Michael Newdow: Attention Whore
By Wyatt Earp | December 31, 2008
Sweet Jesus, why can’t this man just go away? Heh.
You may remember Michael Newdow as the toolbox who wants to force his atheism on the rest of the country. He fought to have the phrase “under God” removed from The Pledge of Allegiance, declared that he wanted “In God We Trust” removed from all U.S. currency, and is now suing to have prayer removed from Barack Obama’s inauguration.
It is also rumored that Newdow wants to have the phrase “Dark Lord of the Sith” removed from Darth Vader’s title.
The head of an atheist group that has filed a lawsuit against prayer at Barack Obama’s presidential inauguration says the government is picking a winner between “believers” and “those who don’t believe” and subjecting atheists and agnostics to someone else’s religious beliefs.
Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, has joined with Michael Newdow, who fought to have the words “under God” removed from the Pledge of Allegiance, in a federal lawsuit seeking to enjoin the Presidential Inaugural Committee from sponsoring prayers at the official inauguration.
The 34-page legal complaint similarly seeks to enjoin Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., from adding the phrase “So help me God” to the presidential oath of office.
“We’re hoping to stop prayer and religious rituals at governmental functions, especially at the inauguration,” Barker told FOX News Radio. (H/T - FOXNews)
Good God, this guy is a bothersome pain in the ass. You’re a lawyer, Michael, and while that makes you a bottom feeder, it also makes you mildly intelligent. Intelligent enough to know that the United States of America was founded upon Judeo-Christian ideals. That’s right, Junior, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and most of the Founding Fathers believed in God, and they prayed every day.
But, being a lawyer, you probably believe you know better than them, right?
I hate rehashing this argument again and again, but I fear I must. The phrase “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. It is an idea put forth by the Founders that was supposed to protect America from becoming a theocracy. America is not a theocracy, Michael. It never has been, and it never will be. Rest easy.
Making a claim that these phrases and a few prayers are unconstitutional is lunacy. It is also a red herring, used primarily to keep yourself in the spotlight. Frankly, it nauseates me. However, if you are truly “offended” at hearing a prayer, by all means, change the channel. If you are truly “harmed” by reading a few phrases, feel free to find a more liberal place to live. (I hear Canada is wonderful this time of year.)
What you shouldn’t do is force your idiotic opinions on the rest of America - 76.5 - 78.5% of which identify themselves as “Christian.” We tolerate your “offensive” shenanigans; it wouldn’t kill you to tolerate ours.
(Momster has her thoughts on the subject HERE.)
Topics: People I Hate |
December 31st, 2008 at 8:21 am
God will one day remove the person offending our ability to use “God” in our lives, long before said person could get us to remove the reference by rule of law…. now back to the topless sun bathing in Australia. Where were the pictures?
December 31st, 2008 at 9:09 am
Amen.
Well said.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:23 am
Thank you Wyatt. However, I’ve always understood it that the Founders didn’t want the United States to have a state church like Great Britain does. There, the head of state HAS to belong to the Church of England. Just like the head of state of Denmark HAS to be a Lutheran.
It wasn’t a theocracy they were worried about, it was a State Church.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:31 am
Excellent piece, thank you . You have awakened my muse.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:50 am
Earl - Couldn’t find any. And believe me, I checked!
RT - Amen. Heh.
Ky person - Correct. It was actually both. The Church of England was slowly moving toward what would be considered a theocracy at the time, and the Founders wanted to avoid that conundrum at all costs. Either way, the Founders were a highly religious bunch, and America has gotten away from that, which is fine. But eliminating these phrases and prayers altogether? Sorry, Mr. Newdow, it’s not going to happen.
Momster - Glad to be of service.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:52 pm
No one in this country has the right to not be offended. It simply dosen’t exist as a constitutional protection. We need to stop making silly laws as if it were a protection.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:02 pm
A. “Separation of church and state” is, correct, NOT in the Constitution.
B. Nor does it inherently mean “separation of church FROM state.”
BZ
December 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Ky person said:
” … like Great Britain does. There, the head of state HAS to belong to the Church of England.”
More than that, the Head of State (the sovereign, currently Queen Elizabeth II) is the Supreme Governor of the established Church of England (but not the spiritual head).
For a recent discussion of the case for disestablishment, see:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=631
Melanie is always worth a read. For long articles see:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/
For her blog on the Spectator magazine site see:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/
December 31st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
This country was founded on Christian beliefs, if you don’t like it then go live in a different country.
A lot of the problems today are caused by us removing God from everything, say what you want but this is what I believe and I’m not alone in my beliefs.
May the Lord have Mercy on this man…
December 31st, 2008 at 7:12 pm
I actually had to have a debate with myself before I decided to put in my 2 cents. Being non-Christian, but still religious, not atheist, I figured I had the right to chime in.
First off, I have no problems with having
on my money. I also have no problem with having the phrase
in our national anthem.
What I do have a problem with, is loud mouthed lawyers, who have nothing better to do in their lives, then constantly attack my country and its values. If you don’t want to follow a religion, then that is your choice. But do NOT try to shove your non-religious garbage down my throat in the process.
(goes and sits in the corner of her little round room)
December 31st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Mike 47 - They can be offended, but they need to keep it to themselves . . . or rant about it on their blog.
BZ - I like how this tool belongs to the Freedom FROM Religion Foundation.
Alan - Thanks for the clarification, sir!
Toni -Well said.
E.L. - Shut up, Pagan! Tee hee hee!
December 31st, 2008 at 10:10 pm
I agree with the Zeppelin. That about sums it up. You can come here and practice your religion privately. That means leave it at home. Otherwise, go back to where you came from and practice it there.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:26 pm
I will refrain from further comment……….. least on this subject
December 31st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
Not only is “the separation of Church and State” NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution, but Art. I denies the Government the the power to “abridge” the free speech (public prayer) of a citizen.
/ Q.E.D.
January 1st, 2009 at 2:00 am
Did any of you actually read the legal complaint, which is available on his website.
Count one is to restore the oath of office that that which is written in the constitution, Article 2. It’s 35 words ending in Untied states, without “So Help Me God”
Count 1, which should be passed, makes no argument that Obama or anyone else be denied the right of prayer, in public, at the inauguration or anywhere else.
You can be against the additional counts, but this one is preserving the constitution.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Sweet Jesus, why can’t this man just go away?
So says the blogger about an atheist!