Thoughts on the complaint being filed on the behalf of rational mind everywhere?
Offline Read it here. It's quite readable for a legal document, which is a rather nice change. 
First, I have to say that I think this was a brilliant idea, and I'm very happy to see that so many atheists from all spectrums, demographs and locations decided to collaborate on it. Regardless of the outcome, this is a very big deal, and should (hopefully) make some waves even outside of America.
I honestly don't think this will go beyond getting tossed out the door, however. This is not so much a problem with the lawsuit - it's that God really is a weasel word, and all kinds of excuses (we've all pretty much seen said excuses by now) can be made for what is meant by 'God' (anything from universe to good feelings), and the Democrats know that they would be committing political suicide by bowing to this sort of thing. A few of them (like Barack) may be idealistic, but they aren't retarded nor interested in being out of work, and starting to strike God out of statements in America is a good way to find unemployment (regardless of how high an office you hold).
...I also cringe, just a little bit, at the association of the word 'religion' and 'atheism' in the document (I think it only does this once or twice). This is, well, bad for the case, as it then suggests that the plaintiffs want to shove-in one religion over another - when the reality is that atheism is the neutral stance and not a religion.
I must emphasize, though - Mike Newdow, Ellery Schempp, Mel Lipman, Dan Barker, Annie-Laurie Gaylor, Robert Sherman, Margaret Downey, August Berkshire, Marie Castle, Stuart Bechman, Herb Silverman, Jason Torpy, Harry Greenberger, Kirk Hornbeck, Jim Corbett, Catherine Lamm, Richard Wingrove, Christopher Arntzen, John Stoltenberg, Katherine Laclair, Louis Altman, Paul Case, Jerry Schiffelbein, Anne, Philip and Jay Richardson, Dan Dugan, Anna Mae Andrews, Eliza Sutton and Richard Ressman:
FANTASTIC WORK!
Every Plaintiff in the complaint is my hero, and I'm very pleased to know that so many highly competent individuals are looking-out for the Godless who happen to be residents in the 'One Nation Under God'.
I hope Hitchens and/or Harris really decide to rally alongside this if they hear about it; their voices would be of tremendous help.
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
- Login to post comments
Christopher and Kirk are members of Beltway Atheists.
Rick Wingrove is our co-Founder.
OK, Michael Newdow is at it again. I really wish that he would stop and think about what he is doing.
He seems to be able to convince the 9th circuit that he has some good ideas but he really can't take any cases past them without them being thrown out on the grounds that he has no standing to represent anyone other than himself.
He has already had two chances with SCOTUS and both times he was a total failure. Now he is suing the Chief Justice? I can only imagine being a fly on the wall in John Roberts office when that document comes in. I am reasonably certain that the Chief Justice merely sighed and said “Not this shit again”.
I can only assume that Michael Newdow believes that he can win some grander strategy by only picking the battles that he knows up front that he is guaranteed to lose. How he thinks that will help I have no idea.
Yet every time he does this, he manages to give the theists the opportunity to push a bit farther forward with their silly claims about crap.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Honestly, we could make a much larger point if we were to charter a bunch of buses and show up at the public ceremony by the hundreds. Then put those signs with the agnostic slogans on the side. Heck but I would take the time off from work and fly down there if we want to do that.
Then we make sure that the buses are visibly parked where they can be seen by the news cameras. Just wait for someone to notice them and then bunches of us get camera time. Actually, since Michael Newdow is stirring the shit again, that would possibly make the media all the more curious.
If we cannot get buses in this time frame, I wonder if it is more logistically reasonable to get a smaller event set up at the other end of the mall. If it gets talked about in a larger context across a few web sites and possibly we get a discussion going on FARK, then we get Pastor Deacon Fred to come in for the event.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Michael Newdow by himself, is good at getting camera time for himself but when he does so, he talks about his “belief” in regards to god. Letting him act as a sort of poster boy for atheism allows the theists to attack the whole movement.
When he gets rolling, he gets a talking point on O'Reilly and a brief mention on Rush Limbaugh. However, he is easy to dismiss precisely because he has no sense of tactical awareness.
Billboards, bus signs and large public gatherings are what we need to show that we are not one lone guy who knows how to pull some attention getting but largely inconsequential stunts once every couple of years.
OTOH, if we keep an eye out for what Michael Newdow does next, we can jump onto his parade and plan on making a big splash.
=
AIGS, listen to this interview. I think Newdow makes a solid case for this lawsuit, and it's not just him, there are dozens of co-plaintifss.
Listen to http://mnatheists.org/content/view/236/1/.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
I've got to throw in with Gene, here. In addition to my doubts regarding Newdow, I believe in freedom of speech. As long as the man takes the oath as stated in the Constitution, I'm happy. He can say whatever he pleases once he's finished.
Just imagine the boner the religious right would get if this suit was successful and the next Republican president (because we will have another one at some point in the future, sorry to tell you) were to defiantly say "so help me God!" in violation of the decision. They'd be able to harp on that shit for decades. Fuck that.
