Freethought & Rationalism Archive

David Bowden · 07-11-2002, 07:20 PM

...and Newdow doesn't even have custody of the girl, who is the daughter of a woman he never married.

Quote:

Banning [the girl's mother], who has hired lawyers in part to explore intervening in the case, said she hopes her efforts will lead to a reversal of the ruling. She also said her daughter "expressed sadness" after the ruling.

The plot thickens:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/11/pledge.daughter.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/07/11/pledge.daughter.ap/index.html</a>

Not that this changes the constitutional issues at stake, but I think that the PR fallout on this is going to be made to distort the really important stuff, as usual... and not in our favor.

-Wanderer

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

fando · 07-11-2002, 07:33 PM

You fiend! Did you close my thread?

Yes, the issue is better in this forum.

Anyhoo, I think we should investigate what Newdow's motivations were for bringing up this case. If he turns out to be a shrill, then we will not hear the end of this.

David Bowden · 07-11-2002, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by fando:
You fiend!

Oops!

You definitely scooped me by half an hour, fando. I didn't see your thread before posting mine. It was Writer@Large who closed your thread.

I agree - people will forget that this really is about a constitutional question while they focus on Newdow's personal life and motives - and they'll project any flaws they see in him onto the rest of us.

And of course this "persecuted and embarrassed" girl will become the new poster child for the anti-secular media/lobby...

-Wanderer

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: wide-eyed wanderer ]

fando · 07-11-2002, 08:11 PM

I just read that Newdow is a lawyer. Lawyer, atheist and non-custodial father. The weather forecast is heavy ad hominem attacks and cloudly on the real debate. Oh well.

RufusAtticus · 07-11-2002, 08:26 PM

From Newdow v US Congress decision:

Quote:

Newdow does not allege that his daughter�s teacher or
school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting
the Pledge.3 Rather, he claims that his daughter is injured
when she is compelled to �watch and listen as her stateemployed
teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates
in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our�s [sic]
is �one nation under God.� �

Quote:

Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice
that interferes with his right to direct the religious education
of his daughter. �Parents have a right to direct the religious
upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing
to protect their right.�

(1) The court feels that as a parent he does have standing, although he doesn't have full custody.

(2) He never alledged that his daughter is forced to recite it against her will.

(3) The daughter is never described as being an Atheist. The "injury" is reflected in the fact that the government is promoting a religious test of patriotism. For this it does not matter what beliefs the daughter holds. In fact the "injury" can simply be that she is being taught by government employees that her father is not a True American (TM).

The problem here is that fundies will be crying "perjury" for the next few decades, without having reviewed the transcript of the court case.

~~RvFvS~~

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-11-2002, 08:33 PM

It is important in events such as this to have a simple one-line (or 10-second) sound byte that can be brought out. The best I can think of for this situation is:

"If Mr. Newdow was a Jew, and the government had his daughter reciting anti-semitic rituals in school, the fact that his daughter was eager to engage in those rituals adds to, rather than subtracts from, Mr. Newdow's right to complain that the rituals were being performed."

DougI · 07-11-2002, 08:51 PM

The Religious Reich will have a problem with this though. Will they abandon their plea for father's rights (which they advocated during their anti-abortion movement) or will they stand up for the single mother? Being hypocrites they shouldn't have that much of a problem unless someone catches them on it.

Krieger · 07-11-2002, 09:57 PM

CNN = Christian News Network

Jack the Bodiless · 07-12-2002, 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe:
It is important in events such as this to have a simple one-line (or 10-second) sound byte that can be brought out. The best I can think of for this situation is:

"If Mr. Newdow was a Jew, and the government had his daughter reciting anti-semitic rituals in school, the fact that his daughter was eager to engage in those rituals adds to, rather than subtracts from, Mr. Newdow's right to complain that the rituals were being performed."

An excellent argument!

And it provides a second line of attack if SCOTUS rules that the pledge itself is not unconstitutional. Newdow's daughter is being taught that her father is not a "true American", and that is slander.

Perhaps SCOTUS will rule that teacher-led recitation of the pledge in schools IS illegal. The "loss" of the entire pledge will cause fundies to howl, but atheists should be ready to point the finger and say "this was YOUR fault".

Then, when the dust settles, we can suggest that a "pledge of values" for schoolkids would be nice, and propose a new pledge full of PC ideals and no reference to gods...

Toto · 07-12-2002, 10:11 AM

<a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pledge12jul12.story" target="_blank">LA Times article</a> (requires free registration) contains a number of important points on this topic.

The first is that the mother has retained a lawyer with Republican connections, and it appears that the Republican Party is going to try to make this a major issue to "energize its base" as they say.

Newdow gives his position:

Quote:

Newdow, a lawyer and former emergency room physician, has acknowledged from the beginning that the girl says the pledge each morning with her classmates. Newdow has said he does not press his religious beliefs on her and that the case has always been about him, not her.

When the media descended on his house after the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling, Newdow removed the girl's photographs from his refrigerator and walls so her face would not appear in news accounts.

He predicted long ago that much of the nation would find his beliefs radical. And, to spare her the notoriety, he intentionally left his daughter's name off the documents he filed in court as part of his case so that she could not be identified.

"I have consistently refused to discuss her (except to state that she is an absolutely super kid and that she got all 'excellents' on her last report card)," Newdow wrote in an e-mail Thursday morning.

"I continue to maintain--as I have from the beginning--that the [Constitution] protects my right, as a parent, to send my daughter to public school without her being indoctrinated with any particular religious belief, even one with which we might agree.

"That is the thrust of this case as it pertains to my child, and it does not require any further involvement on her part."

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

07-11-2002, 07:33 PM	#2
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	You fiend! Did you close my thread? Yes, the issue is better in this forum. Anyhoo, I think we should investigate what Newdow's motivations were for bringing up this case. If he turns out to be a shrill, then we will not hear the end of this.

07-11-2002, 08:11 PM	#4
fando Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Los Angeles Area Posts: 1,372	I just read that Newdow is a lawyer. Lawyer, atheist and non-custodial father. The weather forecast is heavy ad hominem attacks and cloudly on the real debate. Oh well.

07-11-2002, 08:33 PM	#6
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	It is important in events such as this to have a simple one-line (or 10-second) sound byte that can be brought out. The best I can think of for this situation is: "If Mr. Newdow was a Jew, and the government had his daughter reciting anti-semitic rituals in school, the fact that his daughter was eager to engage in those rituals adds to, rather than subtracts from, Mr. Newdow's right to complain that the rituals were being performed."

07-11-2002, 08:51 PM	#7
DougI Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 932	The Religious Reich will have a problem with this though. Will they abandon their plea for father's rights (which they advocated during their anti-abortion movement) or will they stand up for the single mother? Being hypocrites they shouldn't have that much of a problem unless someone catches them on it.

07-11-2002, 09:57 PM	#8
Krieger Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: ... Posts: 2,191	CNN = Christian News Network

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.