Atheist Newdow has his balls squeezed by Supreme Court

[Riddick]

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html)

Interesting to note justice Antonin Scalia had made remarks critical of the case.

Here's to you, Michael Newdow...real men of genius.

[crimresearch]

Are you implying that Scalia's remarks had any pivotal effect on the outcome of today's ruling?

[Silicon]

Are you implying that Scalia enjoys squeezing men's balls?

[crimresearch]

"Are you implying that Scalia enjoys squeezing men's balls?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahhh, you've read his remarks on the enjoyab...errr...admissiblilty of torture, haven't you?

But he did keep his remarks to himself on *this* case.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Seems to me like they really didn't decide anything... they simply took the easy way out and said Newdow couldn't argue his case without full custody of the child.

So the issue remains undecided.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Riddick
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html)

Interesting to note justice Antonin Scalia had made remarks critical of the case.

Here's to you, Michael Newdow...real men of genius.

I wish they would just do away with the pledge in school and only be used in government ceremony and recited as originally intended.

It's watered down, terribly, by having it said every single morning 9 months out of the year for 13 years. sheesh.

The whole idea of forcing patriotism stinks of Nazi Germany.

[toddjh]

I guess we get to look forward to months of gloating by self-proclaimed Christians who think this is some sort of validation and not merely a procedural delay.

Jeremy

[triadboy]

What's funny is - it was thrown out on a technicality. The Court doesn't want to touch this with a ten foot pole. Because of the way the phrase was inserted - it is obviously unconstitutional.

[T'ai Chi]

I found it interesting how the article threw in remarks about his family life, marriage, custody, etc etc.

[SezMe]

While this case was tossed on a technicality, it is, in fact, very bad news. Three judges wrote they thought Newdow had no case. Throw in Scalia and you already have four votes for keeping the odious phrase. The next case has to get ALL of the remaining votes in order to win...which is very unlikely.

Today was an unmitigated disaster.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by RSSchlueter
The next case has to get ALL of the remaining votes in order to win...which is very unlikely.

Today was an unmitigated disaster.

Not necessarily. Newdow is not exactly a genius, and his argument was not necessarily the best one that could be made for the same case. Also, two or three justices (including Rehnquist) are likely to retire in the next few years. If Kerry is elected, their replacements may be more sympathetic.

Jeremy

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by toddjh


Not necessarily. Newdow is not exactly a genius, and his argument was not necessarily the best one that could be made for the same case. Also, two or three justices (including Rehnquist) are likely to retire in the next few years. If Kerry is elected, their replacements may be more sympathetic.

Jeremy True, but bear in mind that Newdow wasn't the only one who made anti-pledge arguments in this case. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Anti-Defamation League, American Atheists, the ACLU and the Council for Secular Humanism, among many others, also participated as amici. These put Newdow in a much better position than he would have been if his arguments had stood alone.

However, I think Newdow's constitutional case was inherently weaker than that of his opponents, in ways that I'm not sure even Kerry appointees to the Court would be willing to overlook.

[Maledict]

Originally posted by Riddick
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge/index.html)

Interesting to note justice Antonin Scalia had made remarks critical of the case.

Here's to you, Michael Newdow...real men of genius.

Interesting isn't it - that the case was dismissed on a technicallity instead of arguing on the case's merits?

Still no evidence of that global flood yet eh...? Oh dear...buh bye.

[T'ai Chi]

I personally think Newdow's case is pretty silly. The pledge, to me, is something akin to the national anthem, and in God we trust on currency, etc. Something like that.

I also wonder what his daughter thinks about all of this, whether she even gives a darn about being exposed to the words "under God" when the pledge is said, or not.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I personally think Newdow's case is pretty silly. The pledge, to me, is something akin to the national anthem, and in God we trust on currency, etc. Something like that.

"In God We Trust" isn't any better. We should get rid of all this McCarthy-era cold war crap.

I also wonder what his daughter thinks about all of this, whether she even gives a darn about being exposed to the words "under God" when the pledge is said, or not.

I wonder what she thinks about eating her vegetables and cleaning her room, too? The welfare of the child is the prerogative of the parents.

Jeremy

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by toddjh

I wonder what she thinks about eating her vegetables and cleaning her room, too?


I don't, because they have nothing to do with the pledge and the issues of this case.


The welfare of the child is the prerogative of the parents.


Yeah, and I'm asking is saying the pledge or being exposed to other saying the pledge affecting her welfare, according to her. She is like 10 or thereabouts, I think she can say whether or not she likes it or not.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by toddjh
"In God We Trust" isn't any better. We should get rid of all this McCarthy-era cold war crap."In God We Trust" on coins goes back a lot further than the Cold War - try the Civil War. IIRC, though, the phrase first made it on to paper notes in the 1950s.
Originally posted by toddjh
I wonder what she thinks about eating her vegetables and cleaning her room, too? The welfare of the child is the prerogative of the parents.Not in Newdow's case, unfortunately.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah, and I'm asking is saying the pledge or being exposed to other saying the pledge affecting her welfare, according to her. She is like 10 or thereabouts, I think she can say whether or not she likes it or not.

A ten-year-old is not mature enough to speak intelligently about what is good for her. What she likes is completely immaterial. This is an issue exclusively for adults, as far as I can tell.

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
Not in Newdow's case, unfortunately.

