MichaelNewdow.com, I pit ya

The BBQ Pit
1

I would say “I pit thee,” but I’m from Texas. Actually, maybe it should be “I pit yall.” Anyway…

And now, I’m happy to present "We’re Not All Like That"™ post number eleventy-billion.

I stumbled across this mind-numbing web page while reading Salon.com’s interview with Michael Newdow today. If you’re unfamiliar, he’s the dude suing the government to get “Under God” out of the Pledge of Allegience. This site has a collection of emails that “Christians” wrote to him. I’m beside myself. I’ll just let the email I wrote to the site (they call themselves “Jesus Christ Saves Ministries”) speak for itself.

…

I cannot believe what I’m reading on your “emails to Michael Newdow” web page. I am disgusted as a Christian, an American, and a human being. Do you know how many non-Christians are reading your web page? Thanks to the mindless vitriol you’re showcasing, anyone on the internet who wants to make Christians look bad will be linking to you to show how small-minded and ridiculous we all are. People who don’t know any better are going to assume that this is what Christianity is about.

I hope you know better. I hope you know that Christ is about love, not hate. Christ is about inclusion, not exclusion. Christ is about peace, not threats of violence. Your misrepresentation of real Christian faith is truly appalling.

I’d like to address a few comments that your readers made on the emails page. A user named “Bevin” says he’s offended that atheists impose their lack of values on him. Am I the only one who sees that we might just be imposing our values on Mr. Newdow? I thank God that the founders of our great nation had the foresight to set things up so people of all faiths can have a spot at the table. That didn’t happen by accident. As Christians we’re in the majority at the moment, but what if we weren’t? What if the United States of America were an atheist nation? I’d be glad knowing that the government couldn’t force my children to denounce God every morning.

Other writers like “Disgusted in Maryland” wonder why Mr. Newdow doesn’t find something better to worry about. I’m wondering why your readers don’t do the same thing. Why are you so concerned about this issue? We’re not talking about an assault on Christianity in general; we’re talking about reverting the Pledge of Allegiance back to its original state. Do your readers know that the author of the pledge never intended the words “under God” to be included? The words were added by Congress in the 1950s.

Getting back to finding something better to worry about, are the presence of the words “under God” in the pledge really that important? Are your children getting a significant amount of their spiritual fulfillment by mindlessly droning the pledge every morning? If so, have you ever considered doing Bible studies at home, praying together, and going to church?

By far the most disturbing comments came from the person calling himself “Angry American.” I can’t believe I’m reading threats of physical violence from a “Christian” against another human being. He should be ashamed of himself, and you should be ashamed of yourselves for giving him a tacit endorsement by publishing his email.

Being a Christian means many things to many people. To me it means we can make a difference and make the world a better place. It means that we have a love within us that’s stronger than any human emotion we might feel otherwise. It means that we want to be more like Jesus Christ.

My savior does not threaten. He doesn’t intimidate people who don’t agree with him. He does not hate. He is a model of love and forgiveness, and I plan on spending the rest of my time on this planet trying to be more like Him. So what exactly are you trying to do?

Sincerely,
Chris Stevens
[website removed per request-Czarcasm]

2

Whoops… must… preview… I didn’t mean to include my URL there; I just copied and pasted from my email. I’m not intending to advertise. Mods, please remove that if it’s inappropriate. My apologies.

3

Fixed it.

4

I apologize if I’m stepping on your toes, Slacker, but I’d like to clarify (for others, I know you know) that MichaelNewdow.com is not actually affiliated with Michael Newdow. I wrongly assumed that MichaelNewdow.com was Michael Newdow’s website, even though your post didn’t make much sense under that assumption. I was confused, so I figured maybe someone else might be too.

See, I thought you were pitting Michael Newdow for putting up some letters he received on his own website. Instead, you’re pitting an anti-Michael Newdow group, whose website happens to be MichaelNewdow.com, for making the “Christian side” look like morons. And morons they look like, indeed.

Carry on.

5

Thanks Czarcasm. And word, Jimmy Chitwood, I could have made that more clear.

Speaking of the name of the site, and legal eagles know if they’re allowed to register a person’s name as a domain like that for the purpose of defaming that person? Seems like a suspect thing to do.

