.


And a problem not easily solved, unless the majorities would actually start speaking up. And even then, things pro'lly wouldn't get much better in any short amount of time. How exactly did this get to this point, where the minorities run the country?
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
AAARRGHH! Again we hear from this jerk!
He's rapidly becoming the new Madalyn Murray O'Hare (if you don't recognize the name, she's the atheist bitch who sued in 1962 to have prayer and religion removed from public schools, and is the one ultimately responsible for the whole church-state debate).
I'm sure he's getting lots of publicity out of all this for his law practice, too.

Is there any way we could put this up for a vote in the next national election? That would make it fair and impartial. If the majority wants it in, it can stay, if we want it out, it can go.
Of course, since the Left doesn't trust the electorate to make the right decision, they'd no doubt fight to keep it off the ballot.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
You know what, I just noticed something...

HE said he didn't wan't his daughter EXPOSED to God...

EXPOSED?? Heaven forbid your children be exposed to a god. They can be exposed to violence and sex and drug abuse, but a GOD? Dear me... *rolling eyes*
I think he may need some serious help.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think he may need some serious help.


He does; into the trunk of my car, which will then be left indefinately in the long-term lot at the nearest airport.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder....if they were to take out the "under God" from the pledge....and if a child was to say still say it during the pledge....what would happen? Would the child be reprimanded? Would the child be told he/she cannot use such "foul" language? Would this guy sue the parents of the child for "forcing" her religious beliefs onto other children? I wonder....
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
I wonder....if they were to take out the "under God" from the pledge....and if a child was to say still say it during the pledge....what would happen? Would the child be reprimanded? Would the child be told he/she cannot use such "foul" language? Would this guy sue the parents of the child for "forcing" her religious beliefs onto other children? I wonder....
---MythicalMino

I thought about this, too.....I mean, we still have the right to free speech, even if we no longer have freedom to worship. What could they really do if someone just said "under God", anyway? Expulsion, maybe? Like that wouldn't (rightly) result in a lawsuit of its own.
If that's the case, this could be opening a whole can of worms, legally speaking, that's better left closed, you know? More trouble than the whole original debate is worth.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Would this guy sue the parents of the child for "forcing" her religious beliefs onto other children?


Can't someone sue this guy right now for him trying to push his beliefs onto us?
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm an agnostic and the term "under god" doesn't offend me in the least. I have never understood why the atheists get so huffy about it. I mean, america is about majority rule isn't it? The vast majority of folks believe in god....Hell the government prints "in God We Trust" on the money.

I guess it's ok when it comes to cash but not our kids... Pretty sad really.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well, darn. Maybe someone needs to sue to get all those mithilogical religions out of school. And how do you teach about the holocost if you can't mention that the majority of victims were Jews? and persicuted for their religion. Or the core of native americans followed their animal Gods and the multitude of other Gods, or the Myans, or any culture for that matter. Guess we better just toss out history as a subject in schools.

I went to school with a student that didn't belive in God, or Christmas. Yet his mother never threw a tissy, he just didn't say "under god" in the pledge, and he got the day of the Christmas party off, unless he (or his mom) wanted to attend. Not that we said prayers during it or anything. The same went for the students that their parents didn't want them to learn Sex ed, or disection in biology.

What is this country comming too.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
And how do you teach about the holocost if you can't mention that the majority of victims were Jews? and persicuted for their religion.


Well, if you want to get technical, the Nazis persecuted the jews because of their race, not their religion. The Jewish faith was just something they "did" as a people. I see your point though; it's kind of hard to teach about Mayan (Aztec?) human sacrifices and things if you can't mention that they worshipped a deity of some kind.

But then, it seems quite fine by the atheists to mention things like Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, even Wicca and Vampirism.....just not Christianity, Jesus Christ or our God (which, I have to point out, is the same God worshipped by the Jews).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
hows this for insane

I pledge alliagence to the flag{idolitry} of the united states of america and to the republic {hmmm republic denotes a single entity}
for which it stands {does that leave people out that cannot stand?} One nation {are we}? Under GOD {gee maybe were on top of god}? Indivisable {yeh right look at the warfare in culture here} for liberty{ for those that can afford it} and juST US {for the rich } for all

see how a nut can take apart the whole pledge./?

