When Atheists Attack 

This article is great: An Allegiance to Dissent: Man's Challenge to 'Under God' Is One of Many -- Including a Pivotal Custody Battle Over Daughter Good old Michael Newdow is still at it. The guy who is offended by "under God" still hasn't given up. You need to fill out a couple things before you can read this article, but it's really good once you've gotten past that. It shows just how ridiculous some people can be. I don't want to go too in-depth, but here are a few examples of what the article says:

...in his view, the judge is enforcing an "egregious, unconstitutional" system of family law. "This whole thing is a crock of dung," he told the counselor during a Nov. 5 session.

Why does it not surprise me that he said that? He's trying to get involved in the life of a child he doesn't have custody of, and he had said child with his girlfriend. I believe that means he legally has less of a role in her life, but he apparently thinks that's unconstitutional.

The Rev. Dr. Michael A. Newdow, Esq. -- physician, lawyer and founder of the First Amendmist Church of True Science -- has a restless, uncompromising mind, a mind that dissents radically from many widely accepted aspects of American life, from the pledge to family law to gender-specific pronouns in the English language. In his own writing, Newdow uses "ree" instead of "he" or "she," and "rees" instead of "his" or "her."

The guy is a nut. Why don't they just say it? There's a difference between "uncompromising" and "crazy."

To supporters, Newdow is living proof that, with enough determination, you can fight City Hall.

No, he's living proof that the legal system in this country is far too accepting of ludicrous cases.

Fatherhood is not a role Newdow initially relished. He has asserted in court that the child was conceived when Banning forced him to have sex during a trip to Yosemite National Park...Newdow has joined a movement against "forced fatherhood" led by the little-known National Center for Men.

If he didn't want to be a father, why is he suddenly so concerned about his daughter? Could it be...THE "G" WORD?! "Those fundamentalist bigots can't force their beliefs down the throat of the child I refused to acknowledge as my own daughter and never actually wanted in the first place!" Jackass.

The pledge conveys the message to Newdow's daughter that "her father's beliefs are those of an outsider, and necessarily inferior to what she is exposed to in the classroom," the 9th Circuit ruled.

Hey, guess what? Eliminating the phrase "under God" conveys the message to religious people that their beliefs are those of an outsider! WOW! I guess we have to pick one, don't we?

Americans United for Separation of Church and State had asked that it be allowed 15 minutes at oral argument, separate from Newdow, to present the case against "under God," but the court denied that request yesterday.

How exactly is this an issue of "separation of church and state?" It's irrelevant anyway, since that phrase IS NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION! Furthermore, I was thinking of something: some people say that the phrase in question was in a letter written by Thomas Jefferson, so of course that's what he MEANT to put in the Constitution. You know what? Jefferson had slaves, too, but we got rid of that when we realized it was wrong. Why should we read something into the Constitution because one of the founding fathers may have implied it in a totally separate document?

All right, that's enough, but I want to point out one more thing: This photo of Michael Newdow. Look at him. He actually looks exactly the way I pictured him when I first heard about the case. He's got the classic atheist scowl (popularized by George Carlin) and the "I'm smarter than you" expression... ... ... Have I mentioned that vocal atheists annoy the crap out of me?

Posted by CD on December 2, 2003 07:52 PM
Category: