Toto

David Matthews:

I have decided that the words "under God" in the Pledge are the equivalent of a sacrifice to Jupiter in the Roman Empire. If you, as a Christian, had lived in the Roman Empire around 200 C.E., and had been asked to sacrifice to Jupiter or be thrown to the lions, would you have made the sacrifice, redefining Jupiter in your mind to be the Christian God, or would you have refused?

[ June 29, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

joedad

I don't see what the New York Times has to do with your reply, except that by your referring to it, you reinforce my perception of your believing that whatever is popular must somehow also be constitutional. I sure am glad that's not the case.

But at least you were honest enough to admit that you really don't know jackshit about this case.

And welcome to Infidels.

joe

hezekiah jones

Frivolous, under the circumstances, is a legal term of art. Black's Law Dictionary: "Lacking a legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful."

Further, frivolous suit: "A lawsuit having no legal basis, often filed to harass or extort money from the defendant." In fact Newdow sought no monetary compensation.

The Ninth Circuit accepted the case, ruled on it, and ruled in favor of the plaintiff. By definition it was not a frivolous case.

Once again you are considerably wide of the mark.

Vorkosigan

Hey Toto! And what did the Roman magistrates tell the Christians -- "For Pete's sake, ya dumbasses, praise the Emperor, make a small sacrifice, and live. Really, it is a minor matter!"

Vorkosigan

M.C. Busman

David Mathews originally wrote: "For that reason, I suspect that the lawsuit was frivolous -- that is, initiated for a political end rather than to protect Dr. Newdow's daughter from harm."

David, is it possible you feel the lawsuit may be frivilous because you do not support the outcome? Can't political ends protect innocent people, like say...civil rights legislation & litigation?

Hypothetically, for the sake of clarification on your point of view here...If a Christian sued to remove the words "without god" from a national pledge of allegiance his child and yours had to say every day (let's assume such ridiculous circumstances for the sake of arguement), would you 1. sue for remedy to the situation? Or would you tell you child either 2. Say the pledge, be a good citizen regardless of how what you say differs from your reality, 3. just not say those two words which diverge from your beliefs (or insert ones that do at the rist of criticism, death threats & assault), or 4. not say any of the pledge at all?

None of those 4 choices are easy. All require either giving up a part of who you are and submitting to what you do not believe, or fighting for your principles and those of the law.

If atheists became a tyrannical majority and tried to insulate their specific statements ~against~ faith/god(s) into the fabric of this nation (like "we don't trust no god" on minted money, for example...)...would you tolerate it, or take legal action, if it were available to you?

Awaiting Your Replies with Sincere Curiosity,

M.C. Busman

john_v_h

<strong>My response to the lawsuit is simply that it seems that Dr. Newdow is overreacting to a minor matter.</strong>

The Elk Grove, California, Unified School district, where Miss Newdow is enrolled, conducts classes 180 days per year. By the time she completes sixth grade, Miss Newdow will have listened to her classmates recite the 1954 Pledge, with its theistic claim, over a thousand times. Each time, the pledge will have been led by a state-employed teacher as part of a state-mandated education program. Is this a "minor matter"? Or is it, as the Court concluded, an "establishment of religion" on the part of the school, irrespective of Ms. Newdow's freedom not to say the words?

Spazmatic

She just started school dude. If you are saying that she didn't get converted over yet, wow, let's see... That's like saying because the missile was only LAUNCHED at the United States, we shouldn't do anything to stop it until it hits. After all, no harm yet.

Now, if you mean people don't suffer any persecution because of these things, check out the thread you started about persecution of atheists.

Spazmatic

The Jupiter thing isn't quite right. Sacrifices were hardly required of the layman. But, Christians did get in trouble for one thing. They refused to participate in festivals with religious connotations, even if they were primarily aimed towards the emperor. The result? They became very disliked within the Empire and, later, became the target of choice for the limited persecutions that occurred (and they were limited).

Now, that might help put things in perspective a bit for our Christian friends who don't get the whole "Do unto others..." deal.

MOJO-JOJO

Can you possibly imagine a world without these Church of Christ Neanderthals mucking things up? What would women do without these guys bashing them over the heads and dragging them back to the caves?

But alas....Spazmatic has requested that I play nicey-nice to these literalist cultists....and so I shall

Autonemesis

Hello David. This is a <a href="http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/125/52.0.html" target="_blank">crow</a>. I hope you enjoy eating it. <a href="http://www.marthastewart.com" target="_blank">Martha Stewart</a> may have some good recipies.

It seems Newdow's daughter is a Christian after all. Do you still think his fears of indoctrination were unfounded?

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>