6

Ah, Christian love. This is why I’m an atheist. I simply believe that the “hey, now, this kind of christian is really a small minority” crowd are fooling themselves. This attitude, in my experience, is much, much, much more common than folks would have me think.

7

Link to the page under discussion.

Quotes from the page under discussion:

8

Whoops, almost missed another great one:

9

Fact: in every case there is a winner and there is a loser.
Fact: The winner gets his will imposed on the loser.

So “Bevin” has a point. Someone is always inconvenienced by someone else. That’s the way it is, that’s the way it always will be.

10

Not in this case. Due to the chickenshit “standing” ruling, it’s as if the whole thing never happened, no winners, no losers.

11

Are you sure you understand the ruling. SCOTUS did not rule on the constitutionality of “under god,” only that Newdow had no standing to bring the complaint. The constitutional question is still wide open. Nothing was decided.

Furthermore, “Bevin” is wrong anyway because Newdow is not attemptiong to “impose atheism” on anyone, he’ s only seeking not to have theism pressed on his daughter by the state.

Minty is right. It was a chickenshit ruling. I suspect that they know that Newdow is right on the law but they didn’t have the courage to say so.

12

I understand that. Sooner or later it will be decided, though, and this discussion will still be relevant then.

And perhaps I prefer it in there and it is an imposition on me to have it removed. Once again, someone is always inconvenienced/offended/whatever.

I agree it was a chickenshit ruling, and I suspect that it will be eliminated. That doesn’t mean that I have to be happy about it.

13

Why specifically would you be unhappy about it? I’m sure you’re aware that the original pledge didn’t have the phrase in it, that it was added in the 1950s, and that if we were designing a pledge from scratch today it certainly would not make the cut.

Why is it necessary to invoke religion in what is a 100% secular issue?

14

If you park on my front lawn without permission, do you consider it an imposition when I ask you to get off?

15

Mmm… hot sweaty christian love. :cool:

Sorry. Seriously, some of the nicest (and sexiest, but that’s irrelevent) people I know are Christians, because they take the ‘love’ thing seriously. And some of the most maleavolent fucking evil people are too, because they miss it, and concentrate on hating. Here’s to the first sort.

16

This one confused me no end:

“people like you are the only hope for the human animal”

Was it talking about Newdow? How’d they let that one slip in? It was the only positive they printed…

17

Amusingly, they have all the well-debunked made up foundingg father quotes by professional liar David Barton. Boy, that’s a big surprise!

18

Sorry, but a mere wish for the universe to be different isn’t an imposition. It would be an imposition if your own government asked you to affirm that Baal rules over your nation, and asked your schoolchildren to recite it. It isn’t an imposition for the government NOT to do something.

19

Yeah, it’s a terrible imposition on a religious person to NOT have an invocation to supernatural forces in the Pledge of Alleigance. Because, as we all know, it’s really quite impossible to be a loyal American if one doesn’t profess belief in a monotheistic religious system, so it’s easy to see why this would be the case. There’s no need to confuse the issue by needlessly dwelling on the so-called “fact” that the author of the original Pledge didn’t seem to think such an invocation was necessary. But, really, this only goes to show that the author of the Pledge wasn’t a fully loyal American. Good thing someone else came along to amend the Pledge before the country was completely destroyed.

Yep, this is obviously a case of “six of one, half dozen of the other.” Either way, someone is offended–it is indeed a dilemma with no clear solution. Too bad America doesn’t have any principles or values whatsoever about keeping church and state separate, or not imposing religious beliefs on others, or about protecting minority rights, that one could employ to clarify the issue at hand. If someone is offended either way, then what are you going to do? It’s best just to accede to the beliefs of the religious majority. After all, this has always worked out so well in the past.

20

If I need constant oxygen to survive, then removal of that oxygen (even for the duration of a short speech) would be an imposition that I’d fight against tooth and nail.

Presumably some people need constant repetition and public affirmation of mindless irrational dogma for their world view to survive, and so removal of that (even for the duration of a short speech) is an imposition that they fight tooth and nail.

Living with insecure people sure is a trial.