Michael Newdow's latest lawsuit, attempting to get "In God We Trust" taken off the money and prohibited as a national motto, was dismissed by a Federal district court judge yesterday. Access the full opinion here. Whatever one thinks of the merits of this particular case, I just can't get over my personal distaste for Newdow. The very fact that he actually calls himself "Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow" is enough to make me roll my eyes at the pretentiousness of it all.
The decision was actually a no-brainer for the district court. The same lawsuit has already been filed in the 9th circuit, a 1970 case called Aronow v United States, and the appeals court ruled that the motto did not violate the establishment clause. A district court in the 9th circuit is bound by that ruling, regardless of whether they agree with it. Newdow certainly knew he was going to lose. Only the appeals court or the Supreme Court can overturn that decision. Prediction: don't hold your breath.
- Log in to post comments
Personally, I don't think it's a violation because of the irony factor. I mean, it's pretty damn obvious that there is more trust in money than in any god. More love, too.
Oh, the irony is overwhelming, especially if the god in question is the christian god. There is so much in the bible about money, and none of it is good (some may be at least neutral). "The love of money is the root of all evil." How about "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's." I liked it when Jesus drove the money changers out of the temple.
Mark Paris - IMO, Jesus should have been charged with assault for driving the money-lenders out of the temple...maybe time off for good behavior. Just think how different things would be if Jesus was doing 2-3 years hard-time, instead of getting the authorities pissed off enough to put him on a cross. "Doing time for your sins" doesn't have the same feeling as "crucified for your sins" somehow.
Of course, without all the Killing For Christ(and Allah!) in the last 2,000 years, Malthus may have been proved right a long time ago. Just goes to show, maybe there SHOULD be a War on Christians!
So you don't like Newdow. Boo hoo. How about criticizing his position instead of his personality?
You're all for separation of church and state when it's other people's superstitions, but when its your own half-assed baloney enshrined on our currency then it's all about personality, not substance.
I'm an atheist. I'm an American. I don't want the word "God" on my currency. And unless you believe that atheists aren't as good Americans as you, it's as much my currency as it is yours. The First Amendment does not appear, at least to my non-lawyerly eyes, to distinguish between religions; Congress shall pass no establishing religion, even a religion as trivial and meaningless as deism.
Regardless of Newdow's personality, he's bringing his case and it deserves to be heard on its merits.
PLP -- I think you may be seeing what you WANT Ed's post to say, and not what it actually says.
I don't see anything in the post that even remotely hints at Ed's personal beliefs about a god (or lack thereof). I've been reading this blog for quite some time, and I've never (NEVER) seen him show preference for one religion or another in matters of 1st Amendment rights.
All I see is a news update about the status of the case, which, as Ed says, Newdow KNEW he was going to lose at the district level. In the ruling, you'll note that the judge say's he CANNOT rule any other way, based on precedent.
Newdow is now taking the next step: appealing the decision (which he knew he'd have to do). That's the way it works.
As for his comments about Newdow's "Rev. Dr." title, you have to admit that the "Rev." part is a bit corny, even if he does just use it as a legal device.
You want criticism of Newdow's positions? Okay, here goes...
Newdow is an attention-hogging idiot picking fights over pathetic minor matters that aren't worth the courts' time or expense. His position, that these disputes are important enough to merit litigation, is preposterous, and an insult to REAL victims of REAL religious discrimination -- who need the public attention more than Newdow does. Newdow's cause is personal validation, not religious freedom.
His first big lawsuit, over a school "requiring" his daughter to say "under God," was totally unnecessary: he could simply have advised his daughter that she could choose not to say those words along with the rest of the pledge. If one kid had gone silent at that point, what would the teachers have done? What if the idea had caught on and SEVERAL kids went silent at the same time? Would that have been a cool act of civil disobediance or what? And if the teachers or principal HAD done anything drastic, Newdow could then have sued the schools for something more serious.
It should also be noted that that lawsuit arose, at least in part, out of a nasty divorce from his wife, and a dispute over which parent's religious faith the daughter would receive. The daughter has since ID'd herself as Christian, and she's probably embarrassed about her dad's pretending to stand up for her rights.