"The whole conception of God is a conception derived from ancient Oriental despotisms. It is a conception quite unworthy of free men."
--Bertrand Russell
DDA, you should listen to the interview I linked to. He addresses your concerns. For example, he's not suing Obama not to say 'so help me God'. He's suing the chief justice from prompting the president to say it. It's not part of the pledge according to the constitution, and the chief justice has no right to prompt it, since he's acting as a representative of the gov't, not as a citizen.
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
When O'Hare succeeded in stopping mandatory prayer in schools, she was also just as legally justified. Students and faculty can pray any time they feel the need, but can not force anyone else to pray, right? But you still have folks today claiming that prayer was banned from schools entirely. Religious folks have a predilection for emotional response over rationality, and prefer ideas that back their emotions over facts.
So, legally Newdow is spot on. Politically it is probably a serious mistake.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
Freedom of speech does not extend to the right to say whatever you want without consequence. If the inaugeration ceremony included the words, "Oh, and fuck those Mexicans," the committee putting it together would (rightly) get into big dookie. Likewise, actively promoting one brand of religion should get one into equal trouble if one has any respect for keeping church & state seperate.
Of course, your country doesn't, so I imagine the complaint will just get tossed.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Brown, that link is erroring up.
Ah, darn. They must've taken down the PDF for whatever reason. I can't find a mirror, either.
You could say that about anything. Honestly, the theists will take offense at anything, and so you could say that any publicized fight for separation of church and state is a political mistake.
Think about it. Do you really think O'Hare's case was a mistake? If it had never happened, we'd still be dealing with prayer in schools. So, you have to weigh the benefits and the harm, and look at the long term.
One of the big unspoken benefits of Newdow's most recent case is that he's been able to get a lot of various groups and individuals on his side. He's helping to build the movement. Even if he loses, it's not so clear that the process will have been in vain. It could be the tiny snowball that turns into a landslide. Who knows?
Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!
Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!
Can someone give those of us who didn't get a chance to read it a synopsis? Or send us a different link that gives some background information>
Thanks!
They moved the file to a new link. The new URL suggests there may be a date in it so I don't know if the info is different or how just yet.
http://www.restorethepledge.com/live/litigation/inaugural/docs/2008-12-30%20Original%20Complaint.pdf
=
Edited my link to to point to the new URL.
Thanks Gene!
This is, IMHO, the real important part of the action. It's not just something Michael Newdow decided he'd go off and do on his own; he got a bunch of freethinkers to band together on an issue.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
No Standing. It won't get anywhere.
I'll be at the hearing Thursday.
This isn't about free speech because as an elected government official you must abide by the law, some get away with crimes and others don't. Its all about who's caught and who's not. In this case they were caught. I am tired of the sheep and cattle complaining about we are taking away their freedom, No its a freedom you never had. It would go the same way if an atheist was to bash religion in a government elected spot, then again it can be argued that the bash is fact, which most things said about religion coming from an atheist is true. Just because it is said "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligious, government will stay neutral" and we just happen to be neutral, truth and justice is natural to us. Our children and perhaps the intelligent children of theirs will thank us some day where we live in a world that is free from religion. The obstacle we face as free people is the interpretation that this Court case will out come. Not whats right or wrong but what a group of people think. In reality this is a bullshit concept because history has shown these people are corrupt and one sided letting their personal beliefs get in the way of whats right and fact. we will just have to see were this goes and then what we need to do to fix it.
OK. I've changed my mind. I was wrong.
I just got back from the injunction hearing... I'm sure one of the reporters will be able to recap better than I could but as a rather short summary - the judge ruled that there was no standing in the case.
[edit: here's a press release on the aha page
http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/InaugurationResult.php
I disagree with this line though:
When responding to Newdow's argument that studies show people won't vote for an atheist for president, Judge Walton stated that dislike for atheists is of their own making.
What the judge said what that he believed dislike for atheists was based in the believer's particular belief not in government activities. I'm sure this was what he said because I was shocked that he would basically say that religious belief leads to intolerance. ]
Yup. Naturally, it's our own fucking fault that theism is batshit fucking crazy; if we can't see the invisible friend everyone else apparently can, well, that's our problem.
Fuck. I hate people, I hate legislators and I hate shitty Goddamn judicial systems.
I also hate it when I get my hopes up for anything.
If your new president reads that speech as written he can taste my balls. May as well have had Sarah Palin sworn-in to reinforce 'teaching the controversy' and abolishing fruit fly research if you're going to have a black guy up there reinforcing the woo woo to his poorly educated ethnic minority.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940
Kevin you are starting to sound like Matt S.; CUT IT OUT!!!!!!!!!!! You're better then that now get back to RATIONAL!!!!
"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."
VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"
If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?
Here:
If Obama reads that speech as written, knowing full well that it supports a sectarian agenda and that african americans are by a wide margin the most vulnerable to this sort of influence - especially when reinforced by an african american president - I'll lose most of my respect for the man. 'God' belongs absolutely nowhere in the ceremony to inaugerate him as leader of a world power.
- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940