So when does Michael Newdow get declared a vexatious litigant?

[jmowreader]

Newdow makes all atheists look intolerant. I'm just intolerant of talibornagains attempting to force me to live according to their wishes. Newdow would file a lawsuit enjoining people from invoking the Name of God when they drop bricks on their feet.

[Naturyl]

1. He's typical of ideologues and/or attention-seekers.

I'm not religious, but people like Newdow are a bit asinine.

I've been closely associated with the self-described atheist community for a number of years now, and in all frankness, it is a group of people that has really begun to alienate me.

[stopbush]

2. Not true. In fact, Newdow says that as a private citizen, Obama has every

right to invoke the name of god during his Inaugural speech. Newdow's just against religion rearing its ugly head in the ceremonial parts of the event, ie: add ons like the invocation and Constitutional requirements like the Oath of Office (which - BTW - does NOT contain any reference to god as it appears in the Constitution).

Is it really too much to ask that religion be set aside during the Inaugural?

On edit: as an atheist (actually, an anti-theist), I find it disheartening that DUers continue to treat us as a pariah group that should just put up and shut up. The same people who exhort gays and lesbians to NOT shut up in their complaints about Obama selecting Rick Warren for the invocation are perfectly OK telling atheists that the country would be better off if we accepted our second-class citizen status with our lips zipped shut.

[hansberrym]

3. Newdou's position is Intolerant and irrational.

Invoking God's blessing has been with us from the Declaration to the present time and was carried on even in legislation proposed by the likes of Jefferson and Madison that was intended to prohibit government establishment of religion.

Reason (and reading Jefferson's Virgina Act for Religious Freedom, Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance, and other contemporary texts) leads one to the conclusion that invoking God Almighty, the Creator, the Universal Sovereign, or other such references to the divine does not violate the Establishment Clause.

Moreover the Oath of Office includes the word "swear" which by definition has reference to God. That an option to "affirm" rather than "swear" is present highlights that "swear" was meant in the usual sense of invoking God. Those whose religious convictions would not allow them to "swear" could instead "affirm".

[stopbush]

5. Since when is swearing a reference to god?

One swears allegiance to the flag, not god. One swears fidelity to one's wife, not god. The German Army swore allegiance to Hitler in WWII.

The president swears to the electorate that he will uphold his duties, not to some imaginary being.

Get real.

[Sebastian Doyle]

9. "God damn it", maybe

Or variations on the name of Jesus Christ, sometimes with middle initials, or (my dad's favorite) equipping him with a crutch. I've even heard crackers and trailer hitches invoked in His name.

[hansberrym]

15. Get a dictionary n/t

[stopbush]

16. And, the dictionary says:

Swear

transitive verb
1: to utter or take solemnly (an oath)
2 a: to assert as true or promise under oath <a sworn affidavit> <swore to uphold the Constitution> b: to assert or promise emphatically or earnestly <swore he'd study harder next time>
3 a: to put to an oath : administer an oath to b: to bind by an oath <swore them to secrecy>
4. obsolete : to invoke the name of (a sacred being) in an oath
5: to bring into a specified state by swearing <swore his life away>
intransitive verb
1: to take an oath
2: to use profane or obscene language : curse

Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/swear

Interesting that invoking the name of a sacred being is considered to be obsolete.

[Sebastian Doyle]

4. Newdow is the Jerry Falwell of atheism

Just a self promoting asshole, not any reasonable spokesman for atheists (assuming they were looking for one)

Fundie antitheists are just as fucked in the head as any other fundaMENTAList.

[stopbush]

7. I don't think we atheists are looking for a spokesperson

anymore than we are accepting of society defining us by what we are NOT (ie: "a" - theists). But sometimes you deal with the hand you're dealt.

[Sebastian Doyle]

8. I guess that's what seperates the atheists from the fundie antitheists like Newdow

The latter (whether it was intentional or not) have become a religion unto themselves, based on the belief of complete hatred for God or anything religious.

I can't understand why someone would put so much effort into opposing something that they claim doesn't exist.

[stopbush]

13. Atheists "hate god" the same way we hate the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Bunny.

No atheist can hate god because we don't believe such a being exists. Saying that atheists hate god is a religious person's opinion, not a belief held by atheists.

Following your illogic, the religious who don't believe in fairies hate fairies.

That's kinda basic stuff, don'tcha think?

[stopbush]

14. As far as putting effort into opposing something that one claims doesn't exist,

it's a matter of opposing things that don't exist when those things are given the government's stamp of approval.

Would the medical profession put up with the government saying that Xians laying on of hands is as an effective cure for treating a gunshot wound as surgery? Would they approve the people who laid on hands receiving payments from a health insurer for the "treatment" they offered?

A lot of Americans believe that gays don't have the same rights as the rest of us because they believe the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. Should those of us who disagree with them stop our efforts at equality simply because we don't believe a difference exists for curtailing one citizen's rights due to their sexual preference? The Bible thumper may well believe that a difference exists, but those of us who follow and honor the Constitution see no reason to believe such a difference exists.

When it comes to religion, every American is entitled to believe whatever they will, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to believe or even pretend to believe that said religious beliefs have any grounding whatsoever in truth. We are also free to tell people that their beliefs are a crock of shit. They want to present evidence to back up their beliefs, fine. But present evidence, not tradition, hearsay, a-historic myths, emotional musings or personal opinion.

Now, there's something that doesn't exist for religious beliefs - evidence.

[atreides1]

6. At the same time

Phillip J. Berg does!!!

[LeftyMom]

10. He's a good guy.

And he's right. But he'd be a good guy even if he wasn't, and only meant well. :shrug:

[Fumesucker]

11. The non-religious make up about 15% of the population..

Let's see if we get any mention at all during the inaugural.

I'll wager that we do not.

But "people of faith" will get mentioned time after time after time.

[DavidDvorkin]

12. Newdow is a hero

America needs many more like him.