Grumpy

I can agree that the injured party is the parent, not the child, even beyond the principle of the thing. That's just it, however -- courts do not argue cases on "principle"; there must be an actual controversy. Newdow's position is weakened, not demolished, but given the tricky nature of the case, he doesn't need the odds stacked against him any more.

BTW, would this case have been such a bombshell if we had been following it for months? I mean, I had never heard of it until the 9th Circuit ruling. The left-field surprise certainly added to the outraged reaction.

Krieger

Well, the media hyped the story up to get higher ratings, just like our pathetic Congress did.

Grumpy

FYI, I'm in the media, and I hyped the story (to the extent that I "hype" anything) because it was intrinsically interesting, and because my audience was eager to hear about it.

dimossi

According to this Family Education poll:

<a href="http://www.familyeducation.com/poll/results/1,1395,1-4160,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.familyeducation.com/poll/results/1,1395,1-4160,00.html</a>

Most children don't stop "believing" in Santa Claus until between ages 8 and 10.  Newdow's daughter is 8.  

If she can still believe in Santa Claus at her age then how can determining if she believes in "God", at this particular young age, have any real meaning?

Even that being said, as RufusAtticus pointed out, it doesn't matter either way.  The facts of the case show us that.

BolshyFaker

Just wondering, it said in the CNN article that if the court found that there was no injury and thus no case it could throw the case out (a political escape route that I wouldnt bet against).

Although you've all argued that the father is the victim and filed the case as such would there be anyone here who would be prepared to re-file if Nedow's case was thrown out? The media pressure especially on someone with a family would be enourmous...

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: BolshyFaker ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

If only I had a child....

I would be quite pleased to put the case before the people, but ultimately I do not think that the hostility would be a problem for long.

Because in my brief, and in my court cases, I would make a very simple claim that I think I could make the focus of the debate.

When it added the words 'under God' in 1954, the government stated that atheism stands along side rebellion, tyranny, and injustice as one of the great evils that the Republic stands against. There is nothing more clearly prohibited by the first amendment, and nothing more certain about my rights as a father, than that the government may not force my child to listen daily to a ritual that proclaims her father's beliefs to be one of the four great evils of the world.

With that one phrase, the whole nature of the peldge debate changes: Does the Pledge state that atheism is one of the four great evils of the world? I have no doubt but that, upon reflection, the answer would be shown to be 'yes' and that opposition to removing 'under God' from the pledge will pass.

With that, I believe, much of the hostility would fade as well.

A few fundamentalist extremists would still try to make the case that atheism is one of the four great evils of the world. But most Americans would then see the violation of church and state involved in this ritual.

Krieger

Do you work for CNN?

Grumpy

To clarify, I'm in a media. (Medium?) A mid-market news/talk AM radio station.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

Egoinos

Hey guys,
There is a thread on this (as on most Christian boards) at <a href="http://www.theologyforums.com/forums" target="_blank">www.theologyforums.com/forums</a> . Delightful statements abound, eg that atheists who disagree with the pledge should go live with Bin Laden, that sort of thing.

There are only two of us atheists on the board, and I'm not an american and so can't really comment on issues I know little about. Anybody feel like helping? Be nice though, the people there are generally nicer toward the unbelieving than on most xian boards.

--Egoinos--

capsaicin67

Newdow was just on with Buchanan and Bill Press on MSNBC. He didn't say anything *wrong*, in my estimation, but Buchanan rode over him roughshod by bullying him and controlling the meaning of the discussion and debate aggressively. Bill Press, out of character, was carefull not to get involved. They almost always both speak up and really have fun tearing into an issue and each other, but wow, Press was a total coward on that issue. Further, Newdow didn't do very well at making the essential points clear either. He was simply brought on for Buchanan to hatchet. I don't hear anyone anywhere in the media saying the obvious: that this is about Pledge Restoration and Constitutional law, not outlawing the Pledge. This isn't a "fair fight" anyway, Donahue needs to get some people that know what they're talking about, load a panel, and just rip into this topic and do some reclaiming of meaning and education and correction and not give the Repubs and fundies more and more soapbox time for their bullying and misinformation. They get plenty of airtime for that as it is. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />