StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Per CNN's frontpage.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court Friday rejected the Bush administration's request to reconsider its decision that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional because of the phrase "under God."

The ruling means the case could go to the Supreme Court. In Washington, a Justice Department spokesman said no decision has been made about whether to appeal the ruling there.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it would not accept any other petitions to reconsider last June's ruling by a three-judge panel that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public classrooms.

Ruling on a lawsuit brought by Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow, the court panel decided 2-1 that Newdow's daughter should not be subjected to the words "under God" at her public school.

The court said the phrase was an endorsement of God, and the Constitution forbids public schools or other governmental entities from endorsing religion.

President Bush and Congress immediately condemned the decision, which would prevent public schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine western states covered by the nation's largest -- and, critics charge, most liberal -- appeals court.

Those states are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words "under God" to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child's mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.

In response to the court's original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.

Sorry. Just saw this article linked in the Religion and Morality board....my bad.

Yay. Kick in the face to Shrubby and his fundie administration.

How asinine, for both sides. Does it really matter? Is this really worth spending, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars on?

Yes

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes

No, it isn't. It's a pointless, stupid issue that only serves to make the moderate Christians think athiests are assholes who have nothing to do with their time but file lawsuits against their sacred cows. Like I said in the other thread, people have got to learn to pick their fucking battles. Fundies trying to add intelligent design to scince cirriculums, that's important. Politicians saying athiests aren't morally fit to be citizens, that's important. THIS is bullshit, a worse-than-useless crusade that's driving the moderate Christians into the arms of the fucking fundies, EXACTLY WHAT ATHIESTS SHOULDN'T WANT TO DO.

RedImperator wrote:

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Yes

No, it isn't. It's a pointless, stupid issue that only serves to make the moderate Christians think athiests are assholes who have nothing to do with their time but file lawsuits against their sacred cows. Like I said in the other thread, people have got to learn to pick their fucking battles. Fundies trying to add intelligent design to scince cirriculums, that's important. Politicians saying athiests aren't morally fit to be citizens, that's important. THIS is bullshit, a worse-than-useless crusade that's driving the moderate Christians into the arms of the fucking fundies, EXACTLY WHAT ATHIESTS SHOULDN'T WANT TO DO.

Don't be absurd. Congress' reaction to the ruling (collectively pissing and moaning about how this is "one nation under God" and the usual nonsense) shows that this is anything but a useless crusade.

Do you know why politicians say that atheists aren't morally fit to be citizens? Because of those two fucking words in the Pledge! Joe Lieberman quoted the Pledge as evidence as to why atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

Having "under God" in there perpetuates a false impression that the founding fathers established the government under religious pretexts. Showing "under God" as unconstitutional does something to dispell the idea that America is a Christian nation (don't bullshit me here, everyone knows it refers to the Christian God), which also helps take credibility away from politicians who claim that atheists aren't citizens or patriots and who want intelligent design in public schools.

I want to see someone go after "In God We Trust" next.

Durandal wrote:Don't be absurd. Congress' reaction to the ruling (collectively pissing and moaning about how this is "one nation under God" and the usual nonsense) shows that this is anything but a useless crusade.

Goddammit, use your head. In case you haven't noticed, athiests are a minority, and not a very popular one, either. Congress is pissing and moaning about this because it's easy re-election fodder, and the moderate Christians are furious about this. It's one more demonstration that it's politically profitable to ignore athiest voters. This shit plays EXACTLY into what the worst fundie bigots say about us.

Do you know why politicians say that atheists aren't morally fit to be citizens? Because of those two fucking words in the Pledge! Joe Lieberman quoted the Pledge as evidence as to why atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

That's right. Because we all know, if it weren't for three syllables in a pledge most people just mumble once they're past second grade, the whole country would be falling all over itself to accept athiests. Do you really think a bigot like Joe Lieberman wouldn't find something else to use if he didn't have the pledge?

Having "under God" in there perpetuates a false impression that the founding fathers established the government under religious pretexts. Showing "under God" as unconstitutional does something to dispell the idea that America is a Christian nation (don't bullshit me here, everyone knows it refers to the Christian God), which also helps take credibility away from politicians who claim that atheists aren't citizens or patriots and who want intelligent design in public schools.

Oh yes, it's doing a fine and fantastic job of dispelling it. That's why every thiest who's against the ruling has been saying that the 9th Circuit is just a bunch of San Francisco liberals who get overturned by the Supreme Court most of the time. Which reminds me, what do you think is going to happen if the court lines up 5-4 against Nedrow and overturns the 9th Circuit? The fundies will be crowing for the next 15 years about it, and when some suckhole "intelligent designer" tries to get Creationism taught in a public school science class, he's going to have a fucking Supreme Court ruling to back up his bullshit "the Founders were all fundies" claims! Note that the Court doesn't have to rule that the Pledge is constitutional in order to overturn the ruling. It could easily rule that Nedrow had no standing to bring the suit, which wouldn't make any ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge, but try to explain the finer points of conlaw to a school board while some Bible beater is sceaming that James Madison was a tent-revival holy roller because the Supreme Court said so.

I want to see someone go after "In God We Trust" next.

That's a great idea. Piss off the moderates we need on our side to block the fundamentalists on shit that actually matters worth a fuck. Play right into Jerry Falwell and Joe Lieberman's hands. That's a great way to advance our cause.

RedImperator wrote:

Durandal wrote:Don't be absurd. Congress' reaction to the ruling (collectively pissing and moaning about how this is "one nation under God" and the usual nonsense) shows that this is anything but a useless crusade.

Goddammit, use your head. In case you haven't noticed, athiests are a minority, and not a very popular one, either. Congress is pissing and moaning about this because it's easy re-election fodder, and the moderate Christians are furious about this. It's one more demonstration that it's politically profitable to ignore athiest voters. This shit plays EXACTLY into what the worst fundie bigots say about us.

So what're we supposed to do? They're going to ignore atheist voters anyway. If we try and keep intelligent design out of schools, we get labeled as "anti-Christian bigots." Sometimes you just have to keep making noise until someone finally realizes you're not a second-class citizen.

That's right. Because we all know, if it weren't for three syllables in a pledge most people just mumble once they're past second grade, the whole country would be falling all over itself to accept athiests. Do you really think a bigot like Joe Lieberman wouldn't find something else to use if he didn't have the pledge?

Do you really think that another argument could have been as effective? The Pledge is effective because it's something basic that you learn from birth. Whatever impression it gives sticks, and that's why it needs to be changd. Sure, most people normally don't give a fuck about it, but when challenged, you get knee-jerk reactions like Shrub's and Congress'. That's enough to tell anyone that the idea of America being a religious-people-only club is well-ingrained into the minds of most Americans, and the Pledge is one of the reasons why.

Oh yes, it's doing a fine and fantastic job of dispelling it. That's why every thiest who's against the ruling has been saying that the 9th Circuit is just a bunch of San Francisco liberals who get overturned by the Supreme Court most of the time. Which reminds me, what do you think is going to happen if the court lines up 5-4 against Nedrow and overturns the 9th Circuit? The fundies will be crowing for the next 15 years about it, and when some suckhole "intelligent designer" tries to get Creationism taught in a public school science class, he's going to have a fucking Supreme Court ruling to back up his bullshit "the Founders were all fundies" claims! Note that the Court doesn't have to rule that the Pledge is constitutional in order to overturn the ruling. It could easily rule that Nedrow had no standing to bring the suit, which wouldn't make any ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge, but try to explain the finer points of conlaw to a school board while some Bible beater is sceaming that James Madison was a tent-revival holy roller because the Supreme Court said so.

They've already got the official Pledge to do it with! At this point, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it is constitutional because it was passed by Congress and is an accepted practice. The decision for them now would be to either reaffirm the Pledge's constitutionality or to strike it down. We've got nothing to lose.

That's a great idea. Piss off the moderates we need on our side to block the fundamentalists on shit that actually matters worth a fuck. Play right into Jerry Falwell and Joe Lieberman's hands. That's a great way to advance our cause.

