Why the Atheists are Right About the Pledge

[Durandal]

Actually, I now think Newdow's been treated very unfairly. Think about it: why should it matter whether he has primary custody of his daughter, or whether she agrees with him?

Because in order for a case to go before a federal court, Newdow has to demonstrate that harm has been done to him. You can't just file a suit against every law or practice you think is unfair. You have to show that this law or practice has harmed you in an unjust manner.

Legally speaking, whether or not he has custody of his daughter is a big deal. Newdow can argue one of two things. Firstly, he can argue that his daughter is being harmed by being exposed to religious symbolism every day at school. Fat chance. The mother, who has legal custody, is raising her daughter as a Christian, so there's no harm being done to her daughter.

Alternatively, Newdow can argue that the government is undermining his authority as a parent by religiously taking sides. Well, he's not a parent, so he's got no real authority for the government to undermine. The only person who can legally file a complaint would be the mother, since she has custody. So if he doesn't have legal custody of her, his demonstration of personal injury goes out the window, and he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Newdow's problem is his image. He's a divorced, single male, basically claiming custody of his daughter when he doesn't have it. Divorced males aren't exactly my first choice of how atheists are presented in the public arena. Do you honestly think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would've gotten anywhere if he wasn't a reverend, happily married and a loving father? He had a happy family image, so he could appeal to the public on matters of civil rights. Newdow does not have that image. While he hasn't exactly been treated fairly by the media, he wasn't exactly Mr. Happy Family to begin with.

Is Newdow right? Of course. Does being right always mean that you can change things? No. To change things, you have to appeal to moderates; Newdow alienates moderates, and that does a lot more damage to atheists' agenda and acceptance as a minority than "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A presidential candidate can get away scott-free with saying that atheists shouldn't be citizens, but when a senator makes vague intimations about Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential platform, his own political party disowns him. As a minority, atheists are in a shitty position. Politicians can make damning statements about them as a whole with little or no political fallout. Such a position doesn't change overnight.

In order to really get atheists respected, people have to give a shit about us first. Complaining about religious displays in the government in the midst of a post-terrorist attack climate isn't going to do it. "Persecution" to most Americans are things like lynching black people and feeding Christians to lions, not mentioning God in a congressional session. That's why gays are still having trouble. There are no lynch mobs running around hanging gay people, so who cares? Ditto for atheists. Both atheists and gays have to show that they're being harmed in a way that the public can appreciate. Gays are in a better position in this department with the gay marriage clusterfuck, but atheists really have no such "luck."

[Durandal]

This is more N&P material than SLAM.

[Darth Wong]

Actually, I now think Newdow's been treated very unfairly. Think about it: why should it matter whether he has primary custody of his daughter, or whether she agrees with him?

Because in order for a case to go before a federal court, Newdow has to demonstrate that harm has been done to him.

Did you bother reading the rest of my post? Regardless of whether he has primary custody of his daughter, she is still his daughter, hence the government effectively siding with his ex-wife to compete with him on the issue of his daughter's religious upbringing is indeed harm to him.

You can't just file a suit against every law or practice you think is unfair. You have to show that this law or practice has harmed you in an unjust manner.

Legally speaking, whether or not he has custody of his daughter is a big deal. Newdow can argue one of two things. Firstly, he can argue that his daughter is being harmed by being exposed to religious symbolism every day at school. Fat chance. The mother, who has legal custody, is raising her daughter as a Christian, so there's no harm being done to her daughter.

Alternatively, Newdow can argue that the government is undermining his authority as a parent by religiously taking sides. Well, he's not a parent, so he's got no real authority for the government to undermine. The only person who can legally file a complaint would be the mother, since she has custody. So if he doesn't have legal custody of her, his demonstration of personal injury goes out the window, and he doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Excuse me, but that's bullshit. He's still a parent, even if he's not the custodian.

Newdow's problem is his image. He's a divorced, single male, basically claiming custody of his daughter when he doesn't have it. Divorced males aren't exactly my first choice of how atheists are presented in the public arena. Do you honestly think that Martin Luther King, Jr. would've gotten anywhere if he wasn't a reverend, happily married and a loving father? He had a happy family image, so he could appeal to the public on matters of civil rights. Newdow does not have that image. While he hasn't exactly been treated fairly by the media, he wasn't exactly Mr. Happy Family to begin with.

I didn't say he was the ideal figurehead; he's obviously not. However, that doesn't change the fact that he has been very unfairly treated. If you replaced "atheist" with any religion name and used the exact same arguments, people wouldn't be having these objections.

