 Make a donation
of $12 or more and you get a t-shirt!
|
Get News & Event Updates
|
| Michael Newdow & Inauguration Lawsuit - Atheists Talk #052 - Jan. 4, 2009 |
|
On Dec. 30, 2008, Michael Newdow filed suit in U.S. District Court to stop prayers and religious invocations at Barack Obama's Jan. 20, 2009 presidential inauguration. The U.S. Constitution
itself establishes the oath of office for the president (Article II, Section 1) and it properly contains no religious references. Newdow's lawsuit, titled "Newdow v. Roberts," included group plaintiffs such as the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Atheist Alliance International, and Minnesota Atheists. The lawsuit also featured individual plaintiffs, such as Michael Newdow, Dan Barker, Annie Laurie Gaylor, and Minnesota Atheists president August Berkshire. Michael Newdow will be our guest for the entire hour to discuss his latest attempt to uphold the wall of separation between state and church.
Produced by Minnesota Atheists. Directed by Mike Haubrich. Hosted by Stephanie Zvan. Interview by August Berkshire and George Kane.
SPONSORS:
Listen to AM 950 KTNF on Sunday at 9AM Central to hear Atheists Talk produced by Minnesota Atheists.
Stream live online.
Call the studio at 952-946-6205 or email us at
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Bookmark
Email This
Hits: 4681 Trackback(0)
Comments (8)
Len Zanger
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed|
... To Dr. Newdow and the distinquished list of plaintiffs: I've decided to submit written comments and opinions on the case of Newdow v Roberts in advance of the Minnesota Atheists radio show. Unfortunately, I will miss the live broadcast and I will not be able to call in. While I completely agree that the "SHMG" phrase should not be part of the Presidential Inauguration, I also think that the present effort is a complete waste of time and resources. These resources, and those of the various amici might be better used if focused on more promising targets, such as public schools that still sponsor prayer, and public schools that use Bronze-Age mythology to teach history and science. Quite frankly, not only is this not the hill to die on , but Plaintiffs are not sufficiently armed for this battle. Not by half. Not by a long shot. This isn't even on the order of David v Goliath -- it is more on the order of fighting an aircraft carrier with a pea-shooter. And quite frankly, aside from the valuable historical information it contains, the complaint reads more like a manifesto than a legal brief, and in many instances is quite inappropriate, and on the whole is an embarrassment. We must admit that the present case is in fact little more than legal theatrics -- even Dr. Newdow admits repeatedly that he has no expectation of winning. "I have no doubt I'll lose," he said. In my opinion, this makes the complaint not only an embarrassment, but reprehensible conduct on Newdow's part. He has even stated candidly in the press that if this complaint fails he hoped to eventually succeed through appeals. To WHOM, exactly, does he appeal after he has failed with the Supreme Court of the United States? Is he really this ignorant or did he simply "mis-speak" himself? Does he really want Scalia and Thomas to render their opinion and risk setting back Establishment Clause jurisprudence fifty years? It should be considered an act of legal negligence to take a case to a court where it is completely predestined that the court will rule against a meritorious cause, even more so when the case is taken to the Court of Final Appeal. The present effort will only continue to alienate the great mass (excuse me) of people we need to convince that religion does not belong in government -- both believers and non-believers. As it stands, the vast majority are comforted when their leaders pay lip service to their invisible friend, and I also believe that the majority of atheists still in the closet are not only not bothered by it at all, but will see the resulting backlash as sufficient reason to retreat further into the closet. In other words, the Sheeple want it, and they must be convinced otherwise, and this litigation will only serve to antagonize them. The millions of atheists whom you MUST recruit to your cause will instead continue to reject these legal theatrics. Are the Plaintiffs correct in their assertion that "SHMG" is found nowhere in the Constitution and therefore may not be part of the Oath of Office? Are the correct in their assertion that this addendum improperly injects religion into our secular government, thereby alienating tens of millions of Americans who reject the supernatural -- or have honestly proclaimed their atheism? Of course they're correct -- Article 2, Section 1, Paragraph 8 clearly states what the Presidential oath shall be. However, I should not need to remind Dr. Newdow that there are many other accepted legal positions that are also NOT in the text of the Constitution -- such as "presumption of innocence" of an accused person, or being tried by a jury of peers, nor is Congressional authority to print paper money, nor "taxation without representation" nor the "right to privacy" nor the "right to vote" nor the "separation of church and state." These are certainly supported by the Constitution and various historical documents and court decisions. Likewise, there is nothing in the Constitution that says that the elected person cannot or shall not append his/her personal message to the Oath. It would be exceedingly fortunate if SCOTUS refuses to consider the case at all. Plaintiffs would then have the opportunity to retreat, regroup, and better prepare the field next time. The constitutional separation of religion and government could be irreparably damaged if the Court does in fact decide to review the case, and decide that the governmental acknowledgment of "God" is constitutional after all, that an elected person is simply exercising his personal right to do so, and as a "de minimis" part of the ceremony, may be allowed as not having any meaningful effect of coercing religious belief on discerning adults. The court will undoubtedly decide that the ridiculous reliance on the "ceremonial deism" arguments derived from Marsh v Chambers et al governs here, and by adding another case to their "win" pile, they strengthen the argument. Or, most disastrously, the Court may use this moment in history to declare Lemon v Kurtzman invalid, and Lee v Weisman invalid as well. Even if Chief Justice Roberts complies with the suggestion in the complaint that he refrain from prompting the new president with the words, "So help me. . ." and Mr. Obama willingly provide the addendum on his own