PLP wrote:
He only has one position? I thought he had several, depending on the issue. I've criticized some of his positions in the past (his lawsuit about prayer at the inauguration was patently absurd) and supported some of his positions (he's right about the pledge of allegiance, though I don't think it's the huge deal he does). But I also think he's more into self-aggrandizement than scholarly rigor. I assume it's okay with you that I express my opinion?
I'll take presumptuous nonsense for $1000, Alex. My own half-assed baloney? Nothing about "in god we trust" has anything to do with my views. There is no god that I trust, nor certainly any god that our nation trusts (even our Christians, as a group, place money far above God in their lives). Perhaps you should actually inquire about my views before you fire blindly into the dark about them.
Perhaps you should go back and reread my post; I didn't take any position at all on the merits of his case. I merely pointed out that, for the district court, the decision was easy and obvious - even if he had the strongest case in the world, they are bound to follow the precedent set in Aronow.
Ed's under no obligation to discuss Newdow's case's merits now or ever. He wrote a blog post about the guy's personality and stated up front that it had no bearing on the case. It's the courts that have the obligation to pay attention to the merits of the case. Bloggers just need to be amusing (or nobody reads them).
As for the rest, PLP, you're making some big assumptions. I recommend reading some more of Ed's posts before jumping to conclusions about what he thinks of the separation of church and money.
If a group today proposed changing the national motto from "In God We Trust" to "In Jesus Christ We Trust" I am pretty confident that this blog would royally fisk the blowhards responsible for introducing this sort of divisive, irrelevant, self-aggrandizing, unAmerican attempt to violate the separation of church and state. If the national motto today was still "E Pluribus Unum" (From Many, One) and the proposal was to change to "In God We Trust" in order to "bring God back to our country," I suspect Ed would do the same -- caustic, witty, clever, and dead on the mark as usual.
But the motto was changed back in the 50's. That means that Michael Newdow -- physician, lawyer, and quick-witted folk-singing comedian -- is being pretentious.
My guess is that most known atheists have at one time or other experienced being put in the hot seat on the National Motto: if atheists are full citizens, entitled to every respect under the law and equal to believers, then how and why would (or could) the National Motto of the United States be saying "In God WE Trust" -- WE Americans, WE Citizens, WE who are of good and virtuous standing in our country? Doesn't that rather pointedly address atheism and its relation to citizenship?
I really don't have a good answer for that one, other than saying that the National Motto doesn't mean anything. It's just a symbol. It's supposed to symbolize the bottom-line belief of what our country is all about, but, c'mon, it's just words.
Newdow's case doesn't matter because words don't matter.
No, Sastra, that's not why Newdow's case doesn't matter; of course words matter. But the words over which Newdow is pretending to be a brave crusader are simply not harmful enough to anyone's rights to merit the attention of any court. It's a bit like filing a multimillion-dollar lawsuit over a one-dollar overcharge: even if you're legally and morally right, SO WHAT?
This case benefits the religious right, by making atheists and advocates of religious freedom look like petty, whiny, small-minded, self-important busybodies.
PS: How, eactly, have atheists been "put in the hot seat on the National Motto?"
Raging Bee wrote:
On a personal level, it tends to come up. In my experience -- and in the experience of many others -- it tends to come up, and it is awkward. Argue against the Ten Commandments in the courthouse, argue against teacher-led prayer in the public schools, argue against the "Protect Marriage and Keep it Sacred" Act -- argue on pretty much any topic concerning the separation of church and state -- and argue especially that religion cannot be treated in preference to nonreligion or believers recognized as "correct" over nonbelievers when it comes to matters of common government -- and all too often someone will whip out a dollar bill.
If belief in God -- if acknowledgement of God -- is not foundational and necessary to the very fabric and ideals of our country, then explain this, buddy. "In God We Trust." Where's your argument now? Smug smile. Trump.
They've got a point. And they know it. It's the National Motto. Our only response is a shrug. So we say fine, you win the unimportant, irrelevent, meaningless, petty little point that the National Motto says God exists, and yes, we believe and acknowledge God's existence as a country. But still, that's not an important issue. Don't look there any more. Look here. These other issues are more important, they effect how we LIVE ...
