correction
hitting the ?
getting the ?
shit.
hitting quotation
gettin (as you see)question
You know, this is the same sort of thing that was being hinted at before by others. I really don’t get the whole line of reasoning here. The argument seems to be that as long as there is any group that was ever treated worse than you, then you have no standing to complain. So presumably, I guess, the only people who could ever complain would be the one group that was treated “the worst” ever in history.
I mean, perhaps I should be ever so grateful that the state, in its benevolence, deigns to allow me to marry, vote, and freely associate. I guess “whiny” atheists are lucky they get that much, eh? Never mind that when I do marry, and have children, that they are forced to participate in religious ceremonies in a public school. Yes, by all means, let’s all us atheists thank our lucky stars that we aren’t herded into concentration camps and forcibly sterilized.:rolleyes:
Sorry, but you just really come off as a guy with a HUGE chip on his shoulder, and a real dislike of atheists.
I only dislike the atheists who are so proud of their superior intellect that they feel the need to browbeat people over it and start tossing about insults. Now, instead of “I’m smarter than all of you,” it is, “poor me I’m smarter than all of you but I’m a second class citizen.”
Seriously? Second class citizens? You walk into stores wearing an atheist shirt and people throw you out?
Atheists may face some discrimination, I’m not denying that, but so does every other minority religious and other minority groups. Claiming to be second class citizens is absurd.
Trust me, there are fewer pagans than there are atheists. FFS, pagans are looked down on even by atheists, so don’t start lecturing. I’m not happy about the religious ceremonies in school, and I may be stupid and ignorant enough to believe in a supernatural force, but I know enough to know what constitutes true repression. Sure, let’s work to get rid of the last vestiges of religious control, but let’s not start crying wolf needlessly.
The same thing about a “chip on the shoulder” can be said about many atheists, especially on this board. Anything remotely theist is attacked visciously under the justification of such loose concepts as “religion causes all the evil in the world.” Yea, I think I have a chip on my shoulder.
Alaric, are you writing your posts in MS Word before you post them? It almost looks like you’re doing something with smartquotes on. If you are, check the help in Word to turn them off.
nope, jus? fillin? in the little box.
aaargh!!
i cant get an apostrophe or quotation mark…
I just think this is a really unfair characterization. Sure, maybe there are some atheists who do that, but then there are some theists who murder abortion doctors, and I certainly wouldn’t tar all theists with that brush.
I think you’re overreacting. If everyone agrees that there is discrimination, then it’s just semantics as to what “second-class citizen” means. So you disagree with that characterization. So does MEBuckner in your other thread, but he manages to do it without all the rancor.
If you want to say that he overstated the point, fine- but why all the venom? Truth be told, sometimes I do feel like a second-class citizen, especially when I see the hostility in people’s reactions to the pledge-of-allegiance case:
It’s a little hard not to feel like a second-class citizen when your own Senate declares its commitment to a God that you don’t believe in, in obvious contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.
These are our elected leaders, acting, IMO, like children. Our President says it’s “ridiculous” for us not to want religious ceremonies conducted by the government. I think he’s wrong. This country was supposedly founded on religious freedom. But anyone who even suggests that this might be the case, is labeled as a “whiner”, or “arrogant”, or worse. Sue me - I just don’t think it’s that arrogant to want to go with what the Constitution says.
Did anybody use the word “repression”? Let’s please end this strawman once and for all.
Personally, I don’t subscribe to that theory. I think there would be evil people with or without religion. I’ll bet you that for every arrogant atheist post, I can find an atheist post that is not.
O.K., well that’s pretty much what I was saying. You might think about getting rid of the chip.
Oops, forgot the link:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56322,00.html
Here’s an interesting twist on the Newdow saga. http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/9612420p-10535871c.html
Apparently Chaplain Miles forgot that bit about not bearing false witness. 
I don’t know about y’all, but I expect more out of “former ‘circus ringmasters’”.
Supreme court reverses previous ruling, says Newdow doesn’t have enough custody of the kid to sue: http://www.thewmurchannel.com/education/3415713/detail.html
Could someone explain to me what “not enough custody” means? Of the several articles I’ve seen online today, no one seems to give a decent answer on why the Supremes sidestepped this issue.
The Supremes decided that Mr. Newdow did not have standing to sue.
In other words, he wasn’t affected by the rule requiring that schools recite the Pledge. Since he was not the custodial parent, the Court decided that he had no right to speak for his daughter on this issue.
Obviously, I couldn’t decide to sue the school district if they did something that adversely affected some random child there, right? I’d have to be affected either personally to sue, or I’d have to have some right to act as the guardian of a child that was personally affected.
The Supremes appear to have decided that Mr. Newdow was not in that position with respect to his daughter.
- Rick
Sounds kinda fishy to me. Doesn’t Mr. Newdow have other responsibilities to his daughter, up to and including child support, even without custody of her? If so, why doesn’t he have the right to speak for her in a court of law?
Or is this a repeat of the Florida 2000 fiasco, where the Supremes use a technicality to deliver a desired result they couldn’t justify legally?
I wonder why, if Newdow didn’t have standing to sue, it got all the way to the %$#!@ Supreme Court. That was a huge waste of money, if it was as simple as that. Or is the judgement that a parent without “enough” custody does not have standing to sue something that is not always invoked? Not often invoked? Is it a good idea to prevent a parent from suing if they think their child’s rights are being infringed, even if the custodial parent doesn’t want to?
He does apparently have partial custody now, 10 days a month based on the article.
Because his intent is in direct opposition to the parent who has custody.
It appears that Ms. Banning, the custodial parent, did not enter into the dispute in the earlier court suits, even though the media tracked her down and discovered that she opposed Mr. Newdow’s actions. (No reason has been given for her inaction, which might have resulted from any number of causes, such as not being aware that she could enter a brief (when it was in California), not having the funds to get a lawyer to prepare a brief, feeling that Mr. Newdow was simply being a crank and that she did not need to get involved, or for some other reason.)
Once the case went to the SCOTUS, she decided to participate and filed a brief that indicated that she was the custodial parent and that she opposed Mr. Newdow’s actions (information that was not presented to the 9th Court).
I would agree that this is a convenient way for SCOTUS to get off the hook, but I don’t really blame them. Factually messy cases are hardly the best sources for Constitutional precedent. (Besides, given the statements of the Supremes, those who oppose “under God” should be rejoicing: a majority ruled that they favored the phrase, but they declined to make that Law. If an opponment to “under God” can wait a few years until a more favorable Court is in place, they will be more likely to secure a favorable ruling, rather than having the Court cement that nonsense in Law.
Ah, that explains how it got so far.
“a majority ruled that they favored the phrase,”
should be
“a majority noted that they favored the phrase,”