Subject:
|
Re: March Madness?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Mar 2004 16:21:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
470 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
From what I heard of yesterday’s transcripts, the Justices don’t seem too
moved by Newdow’s position. On the plus side, however, Newdow has by all
accounts represented his case admirably, in marked contrast to the old “a
lawyer who represents himself” adage.
|
|
| |
Some of (Newdow’s) arguments were pretty lame. The pledge is a “prayer”?
No wonder the justices seemed rather unimpressed.
|
Well, hold on. If the Pledge includes the ceremonial invocation of a deity,
then in my view it’s as much a prayer as Bismillah or The Lord’s Prayer.
|
I don’t think that the mere mention of a God connotates an invocation of that
God. The pledge is directed towards the flag and to our nation-- “under God”
is a description of that nation. All the phrase really means is that the
majority of the nation believes that it is “under God”, or in God’s care, or
something. I’m not sure it can mean anymore than that unless more meaning is
read into it.
|
This may be an “agree to disagree” point. It’s well established that the phrase
was injected into the pledge to distinguish our “Christian” nation from the
godless atheists of the communist USSR, and it’s also well established that
Eisenhower wanted the phrase to be a daily obeisance to the Christian God. Even
if it can be argued that the phrase might not be a full-fledged religious
invocation today, it must be acknowledged that it was intended as such at its
inception.
And if we’re just using the phrase as a reminder that many people believe this
to be a nation under God, then perhaps we should rewrite the whole phrase as
“one nation under God, enslaved to consumerism, riddled with political
corruption, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
| |
| |
| |
And speaking of his child, did you know that he claimed to a judge that he
became her father because he was date-raped by the girl’s mother? Cuckoo.
|
Where’d you hear that? I don’t think it’s relevant to the case. And what
if it’s true, for that matter? Would it be just as funny if the girl’s
mother claimed that she’d been date-raped by Newdow?
|
<http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-03-15-pledge-battle_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA
“At first, he did not embrace the role of parent. During a family court
hearing, Newdow claimed he had been the victim of ‘date rape.’ The judge
called that absurd.”
|
Again, would the judge have called it absurd if the mother had claimed
date-rape? This whole tangent can’t be taken as relevant without a full
examination of that case, which isn’t really practical here.
| |
As far as relevance to the case: “But some supporters worry that family
issues could undermine Newdow’s case. He says he’ll discuss the custody fight
if the justices ask about it ‘because it’s hugely important. ... I’d drop the
Pledge (case) in a minute if I could have my daughter.‘”
|
Wouldn’t you hope that the custody of his child would be of greater importance
to him than a court case? Inherent in the coverage of this whole case is the
implication that Newdow is a reluctant or unqualified parent. But if he’s
willing to scrap his entire court case for the sake of his daughter, then it’s
apparent that she’s his priority.
Conversely, if he’d said “I’d give up custody of my daughter if only this Pledge
case could be guaranteed to be decided in my favor,” then the same people would
be howling about what an un-devoted father he is.
| |
| |
His daughter’s best interest may be a matter for further consideration, but
I don’t think the mother’s faith (sincere though it be) necessarily
determines what is the best faith-related interest for her child.
|
In terms of religious beliefs, isn’t it the right of any parent to raise a
child the way they see fit? Newdow doesn’t want the Christian mother to
influence his daughter to grow up religious because he thinks she (the
daughter) might think less of him as an atheist. Boo-hoo. It’s all about
his feelings getting hurt. Boo-hoo.
|
Why is it necessary to reduce it to a boo-hoo caricature? And why do the
mother’s wishes absolutely trump the father’s?
| |
| |
I don’t expect that
the daughter has had the benefit of years’ worth of critical self-assessment
during which to formulate her views on faith,
|
Come on, Dave! No child has that! Are you suggesting that parents
shouldn’t raise their children to be religious?
|
I think that all parents should raise their children to exercise effective
skills of critical thought, and the children should be allowed to decide for
themselves. I don’t believe, from the available evidence, that the daughter
will be given that chance.
| |
| |
so it would seem to me that the
best course would be to expose her to the views of both of her parents as
even-handedly as possible, letting her decide for herself when she’s ready.
|
|
| |
We are not talking about a situation where, for example, one is Jewish and
one Christian. We are talking about one who believes in something and one
who doesn’t. They are diametrically opposed. How can you present that
even-handed?
|
Well, what do you suggest? Maybe the girl could be Christian 26 days a month
and atheist the other four?
As I mentioned, the daughter should be educated in the skill of critical
thought, and she should be allowed to make the decision herself.
I’ve been atheist for as long as I’ve known what the word means, and I never
really bought into Christianity at all, even as a young child. The daughter is
probably old enough to decide for herself, if she’s given an objective chance.
If she decides not to follow Christianity, then what? Does the mother get to
sue to deny all custody to Newdow because he’s endangering his daughter’s soul?
| |
Sadly, I thought it was more of a philosophical debate until I did a little
more reading about the situation. Now it appears to be just an ugly
custodial rights battle.
|
I guess it could be both. I believe Newdow has other cases on the docket
relating to church-state issues, so even if custody rights are the subtext, he’s
obviously pursuing a philosophical point, as well.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: March Madness?
|
| (...) I don't think that the mere mention of a God connotates an invocation of that God. The pledge is directed towards the flag and to our nation-- "under God" is a description of that nation. All the phrase really means is that the majority of the (...) (21 years ago, 25-Mar-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