Yeah, and your idea of sitting back and doing absolutely nothing is just so much better. If moderates can accept the idea that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools, I don't see why they'd be so unwilling to listen to someone tell them why "In God We Trust" is religious bigotry.

Durandal wrote:So what're we supposed to do? They're going to ignore atheist voters anyway. If we try and keep intelligent design out of schools, we get labeled as "anti-Christian bigots." Sometimes you just have to keep making noise until someone finally realizes you're not a second-class citizen.

Intelligent design isn't a patriotic issue, and keeping intelligent design out of public schools isn't seen as a strictly "athiest issue", not with 98% of all scientists against it. There's always going to be fundie bigots who scream about persecution when anyone challenges them. The difference is, with intelligent design, the moderates DON'T FUCKING AGREE WITH THEM.

Do you really think that another argument could have been as effective? The Pledge is effective because it's something basic that you learn from birth. Whatever impression it gives sticks, and that's why it needs to be changd. Sure, most people normally don't give a fuck about it, but when challenged, you get knee-jerk reactions like Shrub's and Congress'. That's enough to tell anyone that the idea of America being a religious-people-only club is well-ingrained into the minds of most Americans, and the Pledge is one of the reasons why.

The pledge might be one of the reasons, but it runs a lot deeper than that. The overwhelming majority of the people in this country are theists. Most of them aren't fundies, but most of them, at best, find athiesm puzzling. Quite a few do genuinely believe that athiests are morally weaker than theists, and that there's something wrong with a person who doesn't believe in God. Ending this bigotry is going to take years of work and a lot of good PR--basically, athiests are going to have to prove they're not wicked people. It's not fair, but I don't see any other way around it. When someone like Nedrow does something like this, it plays right into the hands of the fundies and helps them convince the moderates that athiests ARE anti-American and the rest of it.

They've already got the official Pledge to do it with! At this point, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, it is constitutional because it was passed by Congress and is an accepted practice. The decision for them now would be to either reaffirm the Pledge's constitutionality or to strike it down. We've got nothing to lose.

That's not how it works at all. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's saying the law was ALWAYS unconstitutional, not that it was legal until it was challenged. At this point, the court has no opinion on the matter because nobody's been able to bring a case to it before. I say we have nothing to win here. If the court rules for Nedrow, we've given the fundies a rallying cry--remember that 30 years after Roe v. Wade, they still haven't said, "Oh well, the Court says abortion is constitutional" (their attempts to get a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion are only a concession to the current legal reality--talk to an abortion opponent, and he'll probably compare Roe v. Wade to Dredd Scott or Plessey v. Ferguson). If the court rules against Nedrow, they'll say, "Ha! The Supreme Court has ruled that the accomidationist view of the Establishment Clause is correct!", and if you don't think that will be an unmitigated disaster for us, I'd really like to hear your reasons why.

Yeah, and your idea of sitting back and doing absolutely nothing is just so much better. If moderates can accept the idea that intelligent design shouldn't be taught in schools, I don't see why they'd be so unwilling to listen to someone tell them why "In God We Trust" is religious bigotry.

When did I say we should do nothing? I said we need to recognize our resources are limited and we are a poorly-regarded minority that shouldn't antagonize the moderates on issues that amount to very little. If someone challenges the Ohio State Board of Education on their intelligent design ruling, I'm behind them all the way, even if it does piss off the moderates. I'm just saying going after a pariotic symbol (post-September 11, no less) is a bad idea when there are other fights to be fought.

RedImperator wrote:

Durandal wrote:So what're we supposed to do? They're going to ignore atheist voters anyway. If we try and keep intelligent design out of schools, we get labeled as "anti-Christian bigots." Sometimes you just have to keep making noise until someone finally realizes you're not a second-class citizen.

Intelligent design isn't a patriotic issue, and keeping intelligent design out of public schools isn't seen as a strictly "athiest issue", not with 98% of all scientists against it. There's always going to be fundie bigots who scream about persecution when anyone challenges them. The difference is, with intelligent design, the moderates DON'T FUCKING AGREE WITH THEM.

Okay, so how about attacking it from a non-atheist standpoint? "Under God" does not include, for example, Hindus or Buddhists and alienates them.