If there was a bill in Congress today which advocated changing the motto to "In Jesus Christ We Trust" -- would your arguments against that change look similar to Michael Newdow's arguments against the current pledge? Is protest only "petty, whiny, small-minded, and self-important" if "what's done is done?"
What really matters is timing.
So there's a lot of simpleminded religious bigots who hide behind idiotic non-sequiturs whan faced with a rational argument. And Newdow's suit will turn these people into tolerant, sensible citizens...how?
And it's not just atheists who face such people. Jews, Pagans, Muslims, and many other Christians face it as well. The problem is ignorance and bigotry, not a few words on a dollar bill.
If there was a bill in Congress today which advocated changing the motto to "In Jesus Christ We Trust" -- would your arguments against that change look similar to Michael Newdow's arguments against the current pledge?
Not much -- if someone else started all the trouble by introducing their own bill, we'd simply engage them in the legislative debate, and point out that by mentioning a specific god, they're crosssing a line. Then we'd link this proposal to more serious instances of religious discrimination, and make the "In Jesus Christ We Trust" faction look like a bunch of bigots. This would be a more effective fight than Newdow is waging.
Sastra wrote:
Absolutely right, I admit. Which is why I've never said that Newdow is wrong on the matter; I think he's right. I think the motto ought to be removed from the currency and I think the words "under god" should be removed from the pledge. Whether that's a battle worth fighting at this point is another matter, and on that I have mixed feelings.
No, his being pretentious has nothing to do with the timing of his suit. His being pretentious has to do with that ridiculous "Rev. Dr. Michael Newdow" moniker. And with filing lawsuits that are also highly frivolous, like the absurd suit about the inauguration prayer, along with more legitimate ones like this. That strongly suggests to me that he's at least as interested in attention as in the principled arguments for church/state separation.
The saying doesn't indicate which god we're supposed to have trust in, and Mammon most certainly fits the bill (pun intended).
I don't think the people who use the United States Motto as an argument against the separation of God and government are being simpleminded, nor are they necessarily intolerant bigots. They're mostly just good, ordinary people who believe that acknowledging God is necessary in order to support the ideals of democracy and make our country strong, fair, and free. And they support this as a LEGAL argument by using the official motto of the United States. This is what our government has already established as permissible: a statement that we citizens come together as one nation to recognize God as the source of our strength. This is the motto of our country.
That's not ignorant. That's pretty darn shrewd. It's a sensible argument -- as well as being powerful rhetoric. I'd use it myself, if I were them.
And they'd continue to believe all that whether or not those words were on the bills. And the less-than-decent folks would continue to exploit and misdirect their beliefs. Either way, Newdow's suit doesn't strike anywhere near the heart of any real problem.
Ed wrote:
I agree. My feelings are also mixed -- this could be the wrong issue at the wrong time, and bite us in the butt. But I don't think it's being picky. I think it's possible that a lot of the Big Issues may be leaning against this one.
The "Reverend" title is from the Universal Life Church, and his use of it reflects his commitment to the argument that atheism is a religion, and as such deserves equal consideration and treatment with those religions which believe in God. To say that this particular point has "divided" the freethought community against him is to put it mildly. It's pretty funny, actually. He gave a speech at an atheist event in Washington that dropped jaws. I'll say one thing for him -- he's not afraid to offend anyone. He doesn't pander to the crowd.
I'll disagree with you a bit on the Inaugural Prayer -- having ministers in a vital government ceremony clearly, repeatedly, and overtly dedicate this country to Jesus Christ as our Lord looks less like an expression of individual beliefs and more like a government declaration, but ok, I agree it's less of an issue than the Motto.
As for being an attention-seeker, it's a bit hard to say. I've met him a few times. He's not really the usual kind of loves-the-sound of his own-voice garrulous politician-type, stand at the open mike every-chance he gets and rambles on without ever asking the speaker a question stereotype you think of when you think of attention-seekers. He's quiet. Sits in the back of the room, doesn't say much. Listens hard. Remembers a lot. You could miss him easily.
And then he gets up to speak and it spills out, fast and furious, ideas and words and principles and quotes and puns and stories and facts and songs and poems and and and. He gives a two hour talk in 30 minutes.
It didn't seem to me that he was full of himself. Maybe he is, but that's not what I come away with. It looks more like he's very excited about stuff. Ideas. Our country. The Founding Fathers. Liberty. Justice. What's fair.
