4th Generation Atheist

I agree with Alonzo & Captain Dave re the strategic error. Newdow is never gonna win this one, not this way.

I feel much like I did when Clinton announced in his first coupla months in office that he was about to allow gays in the military. I knew he'd never get it, even if it eventually would be a good idea; all I saw was the liberal program and a toilet.

Of course, it took a little more than that, but it did eventually get flushed.

The Lone Ranger

I just heard Newdon interviewed on NPR. He seemed articulate and quite sincere.

Of course, they immediately followed up with a guy from the Heritage Institute insisting that religious belief is good for you, makes you happy, and therefore should be encouraged.

*Sigh*

Buffman

Most addictive drugs do make people happy...for a while. Some are actually happy when they take their last breath.

ADDED:

Dr. Newdow's interview. REAL Player required.

<a href="http://www.pbs.org/npr/" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/npr/</a>

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

GaryP

It may be poor stretegy.

But he is getting the idea of c/s separation out into the public discourse. And that can not be all bad for our side.

Before the pledge decision, when was the last time this type of issue was even considered in such a wide "market of ideas"?

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: GaryP ]</p>

Captn Kidd

Buffman,

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed that.

All,

I'm not so sure about Newdow's strategy being bad. His legal brief for the pledge case was beautifully constructed, and if he isn't bounced on standing issues, I think he'll fly through the supreme court. His brief was also entertaining, there are some funny sections that make it worthwhile reading.

On this case, he applied for the chaplain position. (Hey, why not take $147,000/yr., huh?) Apparenly, his Universal Life Church ordination didn't do that trick, and he was passed over. That seems like a pretty clever way to get standing, and a very interesting angle on the case. It also points out that it's impossible for a non-mainstream person to get his views represented there.

I wouldn't be surprised if he gets them to actually apply some first ammendment tests to the issue. If they do, we win.

Still an uphill battle, but it seems like a worthwhile attack. And when a really bright guy puts 90 hours a week into something, there's no telling where it will stop.

Even if it all flops, he's done more for getting these issues out in the open than anybody has in the last 20 years. For that, I'm grateful.

Sure, he's a bit, um, different, but what normal person would even think of doing what he's done.

gilly54

Dr. Newdow mentioned when he spoke to our group that his strategy IS to throw all these cases at them at once: the IGWT motto on the money, under God in the Pledge and the Congressional chaplains. Sort of a "strength in numbers" strategy. If he keeps his argument consistent (get government out of the religion business) and if one of those items is ruled as unconstitutional, then logically, the others should be also.

I enjoyed his talk very much. He deserved the long standing ovation we gave him.

Gilly

Alonzo Fyfe

At the same time, if he throws all of these cases at them, and keeps his arguments consistent, if one of those items is ruled constitutional then, logically, the others are also.

Politics is about swaying the "swing voter" -- the people who can go either way on an issue.

If Newdow wins the judicial case, but does so in such a way that the "swing voter" sides in greater numbers with those who oppose church and state, the results will be -- at minimum -- the appointment of more federal judges who will distort or overturn earlier decisions, and -- at worst -- a constitutional amendment to do so.

At present, the Christian Conservatives are exploiting opposition to the Pledge amendment to advocate just these types of changes. Vote Republican -- so that we can appoint more judges who realize that our rights come from God and that prayer in school fulfills a "compelling state interest" in promoting morality and patriotism among the youth.

They will do so by focusing on the easiest case, generating public sympathy for their side, and, once the easiest case falls their way, use that to push their arguments against the next easiest, and so on.

What Mr. Newdow lacks that his opposition has in abundance is a public-relations branch. Without that, his victories in the court will become victories for Christian Conservative political candidates, which have the power to, eventually, retake all lost ground.

lcb

what goes around comes around.

bonduca

I think what lcb is trying to say, is that after many years of inappropriate lip service being paid to the Christian faith in public institutions, it is high time someone issued a challenge.

In which case, I agree.

lcb

a paper challenge.