The pledge might be one of the reasons, but it runs a lot deeper than that. The overwhelming majority of the people in this country are theists. Most of them aren't fundies, but most of them, at best, find athiesm puzzling. Quite a few do genuinely believe that athiests are morally weaker than theists, and that there's something wrong with a person who doesn't believe in God. Ending this bigotry is going to take years of work and a lot of good PR--basically, athiests are going to have to prove they're not wicked people. It's not fair, but I don't see any other way around it. When someone like Nedrow does something like this, it plays right into the hands of the fundies and helps them convince the moderates that athiests ARE anti-American and the rest of it.

Years? Try generations. The idea of "moral if and only if religious" is ingrained into citizens from day one. I'm not sure how we go about proving we're not wicked. Doesn't the fact that we're not the ones ramming planes into buildings lend itself to that conclusion?

It's not that people in America don't see what atheism really is; it's that they don't want to. Most of them flatly ignore all evidence that the founding fathers were, at the very least, not religious people who despised Christianity. They don't want to hear about it. If they don't want to hear it, we have to make them. Court rulings are about the only way we can do that.

That's not how it works at all. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's saying the law was ALWAYS unconstitutional, not that it was legal until it was challenged. At this point, the court has no opinion on the matter because nobody's been able to bring a case to it before. I say we have nothing to win here. If the court rules for Nedrow, we've given the fundies a rallying cry--remember that 30 years after Roe v. Wade, they still haven't said, "Oh well, the Court says abortion is constitutional" (their attempts to get a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion are only a concession to the current legal reality--talk to an abortion opponent, and he'll probably compare Roe v. Wade to Dredd Scott or Plessey v. Ferguson). If the court rules against Nedrow, they'll say, "Ha! The Supreme Court has ruled that the accomidationist view of the Establishment Clause is correct!", and if you don't think that will be an unmitigated disaster for us, I'd really like to hear your reasons why.

Yes, but women are still allowed to get abortions, aren't they? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the 9th Circuit Court, a lot of people will be pissed, but that'll be the end of it. Give it a generation, and people will have no problem with "... one nation, indivisible ..." Yeah, we'll have to take the heat now, but it makes it a fuckload easier on future generations.

However, you do have a point. If the Supreme Court rules that the Pledge is acceptable, it would be a disaster for legal precedent. I think that the best we can hope for, at this point, is that they'll rule that Newdow had no grounds to challenge the Pledge. They sure as Hell won't rule in his favor. I'd be extremely surprised if they did.

Durandal wrote:Okay, so how about attacking it from a non-atheist standpoint? "Under God" does not include, for example, Hindus or Buddhists and alienates them.

That would certainly work better for us. It's still going to aggrivate people, but this time it'll irritate the "anti-PC" crowd. I don't think it would enrage the moderates quite so much though--a lot of them, from what I've seen, don't care WHAT religion you are, just so long as you have one.

Years? Try generations. The idea of "moral if and only if religious" is ingrained into citizens from day one. I'm not sure how we go about proving we're not wicked. Doesn't the fact that we're not the ones ramming planes into buildings lend itself to that conclusion?

If we look at the civil rights movement as a guide to how long these things take, it was 16 years between the Democratic party split (between the Deep South states' rights delegates under Thurmond and the northeastern civil rights delegates under Truman) at the 1948 convention and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. So using that model, you're right: at least one generation, assuming we started a real push today (before anyone says it, no, I don't think the flag fight counts).

It's not that people in America don't see what atheism really is; it's that they don't want to. Most of them flatly ignore all evidence that the founding fathers were, at the very least, not religious people who despised Christianity. They don't want to hear about it. If they don't want to hear it, we have to make them. Court rulings are about the only way we can do that.

Court rulings weren't how anyone else gained general acceptance. Brown v. Board of Education was important, but it took a generation of grassroots activism and new ideas to get people to accept that the different races were fundamentally equal. Women's lib won basically one major court victory--Roe v. Wade. The fight that gays and lesbians are in right now has been a battle in the court of public opinion, not the judicial system. You can't legislate attitudes, and all the court rulings in the world aren't going to erase bigotry.

