Atheist Lawyer Wants To Ban All “God” Language. Because, Of COURSE He Does.
Written by Daisy // June 18, 2010 // Constitutionocity, Weeps And Glees // 66 Comments
I want to punch this dude square in the face. (Ooooh….careful Daisy…he may sue you for that.)
The self-professed atheist who failed to get the Supreme Court to declare unconstitutional the phrases “One Nation Under God” (in the Pledge of Allegiance) and “So Help Me God” (in the presidential oath of office) is not giving up on his effort.
California attorney and physician Michael Newdow filed a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Wednesday requesting an en banc (full panel) re-hearing of Newdow v. Roberts – the lawsuit Newdow filed to try to stop Chief Justice John Roberts from using the phrase “so help me God” when he administered the oath of office to then-President-elect Obama.
Because God, as you all know, is just SO OFFENSIVE.
He and a bunch of other people with way too much time on their hands believe that the “religious practices of presidential inaugural ceremonies run afoul of the First Amendment.”
I don’t know about you guys, but the last time I checked, inaugural ceremonies didn’t involve taking communion or anything. And, the last time I also checked about the founding of this country, it was done so on the basis of Christian principles.
The higher-ups on the court ladder kind of agree with me, too, apparently:
“Justice O’Connor, in the original Newdow case, made the statement that we are a country founded by religious refugees and that our history binds us to that tradition. And I think that’s where a majority of the court still is – maybe more so now with the changes in the court.”
So, with that being said – if you don’t like the fact that this country was founded with Christian undertones, and if you’re offended by the word God, um, GO LIVE IN ANOTHER FREAKIN’ COUNTRY. You know, one that was founded on the premise of praising trees and the solar system and Tom Cruise and stuff.
Or, you could just shut your piehole and get a life. That may work, too.
Just as a reminder, everyone – What’s a million lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
Yep. You guessed it. That would be a good start.
66 Comments on "Atheist Lawyer Wants To Ban All “God” Language. Because, Of COURSE He Does."
I, for one (and I’m sure I have a lot of company), am sick and freakin’ tired of the majority bowing down to the minority. Why do we feel so obligated to go out of our way to go against everything we hold dear. One kid in Indiana got prayer removed from a high school graduation ceremony, even though the rest of the class wanted it. This country was founded on a “majority rules” type system. Of course, that’s all but gone now. When are we going to stand up to the bullies and remind them that MAJORITY RULES…and if we want “God language”, BY GOD WE’LL HAVE IT!?
Amen, Cindy.
Yesterday I was at a luncheon for a group of sail and power squadron boatsmen and women sailors here in town and we opened with a prayer then the pledge as we faced the flag of our country. I don’t often find myself in this type of setting but I felt my heart swell with pride. That was enough for me.
Where’s a stray lightning bold when you need one?
Not saying that I like this guy, but I do understand his point. Being Atheist, he believes god (with the big G as well) does not exist. It’s just like saying “By the will of the Unicorn Farts” to him. I don’t think that he has the right to express his will on the majority, as we have freedom OF not freedom FROM religion; but I can understand the desire to have a more universal promise than the undying will of the Unicorn Fart to hold together our government and economy.
Not trying to be snarky or disrespectful, just trying to let people see a different prospective. And so no one is confused I’ll repeat this one… I do not believe this person has the right to express his will over the majority simply because he feels “So help me God” is an empty promise.
You know what, Ali? I respect your opinion. In fact, I happen to be married to a guy that’s agnostic, and I happen to believe in God, so yeah – I might as well be married to an atheist. I respect his views (obviously), and I respect yours. However, asking to CHANGE the very things upon which this country was founded is well, bull****. It’s the same thing as me deciding one day to go live in India, then protesting their Hindu culture, their ideals, etc. It doesn’t happen like this in other countries. As Americans, it makes us weaker when we keep APOLOGIZING for being AMERICAN. America was founded on Christian principles. My point? If you don’t like it, well….tough cookies. In this country, you can express your religious views freely – no matter what they are. You can even be a damn Scientologist if you want to (hello, cult). Freedom is a neat concept. So the protesting? It’s a bunch of crap, and it just spreads and breeds an already rampant culture of “I’m a victim!” (in which lawyers bill by the hour, of course).
There simply isn’t enough therapy and medicine to save Michael Newdow. “I am offended therefore I am.”
BTW…we cowtow to the minority all of the time, and have for decades. See Enviros. See Gay Marriage. We also take punitive action against the majority when it is the minority that screws up. Sudafed laws ring any bells? That is just one law of thousands that does it.
I’m with Daisy. Every time his smug face comes on the tube I want to punch him.
Because, of course, punching someone in the face is exactly what Jesus would do, right?
-DW
dwwhqtspgta@yahoo.com
I can’t be certain, but I’d be willing to bet that Jesus would, in fact, punch Michael Newdow in the face.
If you’re gonna put that many lawyers at the botton of the ocean, at least use them to “plug the damn hole” in the Gulf of Mexico.
@Mockarena: I’m interested in exploring that. Are you suggesting that Jesus would support violence? On what are you basing that assertion?
DW – I’m not Jesus. So yeah….I still want to punch the guy in the face.
And, I bet you’re not Jesus, either. So don’t judge me for wanting to punch him in the face. Thanks.
@DW, not violence, but anger, when it’s warranted, and it’s certainly warranted toward Michael Newdow.
John 2:13-18 (New International Version)
13When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. 14In the temple courts he found men selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. 15So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple area, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. 16To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! How dare you turn my Father’s house into a market!”
17His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”[a]
18Then the Jews demanded of him, “What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”
Oh, which by the way, the example from the bible shows Jesus’ defense of a principle.
as an atheist myself, i have no problem with people injecting god into their daily lives. it doesn’t bother me at all. as long as its not forced upon people, there’s no problem.
why some atheists feel they have to get down on christians is beyond me. must be a childhood rebel thing.
JMD, right there with you, I went to my stepdaughters graduation in north Florida last week, a little town named Palatka. Everyone was so sweet and they did the pledge, sang the national anthem and several of the speaking students used GOD in their speeches, not just mentioned and thanked the Creator, but used actual verses. It was so wonderful and embarrassing that it is not the norm because of small penis’d people like this dude.
I always wonder about these people.. I understand not being down with RELIGION..it can be spun and distorted, but who does this braniac believe created a human heart, or an eyeball, or a brain with the enourmous capacity (except in his case) Who created the stars, (why don’t they fall down?) this universe and infinite
amounts of others…Who made a sequoa redwood come out of tiny acorn?? Who created a pansy or a pea****??
Was it him??
The reason we have always been the most powerful nation is the world is because we have always trusted in the most powerful being that CREATED the world. That gives us infinite hope and no boundries to what we can accomplish. It gives us morals, and guidelines, compassion and strength. We know we are mortals, but we have the most powerful force behind us.
This cat is both a lawyer and a doctor so he most likely belives himself to be some type of god.
DW I know where you are going…because we beleive in GOD.. we should be perfect.
My pastor says church is a hospital for sinners, NOT a social club for saints.
Also, I do not think that Daisy actually intends to punch Newdow in the face, and I am almost certain that she hasn’t punched him in the face, yet.
@Daisy: So you would concede that it’s not a very Christ-like thing to think, correct?
@Rosie: Daisy has stated that she wants to practice violence.
@SU Z Q: I didn’t say I thought anyone should be perfect.
DW, I do believe you’ve utterly missed the point of this story.
Daisy,
I’m not sure about our country being “founded on Christian principles”. That makes it seem like that when our country was founded, all Christian values were adopted by the Founders lock, stock, and barrel. That just isn’t true (and the Founders, while certainly Deists (belief in God) were not Christians…but that’s another topic for another time). However, I will certainly agree with the term “Christian overtones”. Minor semantic point perhaps, but overtones is about right by my way of thinking. Absolutely. And it so readily apparent in the swearing in of the President (saying “so help me God” and swearing on a Bible kind of says it all….from the Bible that George Washington used on April 30, 1789 at Federal Hall on Wall Street in New York, NY to the present day). So the fact that Newdow wants to change that is simply dispicable. Hey Newdow! How about you forget the religion angle (since it bothers you so much) for a minute and simply respect a tradition we’ve had in this country since the beginning!?! Personally, mga’s earlier comment sums it up best for me, “As long as its not forced upon people (religion that is – mikey), there’s no problem.” Exactly!! It’s called FREEDOM Newdow! Look it up! Sheesh. Unbelievable.
@Rosie: I wasn’t commenting on the point of the story; I was commenting on the desire of a Christian to commit an act of violence.
And?
And nothing. That was all.
DW
Mikey: I see you were fed the libtard line about the FF. You parroted it verbatim.
Most of the FF were Christian. Read their personal writings that are widely available.
You, like most people, do not understand the broader view of Christianity, while you also confuse the essence of Christianity with the practice of Christianity.
DW: Cut the crap. Jesus would not need to punch Newdow, however to us lesser mortals we will and do!
Read the Book of Romans and see what it says about the defense of Christianity.
The persecution comes as no surprise either.
mga: As a Christian I have no problem that you are atheist. You have no objection to Christianity because you are comfortable in your own skin, with your own choices. Many are not.
Looks to me like Newdow suffers what he accuses government, and Christianity in general, from. Forcing his religion of atheism down the throats of others. Make no mistake, he practices atheism as a religion itself. Problem is, he is in a minority.
After reading everyone weighing on whether we want to punch Newdow in the face or not, would Jesus punch him in the face….I’m a human being, flesh & blood. I am not perfect, nor am I expected to be. So…I’m good with punching Newdow in the face.
You’re okay with Daisy wanting to punch him or you’re okay with somebody actually punching him?
@Laurel: How do you reconcile Paul’s support for violence in defense of Christianity with Jesus’s “turn the other cheek” teaching?
@Cindy: I understand that you’re not perfect, but aren’t you supposed to at least try to behave in a Christ-like manner? Sorry if I’m being accusatory there, but this has always bothered me about Christianity. Sort of like, “We’re not perfect, so why try to behave in ways that Jesus taught?” Also, I would ask you the same question about how you would reconcile your advocacy of violence with “turn the other cheek?”
The same Bible that gives you “turn the other cheek” also gives you “an eye for an eye.” Please don’t take a sacred book and pick a couple of words to start a stupid argument. Do you really care if someone punches him in the face? And if this has always bothered you about Christianity, why don’t you give your heart to God, become a Christian, and see if you ever have the urge to punch someone in the face again? FYI, you will.
DW…I won’t apologize for Christianity bothering you. I’m very tolerant of other religions and even of atheism, as long as they don’t force their beliefs on me or threaten lives. But Newdow is trying to force his belief on me, and trying to negate the beliefs of this nation’s forefathers. I will fight to the death for the ideals that this nation was formed on. Our forefather’s based their choices for this country on their very belief and faith in GOD. So, you ask me if I would punch someone in the face who would take those ideals away from me? HELL, YES.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,592550,00.html
Well, I think it was a whole series of moments. But, you know, in order to understand George Washington, you have to understand his self-perception and his understanding of his role. We know of at least 67 occasions during the Revolutionary War alone when he said that the American cause of independence would have come to a complete disaster except for one thing and that was the direct intervention of God to save us. And later on, after he was elected president, he said the same thing about the constitutional convention. He used the word “miracle” more than once. It’s a miracle.
“I don’t know why I’m still here. It must be the hand of Providence that had preserved me. I’ve got bullet holes in my hat, through my clothing. I’ve had two horses shot out from under me.”