volition, nothing will have changed. Plaintiffs will have gotten part of what they asked for, but Plaintiffs will have also aroused a hornet's nest. Plaintiffs may wish to consider that drawing national attention to this issue -- without having laid down decades of successful groundwork -- may result in the opposite of the desired effect, that a backlash is almost a certainty. It is quite possible that, given the susceptibility of the majority, and the wealth and power of certain ideological people and groups (Mormons, Catholics, Southern Baptists, K of C, VFW, Scaife, Ahmanson, etc.), that the majority might someday be convinced that Congress should pass a law mandating an addendum to the Oath of Office, or that an Amendment to the Constitution is necessary. It would be far more helpful, I think, to begin to knock the legs out from under "Marsh" and other similar supporting cases by looking for winnable opportunities elsewhere, and by many years of effort build a formidable body of case law in favor of the separation of religion and government -- and just as important, build trust and confidence among the religious majority that absolute separation is a benefit to them as well. The current state of affairs did not come about in a few years and it will not be corrected by bringing a single case. Dr. Newdow will not kill the vine that strangles the tree of Liberty by hacking wildly at branch, leaf and fruit. This poisonous vine has grown deep roots, and has fertile soil to grow in, and that is where all of our attention is needed -- otherwise it will grow back stronger every Spring. One does not get rid of a nest of hornets by poking it with a stick. Those hornets will end up stinging all bystanders. With all due respect to the Plaintiffs, which include organizations I'm proud to be part of, if there is some sort of strategy associated with bringing this suit, that strategy is really and truly beneath you. Respectfully submitted, Len Zanger Bloomfield Hills, MI |
Alex
said:
|
... Mr. Newdow and all the Atheist's. It is sad to see that you have not had the great blessing of hearing God talk to you. I strongly beleive that this is because you have no faith. I have been blessed more than once. God has spoken to me several times and can honestly say that this brings tears to my eyes. I have had a hard, hard life and can assure you that if it wasn't for God's guidance and love, I would not be were I am. My son almost died a couple of times. I turned to God and expressed my concern. I can honestly say that his words to me were "my child, don't cry and don't worry, for I will watch over your son and he will be ok" He is now a wonderful son and has so much love for everyone and prays for all. He is now 25 years old and am proud to say that he does not drink, smoke, nor say bad words. God has turned him around and has also talked to him and expressed how important it is to love and respect others especially your parents. He is also helping out young teenagers and advising them to finish school, respect your parents and stay away from drugs and crimes. I know everyone has the right to beleive what they want, but we as Christians have the right to ask for respect. Unfortunately God will not talk to you unless you really have faith. I am grateful and always will be just to know that God has communicated with me on several occasions. I pray everyday for my family and friends and can honestly say that my life is so much better now that I pray on a regular basis. I will pray that you too get the opportunity to hear God talk to you. I am sure that if you just ask him to send you a sign, he will. Of course you probably won't, but that is your great loss. Just think and think this over and truly spend a day by yourself and just ask God to show you a sign. I can assure you that he will. I will pray for you and your family and so sorry to hear that you have lost all faith. Faith is the most valuable gift one has and it gives us great joy when someone tells us God Bless, so please leave it alone and keep it out of your house, but not others. Thank and take care |
Dana Morale
said:
|
... It is sad to see that Alex has heard voices. It is sad to discover Alex, like so many others is delusional. Thanks and take care. |
smorse61
said:
|
... Dude, get a life. Why don't you do something that is productive? Maybe something that the majority of the people in this country could appreciate |
Bob Matejek
said:
|
... Newdow and his band of merry assholes should all take cyanide and get the fuck off my planet. This treasonous, un-American, shitfaced radical should be grateful that 90 percent of the human race is god fearing and has some semblance of morality. My Country was founded on the priciples rooted in religion and religious freedom. So, Newdow, two words for you and your ilk..."FUCK YOU". Bob Matejek |
Jon
said:
|
... Thanks Bob. It's so refreshing to hear the love for your fellow man and the peace and tolerance of religion shining through in your message. Thank God we have such "religious freedom" for other religious viewpoints from such enlightened people as yourself. If God wanted us to believe in him, then he'd exist. |
mj
said:
|
... Hey, Bob, thanks, friend! I'm heartened that there are 10% of the world's people who are not homicidal maniacs with easy access to guns who can't stand that someone has a different worldview than they do. Len, you've probably got some fine points, but damn, "reprehensible, "an embarassment," legal negligence" - with all the injustices in the world, from dying children to rich Wall Street thieves fattening themselves to the Pope's genocidal missives, you choose to hurl this invective at people who by your own admission have a case? Forget the inside-politics of it all - who cares about unreachable zealots like Roberts and Scalia and Obama - let our side try its various ways to state its presence. Of course it's like a pea-shooter taking on an aircraft carrier - are you claiming we have more sociological power than that? At least Newdow and Barker/GAylor are not running scared around their masters... |
Ali Ali
said:
|
... all you atheists can go to hell! (Or you can stick around and watch christians, muslims and jews turn earth into a hell as they fight ww3.) What a choice, hunh? With christians murdering 10 million indians and stealing indian land, and with white christians enslaving black christians in the usa, and with christians slaughtering christians by the 10s of millions in ww1 and ww2, who needs a devil, hunh? then we have christians selling nuclear weapons to muslims and jews. It might be cooler in hell. Satan took an early retirement a long time ago. |
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|