Alex Moon

Just caught part of this interview tonight. Did anyone watch the whole thing? How was it?

zorq

I saw this and Newdow handled this confrontation very well in my opinion.

Combs, the alleged liberal portion of the "balanced and fair" Fox News Channel portion of Hannity and Combs began the interview asking simple questions on topic about Newdow’s current endeavors to remove the Federally financially compensated Congressional Chaplain from service.

When it became Hannity’s turn to talk, he ambushed Newdow with two criticisms. First he asked weather Newdow believed in the original intention of the framers of the constitution. This thread of discussion leads to the confirmation that Madison was the author of the bill of rights. Hannity’s criticism boiled from the fact that Madison was one of the first members of congress to sanction the establishment of the position of Congressional Chaplin. He claimed that who could know the intention of the first amendment better than the author himself. Newdow claimed he did not know that Madison was in favor of establishing the position at its conception, but he claimed that it was recorded in the Supreme Court decision of Marsh v. Chambers that in one of Madison’s papers (his “Detached Memoranda”) Madison’s later contemplations of this exact issue were that the Congressional chaplain was an unconstitutional position.

To quote Marsh v. chambers <a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=US&vol=463&invol=783" target="_blank">Marsh v. Chambers </a>
Hannity told Newdow that he had made this up, implicitly calling him a liar. He also questioned Newdow’s education because he was unaware of Madison’s involvement in the establishment of a Congressional chaplain. But of course we can expect little else but insults and diversion when dealing with a person like Hannity.

Hannity was also concerned with what he alleges was a misuse of his daughter as cause of action for the pledge of allegiance in schools suit he brought forward to the 9th circuit courts. Hannity still maintains that this decision will be overturned.

Ron Garrett

What I love about Sean is that like most conservative media schills, he believes volume and sarcasm take the place of intellect and truth, which is fine for his illiterate demographic, but ends up outing him as an idiot on a regular basis.

Buffman

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/chaptest.htm</a>

Grumpy

Did Hannity explain why those two particular federal jobs should not be privatized? Especially when there are dozens of ministers in D.C. who would do the same job for free?

Because, you know, he usually favors less government.

edoggsmooth

Did anyone else catch the show and was disappointed with Newdow? That was the first time I ever saw him in person (also the first time i watched "hannity and combs") and I was hoping for a stronger arguement on his part.

I agree with the measures that he has put forth, and I really think he is a big hero for people who think like us. my only complaint is that he is a poor speaker. he had some excellent points, but spoke so softly that his points did not come across as clear as possible. im not asking for him to loudmouthed, opinionated and to have no regard for fact (then he could have his own show!) but it would be great if he could polish his public skills a bit.

just wondering if i was the only one out there who thought this. let me know

-ed

Philosoft

Not all of us can be Steve Allen or George Carlin or Penn Jillette. Some of us are just regular people who happen to believe in a particular cause. Such conviction, however, does not a charismatic public speaker make. Newdow's cases are publicly shocking, as are the things he feels he has to say to defend them. I don't think George Clooney-esque polish would help him win over the unsympathetic. That said, I don't think he's doing any real harm to the image of the atheist (as long as he doesn't speak of our side "winning" or whatever was that remark he made on Hannity right after the initial pledge brouhaha). He's at least reminding the "opposition" that atheists still have a political and legal voice. And he's not afraid to personally defend his convictions, something most of us haven't done for one reason or another.

Grumpy

That was just a case of saying "when" when "if" would have been more appropriate (and less alarming/conceited).

Rusting Car Bumper

Ed,

I didnt see it but i went to lunch with a few atheist friends and those that saw it said they thought Newdow was bad. I heard him ont he radio once here locally and he was awful.

Essentially I don't think it does atheists any good to get into these protracted debates about CSS. Its all we get identified with.

I'd much rather us get airtime to talk about good things we are about and that we are doing. It seems the only time we draw attention to ourselves is when we are putting out fires or getting into conflicted debates.

DC