David Mathews

Hello Kind Bud,

David: If Dr. Newdow's daughter is a Christian, she certainly did not object to the pledge. It seems that Dr. Newdow's lawsuit only reflected his own opposition to the words "under God" and therefore he was not seeking to protect his daughter or anyone else from anything.

Perhaps Dr. Newdow thought that by removing "God" from the pledge he would convert his daughter back to atheism. I guess that means that he didn't do a very good job of indoctrinating his daughter into atheism!

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Mageth

See an ongoing discussion on the "crow" issue in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=44&t=001052" target="_blank">this thread.</a>

Instead of blindly stating Newdow's intents, read the original complaint and the court's ruling. Newdow had legal standing as a parent, in spite of what beliefs his daughter might personally hold.

Autonemesis

So if it seemed to you that your daughter had "converted to atheism", as you insist on characterizing it, and state policy was a contributing factor, would that not move you to take some action to stop the state from interfering with the way you want to raise your daughter? Would it matter if the state's policy contributed only slightly or peripherally to reinforcing training in your daughter that was counter to your wishes?

I thought that Christian opposition to the Pledge ruling was based on Christian parents' desire to make sure their children avoid indoctrination into beliefs they disagree with. Does Dr. Newdow not have the same standing to object to his daughter being indoctrinated against his wishes, the same standing that you and other Christian parents claim? It seems that you think he has less standing that you would under the same circumstances.

This is what we atheists mean when we complain of being treated as second class citizens by the religious majority.

[ July 05, 2002: Message edited by: Kind Bud ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Kind Bud,

David: There is a whole lot about this case that we do not know. To begin with, we have no means of knowing what initially motivated Dr. Newdow to bring the suit nor do we know what religious beliefs Dr. Newdow's daughter had prior to the lawsuit.

If we knew everything there is to know about this case there might be excellent reasons to doubt Dr. Newdow's motive and the legitimacy of the case from a legal standpoint.

For example, if Dr. Newdow's daughter believed in God prior to the lawsuit that would mean that the case was invalid from the beginning and therefore frivolous.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Mageth

If we knew everything there is to know about this case there might be excellent reasons to doubt Dr. Newdow's motive and the legitimacy of the case from a legal standpoint.

For example, if Dr. Newdow's daughter believed in God prior to the lawsuit that would mean that the case was invalid from the beginning and therefore frivolous.

Newdow's motive(s) are irrelevant to the case. His arguments are what are relevant. What his daughter believes or doesn't believe is, however, irrelevant.

Read the links in the thread I posted. The court dealt with Newdow's standing as a parent, and found, rightly, that he had standing to file the case and that therefore the case was valid and definitely not frivolous.

Autonemesis

Meaning, there is a whole lot you don't know. I think you will agree you cannot speak for me about what I know.

Yes we do. Dr. Newdow has posted every document he has submitted to the court at his <a href="http://www.restorethepledge.com" target="_blank">website</a>. No doubt you're a busy man, and we'll all just have to realize that you can't have possibly digested all that.

I guess you didn't even read the link I posted, either - the one you are responding to now. She had been attending a Christian church all this time. Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, according to the article.

So you are trying to support the outlandish notion that Dr. Newdow has no standing to challenge a law, which he claims amounts to government sponsored religious indoctrination, because his daughter appears to have been successfully indoctrinated into religion. Is that your claim?

The most amazing thing about this episode so far is that adult people seem to be seriously advancing this argument. I have to capitulate on a point you made in another thread, David: you are right, you religionists are all totally unreal.

Oresta

Hi, Rev,
I am proud to say my husband is a charter rev in the ULC. If you use our bathroom, you'll see documentation of this fact nicely framed and hanging up in there. I'm not a member because I was the UCL's first heretic.

hezekiah jones

There you go again. It might be helpful if you articulated the reasoning by which you arrive at this conclusion.

It appears you have not read the decision, particularly the section devoted to the question of Newdow's standing as a plaintiff, on which, incidentally, all three judges agreed.

Newdow's standing is based in part on his right to direct the religious upbringing of his child. What difference would it make whether the child "believed in God" prior to, during, or after the decision?