Michael Newdow was the plaintiff in the lawsuit to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance. His original lawsuit was rejected by the Supreme Court because they said he lacked standing, but he's back with a group of plaintiffs who have standing.
I'm writing this post because I feel he needs some support. I searched the blogosphere for posts about him and found nearly unanimous hatred.
I respect what Newdow is doing. Being an atheist, I find the Pledge's "under God" clause to be extremely offensive. I feel like I'm being told that I'm not a real American unless I believe in God.
The best pro-Newdow post I could find was this post written by John P. Hoke. I don't think that Mr. Hoke and I would agree on many other issues. His Newdow post contains an unfortunate jab against Republicans. But where is the Democratic party on this issue? Democrats are silent. Democrats and Republicans have united against rational people like myself. We think religion is stupid and we don't want our children indoctrinated in the silliness.
Also, this post at S.I.M.U. offers a brief word of support for Newdow.
7 comments:
Funny you should ask. I was just saying on my blog The New Democratthat you shouldn't try to take away the Christian character of our countru, because the majority of the citizens are CChristian or religious. How is getting the Under Gos statement out of the pledge not trying to put your religious views on others. Being an atheist is a religion too, you know.
I am also going to have to disagree with your post. (Hopefully i'm not taken out back behind the wood pile for a "lesson)...
Any way, fortunately Mr. Newdow is wrong. He is a minority in this case. Just because you are part of a minority in total doesn't mean you are entitled to a majority voice.
Everyone who was born here should realize and understand the meaning of our country's birth. Because new citizens know this.
Our country was founded by a group of people who wanted to escape religious persecution. Free to practice their own beliefs away from being criminalized as heretics. Our foundation in all aspects of our government embrace a higher power, a deity if you will, and that can't be legislated out of existence. Not when you consider that over 90% of this country's citizens have a belief in a higher power.
While everyone has a right to their beliefs, or no belief, those in a minority have to right to deprive the rest of us of our rights as well to have a moral and ethical code in which we have determined justify our laws and way of life.
To think otherwise, and to try and force your non-belief on the rest of us is contrary to a society that respects the sanctity of human life, of moral upbringing, or the rule of law. So in essence, to say you are anti-god, anti-religion, and you will force everyone to not practice, or honor that in our code of law, is to support anarchy, or somehow an anti-law/moral code which is part of our fight against islami-jihadists.
I dunno, I think Newdow kind of went nutjob when he tried to prevent prayers during the inauguration. It's pretty easy for me to ignore the "under God" part of the pledge.
I'm more offended by the concept of pledging allegiance to an inanimate object.
I still do not see how any Supreme Court justice could let the "under God" part of the Pledge continue. It was placed into the Pledge to specifically delienate the US as a Christian country as oppossed to the atheists of the Soviet Union. Which is kinda ironic given the pledge was written by a Christian utopian socialist interested in uniting all countries and creating a utopia. It was written in to define those who did not believe in God as unAmerican. If that is not endorsing a certain religious viewpoint, than I do not know what does.
Remember in 1892 Bellmany (either Francis or Edward, I think it is uncertain who actually wrote it) wrote the Pledge as a celebration of Columbus discovering the Americas in 1492. The original pledge was:
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
In 1923, my flag was changed to the Flag of the United States and in 1924 of America was added. It wasn't until 1942 that is was written into law. Then came the 1950s and the Red Scare. The Atheist Commies were our enemies. The Knights of Columbus lobbied to get the Under God added to the pledge. Congress passed this change in 1954. (Of note is that a year later Under God was added to our currency, and in 1956 the national motto was changed from E Pluribus Unum to In God We Trust.)
The change was specifically designed to establish the country as a Christian country. Sorry if you are Hindu, a Jew who practices not saying God's name, Buddhist, athesit, etc. you do not belong. Having Under God establishes the government as a Christian one, which is a violation of our 1st Amendment.
Americans come from a variety of faiths and non-faiths. To codify the Pledge with language establishing the US as a Christian country, creates a climate where those of us who are other are unAmerican. This is certainly not what the Founders wanted when the Bill of Rights was written.
Besides, the Under God was written into the Pledge based on a silly notion: the Communists are atheists and our enemies therefore all atheists are our enemies. It makes no sense. It is right up there with after Columbine harassing students who wore trench coats or after Oklahoma City white guys who do not like the government. We are celebrating poor logic skills and doing it in the schools which makes no sense whatsoever.
I've never understood why it would not be possible to have two fully authorized versions of the Pledge -- one that said "under God," and another that omitted those words or perhaps inserted a substitute ("equal" has been suggested). Then, everybody recites the Pledge, and at that one spot the little athiest kids say "equal" instead of "under God." What's the big deal?
I'm not too hot on this question and am barely religious, but I think it takes a hair-trigger reading of the Establishment Clause to argue that "under God" in the Pledge somehow violates it, any more than "In God West Trust" on our coinage or any other non-sectarian expression alluding to divinity.
Almost a year ago I blogged this issue here.
My problem with Newdow has nothing to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. His attempts over the years to sue to prevent the president from saying "So Help Me God" while being sworn in annoy the hell out of me. It's a completely optional thing that the presidents have all chosen to say. I could care less either way about the pledge -- I don't like the idea of government schools in the first place, so to me it's a moot point because there are bigger problems. But trying to prevent the president(whoever he or she is) from being able to CHOOSE to say "So Help Me God" after the oath of office? Sorry, he sucks.
If I remember correctly, actually, only "the Creator" is mentioned, and only in the Declaration. I haven't scoured them for the G- word, though, so I might be wrong. (If I am, big deal, I don't think it's that important to the discussion.)
Post a Comment