The NY Times interviews Mike Newdow today. Now, I agree 100% with his view that gods have no place in the Pledge of Allegiance, or on our money. I also think, though, he was incredibly naive if he didn’t see the backlash this would provoke, and I’m not sure dragging his eight-year-old daughter into this was the best thing to do.
But the interview has a photo of him, barefoot and strumming a guitar, and he goes on and on about getting rid of masculine and feminine pronouns in the English language: “Go on, try it out. ‘Re’ went to the store. It’s easy.” Aw, crap. First that abrasive harridan Madalyn Murray O’Hair, now him. There are so many well-spoken, publicly presentable atheists around; why do the equivalents of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwall always get the spotlight? Just makes it easier for people to dismiss the whole subject and write atheists off as a buncha hippie nutjobs.
Okay, gods don’t need to be there, but they are, so whatever. I grow so tired of this shite. Everyone’s a nutter. I’d lay good money that this guy doesn’t say the pledge of allegiance now, or will say it even if the word god is removed. Nutter.
I could just as easily say “There are so many well-spoken, publicly presentable Christians around; why do Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell always get the spotlight?”
I think it’s because the media love nutcases. They make good copy.
I was actually disappointed that it wasn’t a public school teacher who had to lead the class in the pledge. However, I think it’d be much harder to find a public school teacher who’s willing to be a martyr for this issue, and much easier to find a hippie nutjob who’ll be a martyr.
Oh, I agree with you, Steve—I feel sorry for my religious friends when I see Falwell or Robertson or Jack Chick, knowing they don’t in any way represent Christians. Just as Rev. Al and Johnnie Cochran are an embarrassment to black everywhere, and Cochran and Leslie Abrahmson are embarrassments to lawyers.
But I was hoping that the Pledge Guy wouldn’t turn out to be an annoying, easily dismissed loony . . . I was obviously hoping for much too much . . .
The irony is, of course, that it’s not all that hard to find well-spoken, presentable Christians who think this “separation of Church and State” thing you Americans have is actually quite a neat idea. I know I’m flying in the face of centuries of British tradition, but I wouldn’t mind seeing the Church of England disestablished. I think freedom of conscience is a right worth fighting for, and Mr Newdow, however barking he may be in person, has justice on his side.
There’s an excellent editorial in my local paper today (Atlanta Journal-Constitution) from a Christian professor of Church history named Mark Ellington, speaking in support the Circuit Court’s decision. He quite reasonably points out that whenever the government makes a religious statement, it does so in a way that’s practically meaningless, and therefore pointless. You get both bad government and bad religion.
I wish the suit had been brought by a devout Christian who respected the rights of others and didn’t want government messing around with religion. I remember President Kennedy’s clear, logical statement that keeping religion and government out of each other’s business was the best arrangement for our society; I don’t know why we keep having to go through this.
It always is.
[sub]*"Jesus lived in troubled times
the religious right was on the rise
What could have saved him from his terrible fate?
Separation of church and state.
So let’s all sing out praises to
…that long-haired radical socialist jew."* -Hugh Blumenfield, Long-haired Radical Socialist Jew[/sub]
The funniest thing in all of this for me is that this loony’s kids never complained. They were just not participating in the pledge, as far as I read. No harm done. It was the father who decided his kids were being damaged. What a pinhead.
Because reasonable, sane people have jobs to hold down and other responsibilites that preclude them from spending months in court for something like this. Here in DC “neighborhood activist” is a polite euphamism for “unemployed busybody”.
I agree with the decision, but with all the well-documented problems with public schools this is what he devotes his efforts to?
I salute this guy. He’s much more courageous then us. We just sit around talking about this stuff, he’s actually doing something about it. He’s taking an extremely unpopular stance, because he thinks its right. He’s got his name on the line, a name getting smeared by the right. So, while the right (and left) crucifies this guy and his cause, let’s not all go along for the ride.
You don’t like the fact that he in particular did it? Well you could have done it first, and been that reasonable voice. But you didn’t. So you have no cause to complain.
Ms. Murray O’Hair was kinda off her rocker too…no wonder her son cracked and became a fundie minister. The pendulum of lunacy swings wide.
I’ve often wondered in this vein similarly with regarded to Dr. Kevorkian–the guy’s obviously not a good spokesman for his cause, but rather, a lightning rod for the other side. I’ve often thought that the antics of Kevorkian have framed debates over physician assisted suicide and euthanasia in a rigid false dichotomy paradigm of “crazy suicide doctor vs. Christian fundamentalist view of bioethics”.
Hey, sz. Let me borrow your kids every Sunday for the first twelve years so I can take him to my church. After all, it’s not you being forced to listen to some preaching you disagree with, right?
Monty, have you taken leave of your senses? ThePOA is not the same as going to chirch. Jiminy, get some perspective, will ya. The plaintiff’s child is not being harmed by the words “Under God” in the pledge nearly as much as being the child of The Bad Man on TV. What kind of hell must that child be going through at school now?
Nope, gobear. I haven’t taken leave of my senses. The folks who jammed “under God” into the Pledge made it into a prayer; therefore, it’s religious instruction.
BTW, I wasn’t aware that the possible tormenting of a child by illegal bullying was a valid reason to ignore the Constitution. A better idea would be for those jerks on the school board who’re wasting money better spent on educating their charges to actually ensure Newdow’s daughter doesn’t go through any kind of hell over this.
C’mon, you know I am no friend to religion, but “under God” is not a prayer nor religious instruction, not even close. Is it a violation of the Establishment clause? I don’t know–and apparently neither does the court, since they’re still revieiwing the decision.
I do know that Newdow’s quixotic crusade is not worth the bullying his kid is going to take–and you know better than to think that the jerks on the school board are going to be able to do anything to maker her less of a pariah.
Agreed, as far as the kid is concerned. There is a worthy struggle over such things as seperations, but to offer up one’s children… Can’t dig it, not a bit.
It is a necessary adjunct of parenting to keep track of the drivel being foisted upon thier young brains by the public schools.
“Father, is it true that the Labor Movement was a band of seething anarchists seeking to undermine all that was good and decent in America, especially our most sacred rights to Property?”
“No, child, its was the struggle of the noble working class to wrest power and privilege from the greedy grasp of obscene plutocrats who would put a kitten in a blender for a dollar”