Newdow Is a Blight on our Community

Michael Newdow has made a name for himself in challenging the courts on behalf of Atheist causes. When he first popped up I was excited to see someone challenging the Pledge of Allegiance. I feel weird about it having under God in there and simply refuse to acknowledge that any pledge is going on while others say it. But then again, I don't even wear my own wedding ring except at events. I'm simply not much for symbolism. But the notion of someone fighting for his child and other kids that felt like me, that I can get behind. 

 

Eventually the case made it to the Supreme Court. It was quickly dismissed because he had a "lack of standing" because he wasn't the custodial parent. The unbelievable notion that custody has anything to do with being a protective parent is an affront to all non-custodial parents. But the case had been addressed. Somehow he feels like he's addressed the custody issue and he made a second run at it. I'm not sure where it's at at this time. Mr. Newdow has many cases pending and it's hard to follow them. 

 

One of his cases making headlines right now is over "In God We Trust" on legal tender. I agree that there is no reason for for the motto. I agree that it's silly. I agree that it gives people the idea that this is a Christian nation. I'd like to see it gone. Mr. Newdow is making that campaign. He's lost several battles along the way including in the liberal 9th Circuit whom says that it's Constitutional. So how is he restructuring his case? 

 

 “Devout atheists are forced to choose between not using what is often the only available legal tender and committing what they consider blasphemy,” Newdow argued in his petition placed on the court’s docket Tuesday.


Devout atheists. Devout atheists, Committing Blasphemy. Mr Newdow... wtf?! There is nothing sacred amongst atheists. There are no rules that we must all follow. for you to publicly go out and assert that we must follow some religiously based law that you have written for yourself is a much greater affront than having in God We Trust on our money. Now we don't have just atheists fighting for that wall of Separation the helps everyone, we have them out there acting religious. I can hear it now, "Your most famous Atheist says that you have rules. You are a religion!" You have set us all back. And for what, a couple of motto's? Why don't you go and write an Atheist Bible and hold revivals while you are at it. Ask for fundraising and Atheist Missions.

 

Here's the short for you Newdow. If your argument can't win on it's merits, you don't do a lick of good to make up merits. It damages our position. It damages our credibility. When you trump up cases time and again just to be a loser. You make the rest of us look like annoying squeaky wheels. Step back. Ten years from now a case will arise with new circumstances will arise and it will be a case heard by more and more modern judges. The "harm" caused isn't going to exponentially grow in the meantime, but you are certainly doing all you can to exponentially grow the Atheist Asshole moniker. Your run is done. You intended to have a good fight. The timing wasn't right. We'll get them next time, on the next case, after Scalia and Thomas are gone. Now sit down. You are becoming embarrassing for not just yourself, but all of us now.  

 

Link to Story http://www.kansascity.com/2011/01/12/2579916/supreme-court-again-is... 

Views: 19

Comment by UnapologeticAtheist on January 13, 2011 at 11:25am

Seriously?  Blasphemy?  Is he trying to undermine the people out there explaining to those who are religious that Atheism is nothing but a stance on whether there is proof for a god.  It's not even just a stance on the Christian god but all gods.  

 

Mr. Newdow, I am not a devout follower of anything.  I use reason and logic to come to  my conclusions.  I do not follow.

Comment by Cathy Cooper on January 13, 2011 at 1:19pm

When you say: "There is nothing sacred amongst atheists. There are no rules that we must all follow. for you to publicly go out and assert that we must follow some religiously based law that you have written for yourself is a much greater affront than having in God We Trust on our money."

 

This type of thinking unfortunately gives ammunition to theists who believe all atheists are heathens who have not morals or laws to follow.  (ironically, it is christians that have no laws, as Paul "saved" them from the law.....but that is another issue.)   In this case, it would be wiser to state that atheists DO follow rules, and laws, and that morality comes from society in the form of Normative Ethical Theories such as Utilitarianism, which means doing what is right for the overall good--no gods required.  A better case for removing such slogans can be made this way.

 

Non belief in god may not have any "rules", but when theists say atheists have "no rules"--it is in an entirely different context--a moral one--which is why it is best to clarify.

Comment

You need to be a member of Think Atheist to add comments!

Join Think Atheist

© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service