David Mathews

Hello Everyone,

The article in the New York Times regarding the decision of the 9th Appellate Count contains the following paragraph:

David: It appears to me that Dr. Newdow has indoctrinated his daughter into atheism and that his lawsuit against the Pledge functions as a defensive effort to isolate his daughter from any contact with religion. Perhaps Dr. Newdow is afraid that his daughter might believe in God merely from hearing other people mention God in the Pledge of Allegience.

Now, if atheism is such a weak idea that it cannot bear any contact with theism in any public setting, it seems quite obvious to me that religion is alive and well in the United States.

The doctor's behavior demonstrates that belief in God is not threatened by atheism, rather Atheism is threatened by belief in God. Atheism portrays itself as the minority religious viewpoint in the United States, dependent upon the Courts to protect and isolate it from any public contact with religion.

It seems evident to me that the battle between Theism and Atheism is already over: Atheism lost.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1" target="_blank">David Mathews' Home Page</a>

Nickle

If belief in God is not threatened by atheism, why the hell would "Under God" be added in the first place?

Red Herring. The Court decision was whether or not "Under God" was unconstitutional, not if atheists need protection. Make your arguments on that. Dr. Newdow's motives don't come into play.

That's good. What the hell does this have to do with the court's decision?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

Bill Snedden

Rev. Matthews: You might want to check out the SecWeb's excellent reference on <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html" target="_blank">logic and logical fallacies</a>. Your entire post is no more than one big <a href="http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#strawman" target="_blank">strawman</a>.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Bill Snedden ]</p>

Writer@Large

Indeed. Remember, it was to fight the "Godless Commies" that pushed the McCarthy-Era Congress into amending the Pledge in the first place.

--W@L

himynameisPwn

David, do you ever even think of the other persons position before you make your judgements? What if the pledge of allegiance made you say 'under no god', 'under Zues because the christian god is a big phoney, christians are idiots'? Wouldn't you be offended? Doesn't the idea of a theocracy where the government forces religion down your throat make you sick? What if this gets rejected, then an amendment was passed making Hinduism the official religion of the US. Im sure millions would protest. Why? Because the government should be secular and not involved in private affairs and shouldn't sponsor religion.

The difference between sponsoring atheism and being nuetral to religion is a big one. The government doesn't have to support my beliefs that no God exists, it can simply not mention it.

This isn't a battle of God vs. non-God, its a battle of church-state separation where government shouldn't tell you what to believe, and you misunderstand the whole basis of this case.

Sephiroth

Ha! The "Under God" was added because Christian-Americans feared the apparantly almighty wrath of Stalin and Breshnev. And now, with that threat gone you still want it. So, Reverend Matthews, what's your fear this time? Why is it okay to alienate polytheists, agnostics, and atheists for absolutely no reason? Do you just enjoy your priviledged status?

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: Sephiroth ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Dear "Reverend" Mathews:

Critics would do well to actually read and criticize the opinion on its merits, or lack thereof, rather than posture fatuously.

SinEater

To David Matthews:

It appears to me that David Matthews wishes to indoctrinate everyone else's children into theism and that his unreasoning fear and hatred of this lawsuit against the altered, sectarian form of the Pledge functions as a defensive effort to isolate theists' children from any contact with the concept of nonreligion. Perhaps David Matthews is afraid, nay terrified, that theists' children might stop believing in God merely from hearing other people's lack of mentioning God in the Pledge of Allegience, and in all other contexts, fewer than 117 times every two minutes.

Now, if theism in general, and Abrahamic monotheism in particular, is such a weak idea that it cannot bear any contact with the simple lack of contant lip-service to primitive bronze-age nomadic goat-herder wargods in any public setting, it seems quite obvious to me that religion is coughing up blood and about to expire in the United States, preferably by something entertaining, like amoebic dysentery.

David Matthews' behavior demonstrates that belief in God is indeed threatened by Atheism, but Atheism could give a Rat's Hat(tm) what any thiest believes, as long as they stop attempting to shove it down everyone else's throats, especially other people's children. Theism, although professed to by a vast majority of the American public, nonsensically portrays itself as the "oppressed" religious viewpoint in the United States, dependent upon the Courts, and the Congress, and the local School Boards, to protect it from any public contact with nonreligion.

It seems evident to me that the battle between Theism and Atheism is already over: Theism has not only lost, it never got out of the flipping gate.

Sincerely,

Sin Eater

Religion = Poison

Godless Dave

David, the United States has more religious freedom than any other country in the world. Americans are free to pray whenever they want, whereever they want, to whoever they want. Why is the freedom to practice your religion not enough for you? Why do you want to force your religion on others?

Undercurrent

Perhaps, but given the histrionics for American theists, one thing is certain -- They are afraid of us. They claim to have an omnipotent god on their side protecting them, but they are so afraid that our "minority religious veiwpoint" will become dominant that they will scream bloody murder if they can't get the schools to indoctorinate our children for them.

If they truly have the support of an all-powerful god, why do they need the support of the relatively weak school systems? And if they don't, why do they get so pissed when it's removed?

m.