Chad

I saw Newdow debate with Buchanan too. What gets me is that Pat blames Newdow for the "inevitable" mistreatment of his daughter at the hands of her classmates. Also, by what logic does neutrailty equal atheism as the official religion of the U.S.?

-DM-

My take on all of this is that--regardless of the merits of a lawsuit to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge--Newdow did himself and all of us (nontheists) in this country real damage by filing the suit on behalf of a daughter who doesn't live with him and, according to her custodial parent, her mother, is a Christian, willingly goes to church, and willingly says the Pledge including the words "under God."

So far as I am concerned, he should have been honest about it, filing the suit on his own behalf. And while he is not directly responsible for the harassment of his daughter, he certainly is indirectly responsible for it if he had even an inkling of the inevitably of it.

--Don--

Corwin

Unfortunately the legal system doesn't work like that. He had to bring his daughter into it to have any legal standing...

Although personally I think we all have at least ethical standing in this issue. I don't like american schoolchildren being indoctrinated that I'm somehow an enemy of america simply because I don't grovel before some invisible sky fairy.

Alonzo Fyfe

This is simply the way that the legal system works. In order to have standing in the court, Mr. Newdow had to argue that his daughter was being injured by a law that violated his right to direct his daughter's religious education.

You may be confused as to how the court can interpret a violation of a father's right to direct the religious education of his child is an injury to the child -- me, too -- but that's the way the court works, and that is the argument that Mr. Newdow made.

JamesKrieger

I'm in there, Egoinos. I'm Yngvai Malmsteve. Man, Conan is starting to tick me off.

Egoinos

I did wonder whether that was someone from here I only posted once on that thread (as Atheist_Divine) but, as a nonamerican, couldn't really comment. Then things started getting nastier than normal so I thought I'd call in help.

Is Pinball from here too?
You're doing a very good job btw, and conan is one of the more irritating members, I've had confrontations with him before. revleonard is usually nicer though.

--Egoinos--

Darkside_Spirit

I think that asking about Newdow's motivations is a distraction from the real issue. Which means, of course, that the press will seize on it. I just wish he could have brought the lawsuit without involving his daughter. He wouldn't be able to deal with the recitation of the pledge in school, but he still could have sued Congress for including the words "under God" in the first place.

The point about parental rights, made earlier, was a good one, however.

[ July 21, 2002: Message edited by: Darkside_Spirit ]</p>

capsaicin67

Newdow just hasn't represented this in a way that will advance the cause, he comes off as a spoiler and a person that just likes screwing with the legal system, a crank. The facts supporting the necessity of his daughter's involvement are somewhat understandable, but he should have anticipated the focus on this as an issue to discredit his cause. One of his main faults is simply not being an effective articulator of his position and the facts that are, in reality, on his side. When Buchanan was shredding him he did not do the topic any greater service than any other person I've seen address it on tv recently. He did not rebut the misinformation well at all, IMO. He needs to read Lowder's 2 pieces on the topic before his next appearance so that he can say something effective and drive at the crux of the matter. He will not be allowed to talk at length, thus this whole cause needs effective sound bytes that support the ruling---something we have been a bit short on in the media.