Is Newdow right? Of course. Does being right always mean that you can change things? No. To change things, you have to appeal to moderates; Newdow alienates moderates, and that does a lot more damage to atheists' agenda and acceptance as a minority than "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A presidential candidate can get away scott-free with saying that atheists shouldn't be citizens, but when a senator makes vague intimations about Strom Thurmond's segregationist presidential platform, his own political party disowns him. As a minority, atheists are in a shitty position. Politicians can make damning statements about them as a whole with little or no political fallout. Such a position doesn't change overnight.

Actually, from what I have heard on talk radio and newspapers and other sources, most people don't give a shit about Newdow himself, and many are unaware of his family situation. Almost all public discourse on this matter revolves around the issue of the pledge itself, not Newdow. In fact, most of the people who comment on the issue in public have trouble even remembering Newdow's name.

In order to really get atheists respected, people have to give a shit about us first. Complaining about religious displays in the government in the midst of a post-terrorist attack climate isn't going to do it. "Persecution" to most Americans are things like lynching black people and feeding Christians to lions, not mentioning God in a congressional session. That's why gays are still having trouble. There are no lynch mobs running around hanging gay people, so who cares? Ditto for atheists. Both atheists and gays have to show that they're being harmed in a way that the public can appreciate. Gays are in a better position in this department with the gay marriage clusterfuck, but atheists really have no such "luck."

Blaming Newdow won't help. You could put me in his place (non-white, happily married, well-educated father) and it wouldn't make an iota of difference in the public eye when it comes to making them recognize the discriminatory nature of religious inclusion in school activities. If you seriously think it would make a difference, you're kidding yourself.

[Durandal]

Did you bother reading the rest of my post? Regardless of whether he has primary custody of his daughter, she is still his daughter, hence the government effectively siding with his ex-wife to compete with him on the issue of his daughter's religious upbringing is indeed harm to him.

Yes, I read it. I'm not clear on what exact rights he has concerning his daughter's upbringing, but if SCOTUS determines that he has no place making the complaint he did, it's all over for him.

Excuse me, but that's bullshit. He's still a parent, even if he's not the custodian.

I never said it was fair. But he's filing a legal complaint on account of his daughter, so he'd better have a legal right for the government to infringe on before he can complain. You may very well be right, by the way. I think that Stravo would probably know more about custody rights for the father/non-primary custodian, though. However, it could also be true that the mother, who is the primary custodian, trumps Newdow.

Actually, from what I have heard on talk radio and newspapers and other sources, most people don't give a shit about Newdow himself, and many are unaware of his family situation. Almost all public discourse on this matter revolves around the issue of the pledge itself, not Newdow. In fact, most of the people who comment on the issue in public have trouble even remembering Newdow's name.

The impression I've gotten is that it's a mix of both. People knee-jerk to the Pledge indictment, but then they also say that Newdow is an asshole.

Blaming Newdow won't help. You could put me in his place (non-white, happily married, well-educated father) and it wouldn't make an iota of difference in the public eye when it comes to making them recognize the discriminatory nature of religious inclusion in school activities. If you seriously think it would make a difference, you're kidding yourself.

You're not a very good example. You're happily married, but you're not exactly the most diplomatic of people, either. Though to be honest, yes, I think you'd be in a better position than Newdow. I don't see that as a very large leap, but then again, living here has made me more than a little cynical about the general trends and attitudes over here.

Furthermore, making the public recognize the unjust discrimination in government religious exercises involves showing them actual harm being done. I'll put it this way: Americans have certain preconceptions that simply will not change. Discrimination is something like not hiring black people. Persecution is hanging black people from trees. Is the Pledge's religious content a form of persecution? Of course. But good luck trying to convince Joe Average American of that. He wants to see some actual harm being done that he can appreciate.

[Darth Wong]

Yes, I read it. I'm not clear on what exact rights he has concerning his daughter's upbringing, but if SCOTUS determines that he has no place making the complaint he did, it's all over for him.

There is ample legal precedent for non-custodial parents to still have rights about how their children are raised. For example, one parent recently lost custody for continuously attempting to poison her kids against their father.

I never said it was fair. But he's filing a legal complaint on account of his daughter, so he'd better have a legal right for the government to infringe on before he can complain. You may very well be right, by the way. I think that Stravo would probably know more about custody rights for the father/non-primary custodian, though. However, it could also be true that the mother, who is the primary custodian, trumps Newdow.

It doesn't matter if she trumps Newdow; all that matters is whether some harm has been done to his interests as a result of a First Amendment violation, and it has. It's totally irrelevant whether that harm is deemed to be lesser than the mother's interests; it exists regardless.

The impression I've gotten is that it's a mix of both. People knee-jerk to the Pledge indictment, but then they also say that Newdow is an asshole.

The latter is merely an excuse to bolster the former.

You're not a very good example. You're happily married, but you're not exactly the most diplomatic of people, either.

In this venue, I have no need to be. It's not as if I couldn't play that game if I really needed to.

Though to be honest, yes, I think you'd be in a better position than Newdow. I don't see that as a very large leap, but then again, living here has made me more than a little cynical about the general trends and attitudes over here.

Furthermore, making the public recognize the unjust discrimination in government religious exercises involves showing them actual harm being done. I'll put it this way: Americans have certain preconceptions that simply will not change. Discrimination is something like not hiring black people. Persecution is hanging black people from trees. Is the Pledge's religious content a form of persecution? Of course. But good luck trying to convince Joe Average American of that. He wants to see some actual harm being done that he can appreciate.

And his inability to appreciate the harm done by shoving religion down childrens' throats has nothing to do with Newdow's family issues. Those issues merely give him rhetorical ammunition to bolster the exact same conclusion he would come to anyway: that there's no harm being done.

[Durandal]

There is ample legal precedent for non-custodial parents to still have rights about how their children are raised. For example, one parent recently lost custody for continuously attempting to poison her kids against their father.

In the States?

It doesn't matter if she trumps Newdow; all that matters is whether some harm has been done to his interests as a result of a First Amendment violation, and it has. It's totally irrelevant whether that harm is deemed to be lesser than the mother's interests; it exists regardless.

It does matter, because if the mother has exclusive say as to what religious schooling the child receives, then Newdow's case is toast. It's not a matter of whose interests are more important, it's a matter of whether Newdow's interests are relevant at all.

The latter is merely an excuse to bolster the former.

That is true. But if the latter did not exist, then people would be more open to reconsidering the former.

In this venue, I have no need to be. It's not as if I couldn't play that game if I really needed to.

Well, I'll have to take your word on that.

And his inability to appreciate the harm done by shoving religion down childrens' throats has nothing to do with Newdow's family issues. Those issues merely give him rhetorical ammunition to bolster the exact same conclusion he would come to anyway: that there's no harm being done.

My point is that Newdow's image pretty much closes the door to the average person even reconsidering their conclusion. Most Americans will make snap judgments about something, but if you press the right buttons, they'll at least give it some additional thought. That isn't happening here because Newdow's got a douche bag image.

You're right that Newdow's family issues only bolster the original conclusion, but the simple fact is that they don't help the situation, and they work to harm it in the long run.

[Darth Wong]

There is ample legal precedent for non-custodial parents to still have rights about how their children are raised. For example, one parent recently lost custody for continuously attempting to poison her kids against their father.

In the States?

In the states, a biological parent must be consulted before a child can be adopted, even if that parent did not realize he was a parent. I'd say biological parents' rights are still important in the states without custody.

It does matter, because if the mother has exclusive say as to what religious schooling the child receives, then Newdow's case is toast. It's not a matter of whose interests are more important, it's a matter of whether Newdow's interests are relevant at all.

Irrelevant to the child's interest, perhaps. Irrelevant to Newdow's interests, no. Newdow must show harm to himself, not to the child. If he can show that his personal interests are harmed in any way, then he's satisfied the threshold requirement for launching a lawsuit. All he has to show is that his attempt to counteract his wife's programming is seriously impeded by the state effectively taking her side, and he has shown that his interests were harmed.

That is true. But if the latter did not exist, then people would be more open to reconsidering the former.

Your opinion. Personally, I doubt it. I think that those who are aware of his family situation are just using it as an excuse to dismiss his action, when the harsh reality is that they would not move one iota toward accepting it no matter who he was.

In this venue, I have no need to be. It's not as if I couldn't play that game if I really needed to.

Well, I'll have to take your word on that.

You don't seriously think I have always treated my supervisors at work the way I treat some moron who waltzes in here wanking over the Borg, do you?

My point is that Newdow's image pretty much closes the door to the average person even reconsidering their conclusion. Most Americans will make snap judgments about something, but if you press the right buttons, they'll at least give it some additional thought. That isn't happening here because Newdow's got a douche bag image.

I don't think there are any buttons to push in this case. I think that even if Newdow had absolutely impeccable credentials as a family man and his wife and child were with him 100%, these people would not be moved one iota. Even when people report being bullied as children for being atheists, people are completely unmoved; they might say they disagree with the bullying, but it doesn't sway them in the slightest about issues like the Pledge or the general inclusion of Christianity in the schools. Why would it make a difference what Newdow's situation is?

You're right that Newdow's family issues only bolster the original conclusion, but the simple fact is that they don't help the situation, and they work to harm it in the long run.

You have no way of knowing whether it really harms anything. Frankly, I strongly suspect that not one person who supports the Pledge in its current incarnation would be willing to change his mind if Newdow had been replaced with somebody else.