Not so much "you gotta listen to me" as "hey, hey -- listen to THIS."
I'll say one thing for him -- he's not afraid to offend anyone. He doesn't pander to the crowd.
Is this always a virtue? Isn't it possible to stand up for a cause without causing unnecessary offense? Pagans who face religious discrimination understand that reaching out to others, and presenting themselves as real people whose needs and values are much the same as those of their neighbors, is just as important as standing up for their rights. There's a time for confrontation, and a time to prove you can work and play well with others.
Oh, Newdow is likeable. His style is friendly and not particularly confrontational. But if he thinks atheism is a religion -- or thinks that it ought to be considered a religion when it comes to the Establishment Clause -- he'll get up there all earnest and eager and sincere and try to make his very best, most persuasive case to a bunch of hardcore American Atheist org types even when it's pretty obvious to the casual observer that he doesn't have a chance in Hell.
Probably a character trait.
He may be likeable in person (I've never met him), but his litigation over such minor issues paints a different picture, of the neighborhood crank who thinks his opinions about his pet issues are more important than anything else on Earth, who rigidly refuses to compromise with others even to advance his own objectives, and who will always choose uncompromising unilateral action over cooperative political action, regardless of the consequences. His Pledge lawsuit, and the attitude I heard from him at the time, had a strong smell of "I'm gonna get a judge to give me what I want, so I don't have to listen to anyone else or care what anyone else thinks." In short: offensively childish. That picture may be inaccurate, but it's a picture he painted by his own actions.
Sastra wrote:
That strikes me as making it worse for my opinion of him, not better. The argument that atheism is a religion that needs to be protected is, in my view, absolutely ridiculous. Atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in a deity. Those who lack such a belief do not share a common cosmology, creation myth, morality, creed, doctrine or any of the other aspects that define a religion. This argument is idiotic when Ann Coulter makes it (that is of course the thesis of her new book) and it's no less idiotic when Newdow makes it.
But here's the thing, about both such government declarations and about the motto: they are perfectly defensible from a con law standpoint. I would rather they did not exist, and I would rather have Madison's position hold sway in establishment clause interpretation, but it would be dishonest to pretend that accomodationism was not a legitimate interpretation of the religion clauses given the history. I think a very strong case can be made that in a society that is now much more diverse than the one our founding fathers governed, Madison's view should win out over the accomodationist view, but by virtually any mode of constitutional interpretation, one cannot simply rule out accomodationism as a reasonable interpretation. There is no question that it was a popular view among the men who wrote the Bill of Rights, probably a majority view. Washington, Adams and even Jefferson issued non-binding, non-coercive proclamations, and the other side is correct when they say that most of the founding fathers would scoff at the notion that such declarations are a violation of the establishment clause. In the end, Madison's view has (mostly) won the day, and I believe that in today's diverse world, it should be the preferred interpretation. But I don't think one can honestly say that accomodationism is not also a valid interpretation given the historical evidence.
Another thing: why is Newdow picking fights with other atheists over whether atheism is a "religion?" Doesn't he have anything more important to talk about? Anything that might unite atheists for a common cause, instead of divide them over matters of word-usage? Not that his opponents on this question are any better...
Raging Bee,
No, "offensively childish" is forcing someone living in the same society as oneself to profess their respect for one's own all-powerful, invisible friend, whether it be National Motto, printing on dollar bills or the pledge to the flag. We can discuss for a long time whether we find it worth his (!) trouble to file these lawsuits, but it is the religious people who are the reason of this in the first place. DarkSyde at Dailykos has an interesting essay on it here
I'm still going to ask my representative to remove the phrase.
Then I'll kneel down and pray to end world hunger.
Actually, I won't do the second. It's merely waste of time.
We can discuss for a long time whether we find it worth his (!) trouble to file these lawsuits, but it is the religious people who are the reason of this in the first place.
Wrong -- "the religious people" (care to be a bit more specific there?) didn't force Newdow to file any lawsuits, nor did they prevent him from joining forces with other, perhaps more deserving, people who have suffered from religious bigotry. The other guy's actions may justify fighting him, but they don't justify refusing to choose one's battles sensibly.