This man gives even athiest a bad name..
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #16 By: Rightwinger - 1/7/2005 2:27:19 PM
And how do you teach about the holocost if you can't mention that the majority of victims were Jews? and persicuted for their religion.


Well, if you want to get technical, the Nazis persecuted the jews because of their race, not their religion.


um wrong......... polish german french jews etc etc all persacuted not for there race but for there religion.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
Can't someone sue this guy right now for him trying to push his beliefs onto us?


There's nothing legally wrong with atheism.....it's his right not to believe. Religion, however, is disallowed by law in public schools. And there's the rub.

As I said somewhere above, we no longer have the right to freedom of worship. That right has been abbrogated by people like Newdow, and Madalyn O'Hare (who, in the most supremely sublime act of cosmic justice I think I've ever heard of, disappeared a few yers ago amid charges of embezzlement. Her body, along with the body of her son, the ones who started the whole legal problem of religion in schools and govenment, was found a couple years later in a shallow grave, having been shot, murdered, apparently by the real embezzler. Maybe there really is such a thing as Karma), who don't want to (at least) acknowledge the possible existence of someone or something greater than themselves.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
um wrong......... polish german french jews etc etc all persacuted not for there race but for there religion.


No, you're wrong.....the Jews (Polish, German, French, Russian, Czech) were persecuted for belonging to the Semitic race of the Hebrews. Religion had nothing to do with it. There were also many Christian converted Jews who went to the camps. It was based on bloodline, not faith.
American and British Jews (those captured as POWs in the war) were also persecuted, by the way, and sent to the camps.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
along with the body of her son, the ones who started the whole legal problem of religion in schools and govenment


Actually, the son she started the suit with (the oldest) is alive and well and a practicing Cathic, and had been estranged from his mother and brother for years before their murder. Her oldest son didn't even agree with her about religion is schools.

My kids go to a porocial school anyway, they can pray whenever they want (L) Dispite that I'm not religious, but the porocial school teach better morals and disapline (IMO) than the public schools. Plus smaller class sizes. I want my kids exposed to different religions and fortunately, this school provides that. They can learn about the religious belifs of other and (I hope) learn to respect them and their belifs.

But I have always thought that, in order to promote tollerance, religous studies should be taught in schools (in the high school level) and not as a prerequisit. So students can learn about the different religions with equil time put to each religion, or group of persons with likeminded belifes regarding god/gods by any name or the lack of a higher power. Schools teach cultural differances to promote racial tollerance, why not religious tollerance? Religious persictution has always existed, has toppled empires and caused wars, some still rageing today. But that's just my, probably unpopular, take on it anyway.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as the Holicost goes, if you were not "blond haired, blue eyed", German, and fit the "nose profile" you were deemed a Jew. The mentally/physically ill were also experimented on and executed. Persons of actually Jewish belifes were also experimented on. Pregnant women would have their legs bound together to see how long the mother and baby could live if birth was not allow to occure, and many other horrific things that are almost completely forgotten by the masses.

Sorry for the grusome example.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, the son she started the suit with (he oldest) is alive and well and a practicing Cathic, and had been estranged from his mother and brother for years before their murder. Her oldest son didn't even agree with her about religion is schools.


Yeah...that's right....I remember hearing that before. Sorry. My mistake.
I remember now; I saw him on a couple talk shows a long time ago, talking smack about his mom and her (non)beliefs. I saw them both together once. I think it was the old Phil Donahue show or something like that.
Man, but she was a hardcore, high-iron bitch though, wasn't she? Very rude and mouthy. I'm right and you're not, so fuck you.....that kind of attitude. We're better off without her.
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
One thing's for sure. O'Hare's not in doubt about the existence or nonexistence of God anymore, is she?
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah...that's right....I remember hearing that before. Sorry. My mistake.
I remember now; I saw him on a couple talk shows a long time ago, talking smack about his mom and her (non)beliefs. I saw them both together once. I think it was the old Phil Donahue show or something like that.
Man, but she was a hardcore, high-iron bitch though, wasn't she? Very rude and mouthy. I'm right and you're not, so fuck you.....that kind of attitude. We're better off without her.


They had a thing about her an American Justice, that's why I remembered it. She was an mouthy, nasty women, you got that right.