Lawsuit would challenge oath, invocation:
Everyone’s favorite militant atheist is back in the news again. You may remember Michael Newdow from some years ago when he tried to get the phrase ‘under God’ removed from the Pledge of Allegiance citing his daughter was offended by it. Then it turned out that not only did he not have custody of his daughter but his daughter was a practicing Christian.
Well he’s back and now he’s going after…wait a sec…is this correct…he’s going after Barack Obama?
Michael Newdow believes references to God or religion are unconstitutional. He wants to remove the phrase “so help me God” from the oath of office and block the invocation prayer from Pastor Rick Warren.
At least he’s non-partisan. But again I have to ask all those wishing to do away with all the references to God exactly what religion is being endorsed by the government? Would that be Judaism, Islam, or one of the many variants of Christianity? And how are any of these words endorsing a state religion. There is no Church of America like there is a Church of England.
For someone who is supposed to be a lawyer Mr. Newdow doesn’t seem too bright.
Supreme Court Dismisses ‘Pledge’ Case:
Have I mentioned I hate Fox News’ new layout? Ray Charles isn’t dead. He’s just doing web design for Fox News.
Anyway, the Supreme Court ruled that Kalifornia atheist assclown Michael Newdow could not challenge the phrase “under God” in the pledge of allegiance. Most people are saying that the Supreme Court copped out on ruling whether or not the phrase “under God” is a violation of the so-called separation of church and state. I say unto you, untrue. Mr. Newdow’s original argument was that reciting the pledge is causing his daughter irreparable harm. However Mr. Newdow spoke too soon as he does not have legal custody of his daughter. Not only that his daughter is a practicing Christian who enjoys reciting the pledge. So as far as I’m concerned the Supreme Court made exactly the right decision. And Mr. Newdow should be more than ashamed for using his estranged daughter to further his own political agenda. Anyway the “separation of church and state” is a misnomer anyway. The first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Which means there will be no government sponsored religion nor will laws be made to curtail anyone’s right to practice their religion. What it does not mean is to eradicate any instances of religion that are even remotely connected to any aspect of government. So which religion is the government endorsing by leaving “under God” in the pledge? Personally I think people like Mr. Newdow are acting unconstitutionally because they’re trying to prohibit my free exercise there of.