Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 08-12-2002, 12:13 PM

Anyone who has Adobe Acrobat Reader can download and view the petitions for en banc rehearing filed in the Newdow case by right-clicking the following links:

<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/newdow.reh.pet.6.pdf" target="_blank">U.S. Dep't of Justice's Petition</a>

<a href="http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-085.pdf" target="_blank">State of California's Petition</a>

Zimyatin · 08-12-2002, 01:12 PM

Am I the only one who thinks Newdow may have done more harm than good?

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zimyatin ]

southernhybrid · 08-12-2002, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Am I the only one who thinks Newdow may have done more harm than good?

No, you're not.

4th Generation Atheist · 08-12-2002, 02:22 PM

Useta be you could just skip the "undergod" part; this is what I did all through school and I was quite proud to do it (discussions with my parents on just this topic led to a far greater than average understanding of the Pledge and attendant issues; unlike the other brats, I knew what I was saying). The only time I had any trouble was when someone else noticed. Now, I suspect there's not a fundie kid in the nation who isn't listening very carefully to its nearest classmates. A lot harder to go undiscovered.

While I agree with taking "undergod" out, I also have some concerns about the tactical advisability of trying to now; in reaching for a better resolution we may have lost, for many of our youth, the less-than-perfect temporary measure we had before. My initial response to the news about Newdow was not my usual admiration for atheists with the courage of their convictions, but fear of the consequences. Now that the dust-up over whether atheists are "real Americans" has become official, I'm scared that public opinion will try to take our pride away from us; this isn't the time to have this discussion, b/c it is a lot less likely than it was even a few months ago to go our way.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]

Toto · 08-12-2002, 02:23 PM

I think Newdow did some good, but that the decision could easily backfire on church-state separation (especially if "under God" is written into a Constitutional Amendment). I think that is why the liberal Ninth Circuit is going to overturn the decision as fast as they can draft their opinions.

CaptainDave · 08-12-2002, 02:28 PM

I've gone back and forth with this. I was elated at first. Then I was horrified by the backlash. Then I thought that maybe this is the wake-up call we needed. What ever. This thing is the first action in a cultural war. I wish we had had more time to prepare ourselves for this!

Star Trek fans: Doesn't this seem just like Q introducing the Federation to the Borg - as a wake-up call?

4th Generation Atheist · 08-12-2002, 02:29 PM

I'm less worried about a Constitutional Amendment than I am about the next few months/years of other policies, and of public opinion and its influence on daily life. An Amendment takes a great deal of cooperation from a diverse set of people around the country; the whole state-ratification process was designed to be slow, unwieldy, offer many chances for review, &c. Admittedly, I'd be pepper-gas-mad if it happened, but I don't think the average citizen considers the Pledge to be as pressing an issue as, say, guns in the schools. It's a debate between two minorities, and the majority probably won't want to get up to debate about it.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]

Darwin's Finch · 08-12-2002, 02:31 PM

Toto: "I think Newdow did some good, but that the decision could easily backfire on church-state separation (especially if "under God" is written into a Constitutional Amendment). I think that is why the liberal Ninth Circuit is going to overturn the decision as fast as they can draft their opinions."

I agree. I also think it's sick and wrong that a federal court has to waffle about a constitutional issue just to preserve the Constitution.

4th Generation Atheist · 08-12-2002, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by CaptainDave:
I've gone back and forth with this. I was elated at first. Then I was horrified by the backlash. Then I thought that maybe this is the wake-up call we needed. What ever. This thing is the first action in a cultural war. I wish we had had more time to prepare ourselves for this!

Star Trek fans: Doesn't this seem just like Q introducing the Federation to the Borg - as a wake-up call?

I see this as the start of the latest battle in a culture war that's been going on more of less as long as we've been officially one nation. One side wants diversity within one country, equal rights for all, and more or less free expression, with protection for reviled minorities. The other wants everyone to think and act alike, and to have reviled minorities shipped out, forced to change, or enslaved. The more progressive side has been winning---which is why we don't have slavery, why women have the vote, and so forth. Yep, it's just the Yanks and the Rebs all over again, in new colors and distributed (somewhat) differently around the country.

Now I've always known which side of this culture war I've been on; I was drafted by birth. So I've looked at it tactically all my life. Newdow has just taken a big risk; unfortunately, since we're a little less organized than Sherman's legions (sorry Southerners; I know there are plenty of "us" down there these days!

) we can't pick and choose who uses what tactic when. We'll just have to fight in the situation as it stands.

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-12-2002, 04:26 PM

Newdow was a victim of some very powerful forces who know how to manipulate the media.

If somebody else would have won the case, the opposition would have found something out about the person, about the situation, and would have spun it in exactly the same direction. And we would be sitting here thinking that THEY did more harm than good.

A good PR company has a stock set of responses in place -- market tested for their effectiveness on focus groups. When the decision was handed down, they went to the file cabinet, pulled out response 527-9-B, and put it into action.

I do think that Newdow made one significant mistake. He went into this fight substantially alone and unarmed. He knew the law, but he did not know how to market an idea, and the situation spun out of his control (pun intended).

Even for a small group with few resources, it would have been possible to prepare and to generate a list of counter-responses -- a quick stack of 1-page answers to likely objections that might be raised.

Every presidential candidate has this stack of ready-made answers in case certain issues come to light, in case the opponent takes the fight in this or that direction.

Every political action committee of any size has their warchest full of contingency battle plans.

It's the way things are.

And no matter who you are, if you are not ready for that type of fight, then you are like a stereotypical geek entering an arena to go a few rounds with the likes of Bruce Lee. The professionals are going to chew you up.

08-12-2002, 12:13 PM	#1
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	Newdow Petitions for Rehearing Available Online Anyone who has Adobe Acrobat Reader can download and view the petitions for en banc rehearing filed in the Newdow case by right-clicking the following links: <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/testimony/newdow.reh.pet.6.pdf" target="_blank">U.S. Dep't of Justice's Petition</a> <a href="http://caag.state.ca.us/newsalerts/2002/02-085.pdf" target="_blank">State of California's Petition</a>

08-12-2002, 01:12 PM	#2
Zimyatin Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Michigan Posts: 308	Am I the only one who thinks Newdow may have done more harm than good? [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Zimyatin ]</p>

08-12-2002, 02:22 PM	#4
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	Useta be you could just skip the "undergod" part; this is what I did all through school and I was quite proud to do it (discussions with my parents on just this topic led to a far greater than average understanding of the Pledge and attendant issues; unlike the other brats, I knew what I was saying). The only time I had any trouble was when someone else noticed. Now, I suspect there's not a fundie kid in the nation who isn't listening very carefully to its nearest classmates. A lot harder to go undiscovered. While I agree with taking "undergod" out, I also have some concerns about the tactical advisability of trying to now; in reaching for a better resolution we may have lost, for many of our youth, the less-than-perfect temporary measure we had before. My initial response to the news about Newdow was not my usual admiration for atheists with the courage of their convictions, but fear of the consequences. Now that the dust-up over whether atheists are "real Americans" has become official, I'm scared that public opinion will try to take our pride away from us; this isn't the time to have this discussion, b/c it is a lot less likely than it was even a few months ago to go our way. [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

08-12-2002, 02:29 PM	#7
4th Generation Atheist Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Tower of Ecthelion...by the Starbuck's Posts: 1,815	I'm less worried about a Constitutional Amendment than I am about the next few months/years of other policies, and of public opinion and its influence on daily life. An Amendment takes a great deal of cooperation from a diverse set of people around the country; the whole state-ratification process was designed to be slow, unwieldy, offer many chances for review, &c. Admittedly, I'd be pepper-gas-mad if it happened, but I don't think the average citizen considers the Pledge to be as pressing an issue as, say, guns in the schools. It's a debate between two minorities, and the majority probably won't want to get up to debate about it. [ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2002, 02:23 PM	#5
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think Newdow did some good, but that the decision could easily backfire on church-state separation (especially if "under God" is written into a Constitutional Amendment). I think that is why the liberal Ninth Circuit is going to overturn the decision as fast as they can draft their opinions.

08-12-2002, 02:28 PM	#6
CaptainDave Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Florida Keys Posts: 119	I've gone back and forth with this. I was elated at first. Then I was horrified by the backlash. Then I thought that maybe this is the wake-up call we needed. What ever. This thing is the first action in a cultural war. I wish we had had more time to prepare ourselves for this! Star Trek fans: Doesn't this seem just like Q introducing the Federation to the Borg - as a wake-up call?

08-12-2002, 02:31 PM	#8
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Toto: "I think Newdow did some good, but that the decision could easily backfire on church-state separation (especially if "under God" is written into a Constitutional Amendment). I think that is why the liberal Ninth Circuit is going to overturn the decision as fast as they can draft their opinions." I agree. I also think it's sick and wrong that a federal court has to waffle about a constitutional issue just to preserve the Constitution.

08-12-2002, 04:26 PM	#10
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Newdow was a victim of some very powerful forces who know how to manipulate the media. If somebody else would have won the case, the opposition would have found something out about the person, about the situation, and would have spun it in exactly the same direction. And we would be sitting here thinking that THEY did more harm than good. A good PR company has a stock set of responses in place -- market tested for their effectiveness on focus groups. When the decision was handed down, they went to the file cabinet, pulled out response 527-9-B, and put it into action. I do think that Newdow made one significant mistake. He went into this fight substantially alone and unarmed. He knew the law, but he did not know how to market an idea, and the situation spun out of his control (pun intended). Even for a small group with few resources, it would have been possible to prepare and to generate a list of counter-responses -- a quick stack of 1-page answers to likely objections that might be raised. Every presidential candidate has this stack of ready-made answers in case certain issues come to light, in case the opponent takes the fight in this or that direction. Every political action committee of any size has their warchest full of contingency battle plans. It's the way things are. And no matter who you are, if you are not ready for that type of fight, then you are like a stereotypical geek entering an arena to go a few rounds with the likes of Bruce Lee. The professionals are going to chew you up.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.