While I personally agree with you that Newdow is a schmuck, I don't think that's a statement that has any real weight. Getting into the business of judging whether parents are qualified or have their child's best interests at heart opens up a gigantic can of worms. No one will agree on what good parenting is, and worse than that, there probably isn't a single correct answer.

Jeremy

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by toddjh


A ten-year-old is not mature enough to speak intelligently about what is good for her. What she likes is completely immaterial. This is an issue exclusively for adults, as far as I can tell.

Jeremy

Some aspects are, sure. I just want to know what his daughter thinks about all of this, whether or not she really gives a rip.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I personally think Newdow's case is pretty silly. The pledge, to me, is something akin to the national anthem, and in God we trust on currency, etc. Something like that.


But you know exactly(or close) which god. All religions other than christianity have more creative names for their deitys; Krishna, The Great One, Thor, Zeus, Venus, Pluto, Anubas, Ra, Osiris, Isis, Jupiter, Mars, Epona, Neptune etc. The Pledge might as well say One Nation Under Jesus Christ Our Lord And Savior. Unless you're a deist, "God" means God. Ceremonial Deism my ass.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Some aspects are, sure. I just want to know what his daughter thinks about all of this, whether or not she really gives a rip.

But why does that matter? A lot of children don't "give a rip" about going to school, either -- does that mean that a parent's desire for his kid to get an education is misguided? Kids' opinions are simply not an effective measure of welfare, at least at that age.

I don't like Newdow, but I do see his point here: I wouldn't want my kid facing religious indoctrination outside my control either, whether he/she had a problem with it or not.

Jeremy

[Silicon]

I guess I'm wondering how Deism, cememonial or otherwise, is an acceptable view to enshrine as a preferred thing in our nation.


In my private life, I allow for ceremonial deism. I bow my head when others pray. I had a minister perform my wedding vows. I've got a manger scene as a part of my household christmas display.

At the same time, the words Under God have become such a part of the ubiquitous language of America, that, I think, its very existence has numbed people to the idea that religious language isn't natural for people with all sorts of other beliefs.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by toddjh

But why does that matter? A lot of children don't "give a rip" about going to school, either -- does that mean that a parent's desire for his kid to get an education is misguided? Kids' opinions are simply not an effective measure of welfare, at least at that age.

I don't like Newdow, but I do see his point here: I wouldn't want my kid facing religious indoctrination outside my control either, whether he/she had a problem with it or not.

Jeremy

I'm just cuirious what his daughter thinks about it, that's all.

[crimresearch]

"I guess I'm wondering how Deism, cememonial or otherwise, is an acceptable view to enshrine as a preferred thing in our nation."

Ceremonial Deism as mentioned in Newdow wasn't that much about holding religious ceremonies like a wedding, but more about allowing the mention of religious artifacts during a ceremony, such as singing 'God Bless America' at a school assembly, or saying 'Thank God that everyone assembled here today made a safe trip' at a government function.

I think that there was a message being sent that future arguments before the USSC shouldn't try to ask for banning every book, song, and statement in a public school that contained the word God.
Now exactly where to draw the line short of militant atheism as the state religion, does remain to be seen.

[Silicon]

I fail to see how a government silent on the issue of God is militant atheism.


I don't know how you get "No comment" to equal a statement like "God does not exist."


I think the problem here isn't some individual saying "Thank God you're safe", or whatever. The problem is a LED recitation.

Where does that leave the song "God Bless America"?

Well, since children aren't required to stand, put their hands over their hearts and pledge a ceremonial fealty to Kate Smith, it's a different situation altogether.

God Bless America, the song, has a musical content seperate from an Oath of Loyalty taken hand over heart.

Set the Pledge of Allegiance to music, remove the "oath" quality, take the hand off the heart and let the kids sit down when it's sung, and I think you've removed the lion's share of the constitutional problem, N'cest pas?

[crimresearch]

If you wish to engage me in a factual discussion, you are going to have to do better than fabricating things I never said.
Nowhere did I say anything about government silence being equated with militant atheism. That is entirely your creation.

In case you are operating from the position of not knowing enough about the topic, militant atheism is a position that is held by certain extremists on the issue. It can reach the extent of wanting every mention of 'God' removed from every public place under any circumstances. Go look it up.

And then if you have something **useful** to discuss about the speculation that the USSC may have been sending a message that they were drawing the line somewhere SHORT of that extreme, please do let us all know.

[Silicon]

Wow, jump down my throat, dude.

I do think the justices who wrote an opinion were trying to draw a line without actually drawing it. A future indication of how they might rule, in order to perhaps dissuade the inevitable future challenges with less messy standing.

I wasn't trying to sum up any of your arguments, merely discussing what I would consider reasonable, and that would be that the Government would be silent on the issue of wheter or which God exists.


You say that militant atheism is a position held by extremists, and that these extremists want every mention of God removed from every public place under any circumstances.

I've never met anyone who professed that. I don't know anyone who wants God removed from every public place, just the public places ruled by government.


I said I fail to see how a government silent on the issue of God is militant atheism.

Wouldn't militant atheism prefer that government say "God does not exist" or "There is no God"?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by crimresearch

In case you are operating from the position of not knowing enough about the topic, militant atheism is a position that is held by certain extremists on the issue It can reach the extent of wanting every mention of 'God' removed from every public place under any circumstances. Go look it up.




What is the position of militant atheism? Who holds that postion?

Please explain and detail and provide names.