Yes, but women are still allowed to get abortions, aren't they? If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the 9th Circuit Court, a lot of people will be pissed, but that'll be the end of it. Give it a generation, and people will have no problem with "... one nation, indivisible ..." Yeah, we'll have to take the heat now, but it makes it a fuckload easier on future generations.

However, you do have a point. If the Supreme Court rules that the Pledge is acceptable, it would be a disaster for legal precedent. I think that the best we can hope for, at this point, is that they'll rule that Newdow had no grounds to challenge the Pledge. They sure as Hell won't rule in his favor. I'd be extremely surprised if they did.

If the SC upholds the 9th's decision, then it's a legal victory for us, but I'm much more concerned with public opinion. I don't want to hear, every time I argue about why creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, "You athiests are the unamerican bastards who made them get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance." Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I've found that you can rarely go wrong by assuming the worst.

As to whether or not it gets upheld, it all comes down to O'Connor and Kennedy (if the court rules that Nedrow had grounds to bring the suit, that is). I'm actually cautiously optimistic about that--only one of them has to vote with the left for the ruling to get upheld (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souder, and Stevens will all certainly vote in favor of Nedrow). Like you said, though, I'd rather the whole case get tossed out on the grounds that Nedrow was never actually harmed by the words "under God" being in the pledge.

A small NEEDED victory for a better secular America.

ArmorPierce wrote:A small NEEDED victory for a better secular America.

By driving the moderate Christians who might be our allies on issues like evolution vs. creationism or keeping prayer out of public schools into the arms of the fundamentalists.

RedImperator wrote:

Durandal wrote:Okay, so how about attacking it from a non-atheist standpoint? "Under God" does not include, for example, Hindus or Buddhists and alienates them.

That would certainly work better for us. It's still going to aggrivate people, but this time it'll irritate the "anti-PC" crowd. I don't think it would enrage the moderates quite so much though--a lot of them, from what I've seen, don't care WHAT religion you are, just so long as you have one.

Exactly. As bad as it sounds, people just don't give a fuck about offending atheists or trampling on their rights. The McCarthy era proved that much. While people look back in disgust at how we arrested prominent people for supporting communism, they don't know that atheists were imprisoned simply for their beliefs, as well. And if they did know, I seriously doubt they'd care.

If we look at the civil rights movement as a guide to how long these things take, it was 16 years between the Democratic party split (between the Deep South states' rights delegates under Thurmond and the northeastern civil rights delegates under Truman) at the 1948 convention and the passage of the Civil Rights Act. So using that model, you're right: at least one generation, assuming we started a real push today (before anyone says it, no, I don't think the flag fight counts).

The problem is that atheists aren't like any other minority simply because no one really considers us a minority because we've made the choice to be atheists. So when you tell someone that some law infringes on atheists' rights, they'll tell you they couldn't care less, because atheists could make the choice to conform and be theists. We don't have very much going for us. There is no stereotypical atheist people can identify with. We can be anyone.

Court rulings weren't how anyone else gained general acceptance. Brown v. Board of Education was important, but it took a generation of grassroots activism and new ideas to get people to accept that the different races were fundamentally equal. Women's lib won basically one major court victory--Roe v. Wade. The fight that gays and lesbians are in right now has been a battle in the court of public opinion, not the judicial system. You can't legislate attitudes, and all the court rulings in the world aren't going to erase bigotry.

Yes, but court rulings are a springboard from which to jump. If the government had upheld segregation laws, do you think that there would be black civil rights today?

If the SC upholds the 9th's decision, then it's a legal victory for us, but I'm much more concerned with public opinion. I don't want to hear, every time I argue about why creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, "You athiests are the unamerican bastards who made them get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance." Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, but I've found that you can rarely go wrong by assuming the worst.

Public opinion of atheists can't get much worse, to be frank. When prominant political figures can get away with saying that we're not deserving of citizenship (even though we were born here) and get away with little or no criticism from the media, press, public or their peers, you've probably hit rock bottom. Face it, we're a routinely discriminated-against minority that most people don't even recognize as a minority, and generally considered to be amoral, wicked people. How exactly can public opinion of us get worse?

