NationStates Jolt Archive

Linky (http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=74113)
Two snippets from the article...
Atheist attorney Michael Newdow -- famous for his failed effort to get the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance -- came to Columbia University last week to debate the alleged "separation of church and state." During his appearance, he made the same argument he has made in numerous public speeches -- like this one. "You know, a lot of people say, 'Well, the framers wanted God in our government.' They didn't," Newdow claimed. "They have a Constitution that does not have God in it. It specifically excludes God from it with the First Amendment."

"When [the Establishment Clause in] the Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' that had clear context," the attorney explains. "[W]hat it meant was formal, legal prohibitions on the exercise of religion by individuals, requiring them to get preacher licenses, forcing them to pay tithes to the state church, forcing them to attend the state church and attend its classes, that type of thing."

Newdow's view of religion, says Lorence, results in individuals embarking on "search-and-destroy missions" in their quest to eradicate even private religious speech in the public square -- something specifically protected by the First Amendment.

Firstly, who do you think is correct about the intention of the founding fathers?

Secondly, Do you think the ADF attorney is right about the 'ultimate goal' of Newdow?

In the interest of full disclosure: I admit to not having yet read the full article. I'm giving my view on the subject anyways.

1) I do think we probably take the 1st Amendment farther than many of the Founding Fathers intended. Of course, we also take many protections of individual liberties farther than they intended - including providing equal protection for women and black people. Some of the FF's may not have seen the 1st Amendment as providing protection for atheists. Personally, even if that is true, I find it to be largely irrelevant.

2) I don't think Newdow is necessarily trying to do away with private religious expression - even in public. He might, but I don't think there's enough evidence to conclude that.

I do think that he is trying to carve out a place for atheists in a country that hasn't really recognized the fact that freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion. In order to ensure that any person can practice their own religion without government interference, we must keep any religious tenets from being enforced upon them. Atheists choose not to practice any religion (which should be included in free practice). Thus, they should not have any religion enforced upon them.

Now, to be honest, if "under God" had always been in the pledge, I'd probably say that it is a very trivial issue and that we shouldn't change it because of tradition - that we should simply recognize that the words are not binding on anyone. However, it has not always been a part of the pledge. It was added specifically to discriminate against the "godless commies" (because atheist=commie :rolleyes:). The intention of adding the words thus runs counter to the 1st Amendment and the words should be removed from the pledge.

3) One way or another, keeping religious sentiments out of the pledge of allegiance, or the money, or public courtrooms, etc. does not infringe upon anyone's religious freedom.

2) I don't think Newdow is necessarily trying to do away with private religious expression - even in public. He might, but I don't think there's enough evidence to conclude that.

Answering #2 takes more than just reading the article anyways...

I included pretty much everything in the article that's actually about what Michael Newdow wants to do/have done.

Newdow clearly wants private religious speech by any public official in the public square to be ruled unconstitutional. Now, when it comes to private individuals exercising their right to express their beliefs in a public area, I don't think he has any intention to rob them of that right.

As for the first amendment itself, I would say that any attempt at infusing any sort of theology into government-sponsored activities is a clear violation. In my view, this includes having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or having public school teachers lead their classes in prayer of any sort. These actions signal that the government is clearly endorsing a type of religion, usually monotheism, and thus qualifies as the government taking action with respect to a religious establishment.

Newdow clearly wants private religious speech by any public official in the public square to be ruled unconstitutional. Now, when it comes to private individuals exercising their right to express their beliefs in a public area, I don't think he has any intention to rob them of that right.
Source s'il vous plait.
As for the first amendment itself, I would say that any attempt at infusing any sort of theology into government-sponsored activities is a clear violation. In my view, this includes having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or having public school teachers lead their classes in prayer of any sort. These actions signal that the government is clearly endorsing a type of religion, usually monotheism, and thus qualifies as the government taking action with respect to a religious establishment.

Agreed

Newdow clearly wants private religious speech by any public official in the public square to be ruled unconstitutional. Now, when it comes to private individuals exercising their right to express their beliefs in a public area, I don't think he has any intention to rob them of that right.

What gives you that impression (the first sentence)? I haven't seen anything to suggest it.

As for the first amendment itself, I would say that any attempt at infusing any sort of theology into government-sponsored activities is a clear violation. In my view, this includes having the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or having public school teachers lead their classes in prayer of any sort. These actions signal that the government is clearly endorsing a type of religion, usually monotheism, and thus qualifies as the government taking action with respect to a religious establishment.

Well said.

Newdow clearly wants private religious speech by any public official in the public square to be ruled unconstitutional. Now, when it comes to private individuals exercising their right to express their beliefs in a public area, I don't think he has any intention to rob them of that right.What gives you that impression (the first sentence)? I haven't seen anything to suggest it.


A little something that leads me to believe that Jordan Lorence is full of it about Newdow's supposed goal...


The Alliance Defense Fund is a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation.
ADF is Christ-Centered
We rely solely upon God’s redemptive grace for our existence, our vision, and our sustenance, trusting in His sovereignty as we seek to convey hope to all we serve.

ADF is Servant-Oriented
We are committed to anticipating and meeting the legal needs of those dedicated to preserving religious liberty.

ADF is Committed to Victory
We will prayerfully enter every battle expecting to win while always demonstrating respect towards those who oppose us.

