Newdow Wants Atheism To Be Official Religion Of The US
by Big Dog on Jan 1, 2006 at 22:16 Stop the ACLU
Our founders had deep rooted religious beliefs (mostly Christian) and the founding documents mention God as the Creator. God is mentioned in a number of our historical documents and now Newdow wants to wipe out a couple hundred years of religion to favor atheism. This man has to be stopped but it is expected the 9th Circus Court will side with him. The issue is expected to end up before the Supreme Court where I am sure they will interpret the Constitution correctly and leave the national motto on our currency. This will not stop Newdow who will find some other cause to involve himself in and attempt to further erode the Constitutional rights of the citizens of this country to participate in the free worship of religion, any that they so choose, including none.
The US has had enough of this guy and the manner in which he allows his hatred for his ex-wife to spill over to the rest of us. He is a scurvy little spider spinning his web bigger and bigger to capture and erode the fabric upon which our society was founded. It is time to reject this loser and the losers on the 9th Circus.
As usual, the ACLU is involved and you can bet it is for the money they make off the taxpayer. We will be better off without Newdow and the ACLU. How on Earth did we ever make it before they were around to tell us right from wrong?
Read it here.
Tags: General
Just wanted to tell you that it looks really good over here! Great work on the photo even.
Now for Newdow – Hmm – Majority Religion? This should be so simple considering the counts. Pretty sure most if not every country has a majority religion. People in the United States are just fortunate that they are not told what religion to practice.
This right to choose and right not to have to pay tithes to any church and no church will be made to pay taxes to any government was the “plan.”
Telling people in the United States that they must be Atheist is like telling the population of Iraq that the must be Christian! This get’s sillier by the minute.
-Newdow is arguing against gov’t endorsement of a specific religion. The lack of endorsement does not make for an endorsement of atheism.
-The SC never claimed that atheism was a religion. The case which is continually brought up was with the ethical culture society, a religious group which makes no claims about God and whether they could claim to be a religious group, tax exempt, etc.
-There are Christian groups which do support the separation of church and state, I’d encourage you to take a gander at them such as the Joint Baptist Committee on Public Affairs.
There is a difference between separation of Church and State and the outright denial of religion. The Constitution states that Congress shall make no law establishing a religion. In this case Newdow is arguing that having in God we trust on currency is the establishment of a religion. This is false because God is not a religion and the Congress did not enact a law.
The establishment clause only indicates that the government may not make a law dictating what religion shall be the religion of the land. By having the national motto on currency we are not violating that clause.
The Supreme Court did rule that atheism is a religion:
Though one could argue that this was a dicta, it is obvious that a group of people who hold a particular belief are trying to have that belief become the bedrock of our society. Newdow is trying to take away what the majority of Americans believe and I am sure that is not what the First Amendment was intended to do.
Once again though, God is not a religion. There is where to start. When a person can prove that God is a religion AND that Congress made a law establishing that, then there will be basis for an argument.
-It was congressional legislation which put the phrase In God We Trust on our currency in the 1950s. It’s a federal law which replaced “E Pluribus Unum”, out of many one
-When congress passed such a law they made this government’s preference known..that monotheism is endorsed over other systems.
-The SC case was on whether belief in God was required for a group to claim that it was religious. They ruled it was not. But that doesn’t make atheism a religion, it is just that theism is not a requirement for a group to be religious.
-The footnote from Blackmun mentions a number of religions including Taoism and Buddhism which are not theistic and yet are religions, re-enforcing the point.
Since God is mentioned in our founding documents it is difficult to show our government made any preference known nearly two hundred years later.
The idea that Gos is a religion is ridiculous and nearly every religion believes in a God. Having said that, it still does not address the Congress making a law establishing a religion. The law by Congress mentioned God (once again, not a religion) but it did not mention Buddism, Christianity, or any other religion, for that matter.
God is the foundation for many religions but is not a religion himself. Religion is man made.
A definition under religion is:
a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
Since atheists (as well as believers) can not prove the existance or non-existance of God, it is strictly a faith and they are trying to impose their particular faith (or belief) upon the majority in a country where the majority is supposed to rule.
I think our disagreement is this: I don’t take religious neutrality to be an endorsement of atheism.
That is, when the gov’t refuses to step in to comment on religious matters it’s not an endorsement of anything.
Now If it was simply an issue of majoritarianism we could establish Christianity as the official religion because we are in the clear majority in this country.
But the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the minority, which is why we’re a republic which limits what the majority can do.
Btw defining religion as that which is held by faith and with some ardor can be so broad that I know many football fans who fall into this category. I wonder if public funds for stadiums could run into first amendment issues 🙂
Point taken but I don’t think the mention of God is an endorsement of a particular religion. When the government mentions God it is not endorsing one religion over the other (God is not a religion).
The BOR was designed to protect the minority and to prevent all citizens from having the will of another forced upon those who do not wish it to be.
Faith is belief in something you can not prove and while I get the gist of the football ( :bye_tb:)l analogy, I can show what team is better by using stats. There is a way to prove it. The existence of God can not be proved and is therefore, a true exercise in faith.
Newdow can make no argument that a religion is being forced upon him. He is free to worship (or not) as he sees fit and no one tells him how he has to spend money. The fact that he does not like the word God is not enough to remove it from our currency. If that is the case, there are a number of things that I do not like and want corrected immediately.
BTW, where is Newdow in defending the rights under the Second Amendment? I mean if it is all about rights then that is one that is stepped all over ALL the time.