As to whether or not it gets upheld, it all comes down to O'Connor and Kennedy (if the court rules that Nedrow had grounds to bring the suit, that is). I'm actually cautiously optimistic about that--only one of them has to vote with the left for the ruling to get upheld (Ginsburg, Breyer, Souder, and Stevens will all certainly vote in favor of Nedrow). Like you said, though, I'd rather the whole case get tossed out on the grounds that Nedrow was never actually harmed by the words "under God" being in the pledge.

The problem is that Newdow does have a legitimate complaint. Even if his daughter isn't an atheist, he can still argue that the government actively undermines his authority as a parent by endorsing religious beliefs he may not agree with. I'd be interested to see how the case would have gone had a Buddhist or Hindu presented the same complaint, or even a Scientologist. Hell, even a deist could legitimately complain by claiming that since he believes that God doesn't interact with the universe, that he doesn't believe that the United States can be "one nation under God." The public's opinion of the whole matter would probably be different had anyone other than an atheist presented the complaint.

RedImperator wrote:

ArmorPierce wrote:A small NEEDED victory for a better secular America.

By driving the moderate Christians who might be our allies on issues like evolution vs. creationism or keeping prayer out of public schools into the arms of the fundamentalists.

Well..., both. If they were really moderate I wouldn't think they would care about the words "Under God" being removed.

Howedar wrote:How asinine, for both sides. Does it really matter? Is this really worth spending, in all likelihood, hundreds of thousands of dollars on?

Yup, the original constitution and the meaning of the founding fathers where dessicrated with that phrase, any true american patriot ought to be for it's removal.

Durandal wrote:Exactly. As bad as it sounds, people just don't give a fuck about offending atheists or trampling on their rights. The McCarthy era proved that much. While people look back in disgust at how we arrested prominent people for supporting communism, they don't know that atheists were imprisoned simply for their beliefs, as well. And if they did know, I seriously doubt they'd care.

That's the situation we have to deal with today. To be perfectly honest with ourselves, we DON'T have it as bad as blacks or gays did (or do). They don't like us, but we're not left to die tied to fences, either.

The problem is that atheists aren't like any other minority simply because no one really considers us a minority because we've made the choice to be atheists. So when you tell someone that some law infringes on atheists' rights, they'll tell you they couldn't care less, because atheists could make the choice to conform and be theists. We don't have very much going for us. There is no stereotypical atheist people can identify with. We can be anyone.

You can certainly chose which religion you belong to--nobody but the most radical bigots are saying, "Well, Muslims who don't want to be persecuted can all become Episcopalians".

And unfortunately, there IS a stereotypical athiest. It's Michael Nedrow.

Yes, but court rulings are a springboard from which to jump. If the government had upheld segregation laws, do you think that there would be black civil rights today?

Epperson v. Arkansas overturned all state laws banning the teaching of evolution and mandating the teaching of creationism. McLean v. Arkansas struck down "equal time" laws (never reached the SC because the state of Arkansas didn't appeal the Federal judge's ruling). Edwards v. Aguillard struck down a similar law in Louisiana and effectively killed "equal time" as a creationist tactic. Glassroth v. Moore forces that idiot judge in Alabama to remove that 5,000lb granite copy of the Ten Commandments from the Alabama Supreme Court (it's still in appeal). McCollum v. Board of Education banned the teaching of religion in public schools. Engel v. Vitale banned compulsory prayer in schools. Stone v. Graham ruled that Kentucky couldn't mandate the posting of the 10 Commandments in public school classrooms. LeVake v. Independent School District ruled that a school district could fire a biology teacher because she was only qualified to teach creationism. Torcaso v. Watkins struck down religious requirements for public office. Estate of Thornton v. Caldor struck down laws requiring employers to give employees religious holidays off. ACLU v. Ohio tossed out the old Ohio state motto, "With God, all things are possible." Just how many court rulings do you need?

Public opinion of atheists can't get much worse, to be frank. When prominant political figures can get away with saying that we're not deserving of citizenship (even though we were born here) and get away with little or no criticism from the media, press, public or their peers, you've probably hit rock bottom. Face it, we're a routinely discriminated-against minority that most people don't even recognize as a minority, and generally considered to be amoral, wicked people. How exactly can public opinion of us get worse?

Never ask, "How could it get any worse?" Like I said, they're not lynching us yet. There's a lot of ground between where it is now and how bad it could be.

The problem is that Newdow does have a legitimate complaint. Even if his daughter isn't an atheist, he can still argue that the government actively undermines his authority as a parent by endorsing religious beliefs he may not agree with. I'd be interested to see how the case would have gone had a Buddhist or Hindu presented the same complaint, or even a Scientologist. Hell, even a deist could legitimately complain by claiming that since he believes that God doesn't interact with the universe, that he doesn't believe that the United States can be "one nation under God." The public's opinion of the whole matter would probably be different had anyone other than an atheist presented the complaint.

I think he has a case too (see my arguments in the thread on this topic in SLAM). But the justices might have different opinion on this.

They arent lynching us. I believe the key word in that sentence was YET. Yes, they dont like us. But because it is ingrained in their minds to not like us, legality is the only whing we have. Hell in texas we cant even run for public office. They dont lynch us yet, but that may very well happen soon. We will not be able to do anything or have a public voice until we are not considered second class citizens by the government. To do that, we need as many legal dicisions in our favor as possible. once we are protected legaly THEN we can pork on PR.

They're not lynching us because we're not easily identifiable. As I said before, we can be anyone. You couldn't spot me on the street and say, "Look, he must be an atheist!" So, we can bitch and whine all we want, but no one's going to start lynching us just because it takes work to figure out who's an atheist and who isn't. For all anyone knows, their family doctor could be an atheist. We're everywhere.

And, RedImperator, public opinion and public action are two different things. I said that the general opinion of atheists is about as negative as you can get. The fact that the fundamentalist Christians aren't lynching us doesn't mean that they don't hate us and won't try and oppress us in other fashions. After the initial ruling, Newdow's answering machine was flooded with death threats, and he was constantly being harrassed. I wouldn't at all be surprised if he was assassinated if the Supremes rule in his favor.

Shit, just cut out the two words and be fucking done with it...

Allyrium, you're a member of until a short time ago were TWO reviled minorities. Would you say it's more important for the happiness and well being of gays as individuals to have legal protection or public acceptance?

ArmorPierce wrote:Well..., both. If they were really moderate I wouldn't think they would care about the words "Under God" being removed.

Maybe, but the reality is, a lot of people who would be on our side for important things like creation vs. evolution have reacted very badly to the Nedrow case. It's touching a nerve in them, and Nedrow was a fool if he didn't realize this.

Look, in my opinion, Nedrow is 100% legally right. There's no chance in the world that "under God" isn't a violation of the establishment clause, using both the intent of the founders and legal precedent. What I object to is turning what I see as a pissant, minor issue into a rallying cry for the fundies. Nobody else in this thread seems to agree with me, and that's fine. If I'm proven wrong, I'll be glad. I just have a very deep suspicion that I won't be.

I agree with you. Every minute spent fighting "under god" is a minute that could have been spent keeping the far-more dangerous ID out of public schools.

Not to mention it's pretty obvious that Newdow is quite the opportunist, hardly the ideal champion for the atheist movement.

Durran Korr wrote:I agree with you. Every minute spent fighting "under god" is a minute that could have been spent keeping the far-more dangerous ID out of public schools.

Not to mention it's pretty obvious that Newdow is quite the opportunist, hardly the ideal champion for the atheist movement.

Exactly. RedImperator's position is quite valid. I think he's right, but I'm not going to bitch if the Supremes rule in favor of the 9th Circuit Court.

It's Newdow who's killing the whole deal. The guy's a nut (did anyone else see his proposed modifications to the English language?) who's basically using his daughter to further his own ideals. However valid those ideals may be, the public never reacts positively to using children in such a manner. Granted, he's a lawyer and a doctor, but he's hardly the person I'd like representing the opinions of atheists.