Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nikolai · 08-29-2002, 11:28 PM

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13530-2002Aug29.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a>

The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress.

[Edited to correct reference and to conform to 'fair use' guidelines.]

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

abe smith · 08-30-2002, 05:33 AM

Yes; Newdow's got THAT right. US taxpayers's bucks shd not pay chaplains = religionists to promulgate religious stuff. A longtime pain in the mind, this.

Linda · 08-30-2002, 05:37 AM

This is going to be really interesting. If he wins this one, he should attack the property tax exemption for churches next. Because they own lots of property and pay no taxes, the rest of us are overtaxed to make up the difference. So, we end up subsidizing religion even though we want no part of it.

RufusAtticus · 08-30-2002, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Linda:
<strong>This is going to be really interesting. If he wins this one, he should attack the property tax exemption for churches next. Because they own lots of property and pay no taxes, the rest of us are overtaxed to make up the difference. So, we end up subsidizing religion even though we want no part of it.</strong>

Actually, that doesn't subsidize religion as much as subsidize non-profits. Now if only Churches had the exemption, it would violate US High Law, but AFAIK there is no state like that.

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-30-2002, 05:59 AM

Though I do not disagree with Mr. Newdow's objectives, I do disagree with his strategy.

Like a military commander who accepts a worthy objective of taking a strategically important hill, then attempts to do so by sending his unit up against its defenses, one soldier at a time, alone, across the most dangerous and exposed approaches, in broad daylight.

There is something to be said for strategy.

Linda · 08-30-2002, 06:05 AM

Hi Rufus:

I understand your point and appreciate it. I don't consider churches as 'non-profit'. That is why I singled them out. They have non-profit status but they are anything but non-profit organizations. Not one cent of my taxes should be used to support any church and, as it stands now, since I must pay higher property taxes because churches don't pay any, then I am being forced to support religion. My position is that they should lose their non-profit tax status and pay their fair share of property taxes.

Captn Kidd · 08-30-2002, 07:50 AM

Does anyone have a link to the document Newdow filed?

capsaicin67 · 08-30-2002, 08:22 AM

His strategy almost seems too good......for the religious extremists, that is.

I probably simply watch too many movies, but there are moments when I seriously wonder how deliberately duplicitous the xian xtremists could be when they plan strategy.....? Would they be able to enlist true believers to go "undercover" as atheists [like a Newdow?]simply to sabotage the anemic freethought community by deliberately using poor strategy and being what the fundies need them to be [an easy target]so that their politicians can pull out their scripted speeches and crazy pre-planned legislation......?

A new kind of martyrdumb?

If I were a betting man, though, I'd say that Newdow is simply what he seems, and just gets off on doing legal drive-bys. This whole year is going to be chock-full of short-sighted strategy, at least with respect to the implications for fragile freethought interests.

But I have to admit, if they wanted to use such a strategy it would not be difficult at all to pull off.

[ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: capsaicin67 ]</p>

beejay · 08-30-2002, 08:46 AM

In his case against Congress, Newdow faces a huge obstacle, lawyers say. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers that it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to have paid legislative chaplains. Congress has had paid chaplains since 1789.

While I agree that it's unconstitutional, it seems unlikly that the court will overrule itself.

I wish Newdow would win the first case before opening up a second one. It just complicates matters.

CaptainDave · 08-30-2002, 02:04 PM

Alonzo wrote:

Quote:

Though I do not disagree with Mr. Newdow's objectives, I do disagree with his strategy.
Like a military commander who accepts a worthy objective of taking a strategically important hill, then attempts to do so by sending his unit up against its defenses, one soldier at a time, alone, across the most dangerous and exposed approaches, in broad daylight.

There is something to be said for strategy.

That's hard to argue with.

But I don't think Mr. Newdow sees himself as a commander of a military unit. Because of our inability to unite behind a common cause, he has no unit! He is no more successful at herding cats than any of us so he strikes out on his own. And this guy is capable of going it alone (for better or worse). He probably has adequate financial resources, he's intelligent and knowledgable and he's a lawyer.

Imagine him acting in concert with a capable strategist, a public relations person, a research assistant and a dedicated following! But we've got this problem with organization.

08-29-2002, 11:28 PM	#1
Nikolai Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Richmond, Virginia Posts: 422	Newdow files another lawsuit <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13530-2002Aug29.html" target="_blank">Washington Post</a> The California atheist who sued to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance now wants to kick the House and Senate chaplains out of Congress. [Edited to correct reference and to conform to 'fair use' guidelines.] [ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

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

08-30-2002, 05:33 AM	#2
abe smith Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: springfield, MA. USA Posts: 2,482	Yes; Newdow's got THAT right. US taxpayers's bucks shd not pay chaplains = religionists to promulgate religious stuff. A longtime pain in the mind, this.

08-30-2002, 05:37 AM	#3
Linda Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 932	This is going to be really interesting. If he wins this one, he should attack the property tax exemption for churches next. Because they own lots of property and pay no taxes, the rest of us are overtaxed to make up the difference. So, we end up subsidizing religion even though we want no part of it.

08-30-2002, 05:59 AM	#5
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Though I do not disagree with Mr. Newdow's objectives, I do disagree with his strategy. Like a military commander who accepts a worthy objective of taking a strategically important hill, then attempts to do so by sending his unit up against its defenses, one soldier at a time, alone, across the most dangerous and exposed approaches, in broad daylight. There is something to be said for strategy.

08-30-2002, 06:05 AM	#6
Linda Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Indiana Posts: 932	Hi Rufus: I understand your point and appreciate it. I don't consider churches as 'non-profit'. That is why I singled them out. They have non-profit status but they are anything but non-profit organizations. Not one cent of my taxes should be used to support any church and, as it stands now, since I must pay higher property taxes because churches don't pay any, then I am being forced to support religion. My position is that they should lose their non-profit tax status and pay their fair share of property taxes.

08-30-2002, 07:50 AM	#7
Captn Kidd Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Texas Posts: 166	Does anyone have a link to the document Newdow filed?

08-30-2002, 08:22 AM	#8
capsaicin67 Contributor Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Gold coast plain, sea, scrubland, mountain range. Posts: 20,955	His strategy almost seems too good......for the religious extremists, that is. I probably simply watch too many movies, but there are moments when I seriously wonder how deliberately duplicitous the xian xtremists could be when they plan strategy.....? Would they be able to enlist true believers to go "undercover" as atheists [like a Newdow?]simply to sabotage the anemic freethought community by deliberately using poor strategy and being what the fundies need them to be [an easy target]so that their politicians can pull out their scripted speeches and crazy pre-planned legislation......? A new kind of martyrdumb? If I were a betting man, though, I'd say that Newdow is simply what he seems, and just gets off on doing legal drive-bys. This whole year is going to be chock-full of short-sighted strategy, at least with respect to the implications for fragile freethought interests. But I have to admit, if they wanted to use such a strategy it would not be difficult at all to pull off. [ August 30, 2002: Message edited by: capsaicin67 ]</p>

08-30-2002, 08:46 AM	#9
beejay Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Richmond IN Posts: 375	In his case against Congress, Newdow faces a huge obstacle, lawyers say. The Supreme Court ruled in 1983 in Marsh v. Chambers that it is not a violation of the Establishment Clause to have paid legislative chaplains. Congress has had paid chaplains since 1789. While I agree that it's unconstitutional, it seems unlikly that the court will overrule itself. I wish Newdow would win the first case before opening up a second one. It just complicates matters.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.