@crabbyal: But that’s exactly what you’re doing. You’re choosing to follow “an eye for an eye” and to disregard “turn the other cheek.” As for giving my heart to God: if you could provide me with compelling evidence that God exists, then I’d be happy to consider that.
@Cindy: How is another person capable of taking beliefs away from you?
Reread my response, DW. No one will take my beliefs away from me. This man is taking away the ideals of our forefathers by negating the importance of God and changing them to fit his own beliefs. You can stand up for this boob all day long, DW…but in this country, no matter what this president does, GOD is a big deal.
DW, I love how you turned Daisy’s “I WANT to punch this dude in the face” which is a stronger way of saying “this guy makes me mad” into “advocating violence.” That’s just crap, and you know it. I’m sorry you don’t believe in anything and want to justify it. I myself have no problem believing. What’s the downside to trying to follow the teachings of someone who advocates “love one another”? No, we don’t always love one another, but trying to is better than not trying at all. And don’t even start with the violence thing again. (A) She didn’t punch anyone in the face, and thinking it doesn’t count, and (B) you are taking her too literally, but you already know that.
@Rosie: That was addressed to Cindy, not Daisy. Cindy has stated twice that she condones actually punching this man in the face, not just thinking about it.
@Cindy: So if he can’t take your beliefs away from you, why do you feel so threatened by him? This is a free country. Doesn’t he have just as much right to express his views as you do?
Nope. Your previous post:
@Rosie: Daisy has stated that she wants to practice violence.
That’s YOU completely twisting Daisy’s words into what you want them to be.
Drop it, DW. You obviously don’t believe in anything strongly enough to fight for it. I do. Now, I’m dropping it. Sorry, Chicks…didn’t mean to turn this into a pissing match.
@Rosie: Here is the direct quote from Daisy that I was referring to: “I want to punch this dude square in the face. ” She used the word “want;” so did I.
@Cindy: It must be easier to level personal insults at me than to answer the questions that I’ve asked.
It is a myth that GW added the phrase “so help me God” to the presidential oath:
http://hnn.us/articles/59548.html
It’s pretty odd that this phrase is used, since it’s not part of the official oath.
As right-wingers and tea partiers profess to be strict constitutionalists, I expect they would also want this phrase stricken. (heh heh)
Or another way of saying it is:
“Where in the Constitution does it allow for politicians to use my taxpayer money to spout their religious views?”
Just wondering, why do we even pay attention to dingbats like that guy? Just let him march down some Berkley street with Code Pink and all the others dingbats.
DW – seriously. This is the dumbest argument ever. When Daisy said she wants to punch that dude square in the face, it’s the same as me saying that I love someone so much I want to put them in my pocket. She’s as likely to Actually Punch Someone as I am to Actually Put Someone In My Pocket.
Stop being so literal already. It just makes you look completely incapable of understanding colloquialisms.
Are you people saying Jesus Christ can’t hit a curve ball!?
Sorry for those who don’t catch the reference.
Awesome, md
DW: Nothing like taking the words of the Bible and pulling them out of context and then twisting, such as the meaning of “turn the other cheek.”
Here is another quote for you…” Woe to those that call good evil, and evil good.”
Bottom line is Newdow is guilty of what he accuses.
MD: You presume Jesus is interested in hitting that curve ball.
PS: As usual you contort history to suit your purposes.
BTW…there is a historian that owns the actual documents of which you speak, including the one where Jefferson added “Year of Our Lord”.
Check it out.
When Daisy said she wants to punch that dude square in the face, it’s the same as me saying that I love someone so much I want to put them in my pocket.
I wish that we had the option here of “liking” things like on Facebook. I really like this simile.
Rick’s Cafe, the first time I heard of Newdow was in 2002, when he somehow convinced the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that it was unconstitutional to require teachers to lead students (those who were willing) in the pledge of allegiance so long as the pledge of allegiance included the words “under God.” People probably would just ignore him if not for the fact that he has been moderately successful with these kinds of suits.
Laurel, another Jefferson fact, which I think is consistent with the one that you mentioned:
The famous “Jefferson Bible” is nothing like what I have heard. He simply transferred selected passages from the Gospels to the pages of a blank book. The material that he transferred did include a lot of divine references, covering God, Heaven, and what it takes to get into Heaven. I would describe the result as nothing more or less than a tool to be used in studying the teachings of Jesus, including those that could be described as “religious.”
I do not know the details of Jefferson’s beliefs about Jesus, but he described himself as a Christian on at least one occasion, believed in God, revered Jesus, and made a study-tool to help him to more effectively learn Jesus’ teachings. That has to count for something.
Jefferson did not believe Jesus was divine. The Jefferson Bible did not include the virgin birth nor the resurrection nor any other “miracles”.
Laurel, which historian are you referring to?
In the “Jefferson Bible,” Jesus heals people.
Mockarena: Actually, you’re twisting my words. I said that Daisy wants to and that Cindy actually would. Because that’s what they said.
Laurel: What is the proper context for “turn the other cheek,” then?
So where did I twist your words?
“In the “Jefferson Bible,” Jesus heals people.”
But can he fly?
@Mockarena: My apologies. I misread your post; you did not in fact twist my words. I am sorry for saying that you did.
As to your point, that she is expressing that she wants to rather than that she would, there are people in this discussion who literally would punch this man in the face. I’m interested in how that is justifiable in light of Jesus’s non-violence teachings, and I still don’t feel like I have a good handle on that.
Sitting here just shaking my head and rolling my eyes. It’s kinda like watchin’ a dog goin’ after a pork chop…
DW: Are still blathering on?
The proper context is applicable to slights, like the one above.
Removing God from the public square is not a slight, and fighting against it not only is our right as citizens, it is our commandment as Christians. We are commanded to defend Christianity, not just lay down and take it.
If you cannot distinguish the difference between the two, then maybe you will be one of the meek that inherit the earth, but remember God doesn’t say exactly what earth you will inherit or what condition it will be in.
@Laurel: So let me make sure I understand… It’s not okay to use violence when someone insults you. But it is okay to use violence against people who disagree with you when it comes to the role of religion in society?
DW:
So do you always take quotes from bloggers literally? What Daisy said was a form of expressing sheer frustration…quite frankly you know that, but you learned your Alinsky well didn’t you?!
BTW…Are you a Christian?
@Laurel: You didn’t answer my question.
As to yours, I am not familiar with Alinsky, and I am not a Christian.
DW: AHHHHH….that explains a lot. As to your denial of Alinsky, yeah I have a bridge to sell.
If you are not Christian, then find another argument because it is clear that you have no clue of the Bible, let alone Christ.
Now what did I say about literal?! Your interpretation and your questions apply to that.
My suggestion to you is before you pick fights you can’t win, learn what in the Bible is literal and metaphorical. Some verses are actually both, such as “what you sow so shall you reap.”
You and Newdow are attacking this with the bent of religion. You have become what you fear so congrats on that score.
Now go and continue banging your head against the wall…you can take that literally.
1) I am not familiar with Alinsky, whether you choose to call me a liar or not.
2) I am not Christian, but I can read. I probably know more about the Bible than most Christians. As a result, I know more about Christ, since the Bible is the only place that this particular mythological figure appears.
3) I’m not here for a fight. I’m here to try to figure out how Christians reconcile violence with Jesus’s non-violence teachings. Your answering my question would help me out with that a lot, but you’re clearly not willing to do that.
4) Something with the “bent of religion” is still not religion. Atheism lacks the elements that make religion what it is.
5) Once again, personal insults seem to be easier than answering questions. Your willingness to hurl abuse at me does not speak well of the philosophy that you represent.
In thinking about it over lunch, I realized that I misspoke in point #2, above. It’s not that the Bible is the only place that Christ appears in mythology; there have been others since. My point is mentioning that is only that I would be willing to venture that I know as much about Christ as most Christians.
Trackbacks for this post