ADF is Committed to Excellence
We are dedicated to achieving superior quality and exceptional results in defending the right to hear and speak the Truth.

ADF is Committed to Stewardship
We acknowledge that all resources are a gift from God and hold ourselves to the highest standards of accountability to Him and those who support our efforts.


The Alliance Defense Fund is a servant organization that provides the resources that will keep the door open for the spread of the Gospel through the legal defense and advocacy of religious freedom, the sanctity of human life, and traditional family values.

Statement of Faith

We believe the Bible to be the inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God.

We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

We believe in the deity and humanity of Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, in His present rule as Head of the Church and in His personal return in power and glory.

We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful men regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.

We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit, by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

We believe that all those who die in God’s grace through faith are assured eternal salvation; those who die in a state of sin and unbelief suffer the punishment of Hell.

We believe in the spiritual unity of believers in our Lord Jesus Christ, with equality across racial, gender, and class differences.

You aren't forced to say the pledge...

Also, atheism should be counted as a religion, and should also be seperated from the public education system.

Firstly, who do you think is correct about the intention of the founding fathers?
Personally, I think neither is 100% correct because both have biased agendas they wish to promote and are therefore spinning the First Amendment to support their biases/arguments.

Secondly, Do you think the ADF attorney is right about the 'ultimate goal' of Newdow?
No, for the reason stated above. The ADF attorney is not an impartial observer or judge of Newdow.

If you want to know what I think Newdow's "ultimate goal" is, I think it is to "de-religion-ify" public government business AND to draw attention to himself and become some kind of minor celebrity among atheists. I think that because I am a cynic.

<snip>

3) One way or another, keeping religious sentiments out of the pledge of allegiance, or the money, or public courtrooms, etc. does not infringe upon anyone's religious freedom.
Quoted for truth. As far as I'm concerned this is the bottom line on the whole matter.

Newdow isn't the only person to advocate taking private religious expression out of the public realm.

Jesus did that, too. Matthew 6: 1-8

You aren't forced to say the pledge...

Also, atheism should be counted as a religion, and should also be seperated from the public education system.

Not practicing any kind of religion in school during the school day, nor including any religious references in any school business that is not a comparative religion course, would certainly accomplish that.

Also, atheism should be counted as a religion, and should also be seperated from the public education system.

:confused:

Im not saying that we should take the word "God" out of our pledge, money, etc...But that God shouldnt be implicitly the Christian God, most politicians and people seem to think it is, and that infringes on peoples Religious freedom, we need to make the clear distinction that the US doesnt support any particular religion...

And, on the Founding Fathers, although many held some Christian beliefs, they werent in fact, Christian, they were primarily Deists, and didnt support a specific church, in fact, the Dominant Christian Churches of Europe would have, and sometimes did, run them out, prompting many to come to America...

3) One way or another, keeping religious sentiments out of the pledge of allegiance, or the money, or public courtrooms, etc. does not infringe upon anyone's religious freedom.

You arrant knave... The obscene lack of any religious insignia is tantamount to forcing the people to believe in what athiests believe in. You know that quote "Don't stare into the abyss, lest the abyss stare into you". Well, that quote is referring to the gaping holes in reality left by athiest insignia. It doesn't refer to not putting the idealized portrait of Jesus on the Dollar bill, it refers to wiping the 'under God' out of the pledge, the 'in God We Trust' off the money, and 'God' out of our children's souls. The 'Abyss' is athiesm and those devils you see spewing out of its putrid maw... are non-believers.

You arrant knave... The obscene lack of any religious insignia is tantamount to forcing the people to believe in what athiests believe in. You know that quote "Don't stare into the abyss, lest the abyss stare into you". Well, that quote is referring to the gaping holes in reality left by athiest insignia. It doesn't refer to not putting the idealized portrait of Jesus on the Dollar bill, it refers to wiping the 'under God' out of the pledge, the 'in God We Trust' off the money, and 'God' out of our children's souls. The 'Abyss' is athiesm and those devils you see spewing out of its putrid maw... are non-believers.

Yeah, its prettymuch that Sentiment that encourages resentment and disunity in the US...:headbang:

Atheist attorney Michael Newdow -- famous for his failed effort to get the words "under God" removed from the Pledge of Allegiance -- came to Columbia University last week to debate the alleged "separation of church and state." During his appearance, he made the same argument he has made in numerous public speeches -- like this one. "You know, a lot of people say, 'Well, the framers wanted God in our government.' They didn't," Newdow claimed. "They have a Constitution that does not have God in it. It specifically excludes God from it with the First Amendment."

Now that just doesn't make sense. God doesn't have freedom of speech?
"When [the Establishment Clause in] the Constitution says 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,' that had clear context," the attorney explains. "[W]hat it meant was formal, legal prohibitions on the exercise of religion by individuals, requiring them to get preacher licenses, forcing them to pay tithes to the state church, forcing them to attend the state church and attend its classes, that type of thing."

Newdow's view of religion, says Lorence, results in individuals embarking on "search-and-destroy missions" in their quest to eradicate even private religious speech in the public square -- something specifically protected by the First Amendment.

Agreed. I heard on the radio a few weeks ago an author who recently wrote a book about religion in early America, it was called Founding Faiths or something similar. He pointed out that the biggest supporters of separation of church and state were Baptists. Their reason was pretty simple: they didn't want the government messing in their affairs! The First Amendment is, if anything, pro-religion.