Posted on 02/21/2008 4:17:34 PM PST by IrishMike
The anti-religionists, represented by well-known atheist Michael Newdow and others, have filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to challenge the inclusion of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
You remember Mr. Newdow. He's the same one who sued Congress and the Elk Grove Unified School District in California, demanding the removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance to our nation's flag. In 2005, he sued President Bush to prohibit a minister from delivering an invocation at the President's inaugural ceremony.
FFRF is also no stranger to the spotlight. Just last year, in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., they challenged the funding of a White House initiative that informed both faith-based and secular organizations about federal funding for programs that help the poor.
ADF filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a faith-based organization in that case and – praise God! – the court ruled 5-4 that FFRF had no basis for their claims and the White House initiative could proceed... (More on that case at www.telladf.org/userdocs/updates/briefing/2007_08/story2.html.)
Actually, the very name, "Freedom From Religion Foundation," has always struck me as a bit ironic. The foundation they are attempting to create in this country can only be laid by first utterly destroying the original foundation – that of religious liberty – established by our Founding Fathers more than 225 years ago. Which is why it's our prayer that, by God's grace and your continued prayerful support, their secular dreams will never be realized!
In response to their latest attack in New Hampshire, ADF attorneys have filed a friend-of-the-court brief and, along with Cornerstone Policy Research, asking that the suit be dismissed because the group lacks any basis on which to sue.
"Those who disregard America's heritage have no right to demand that America abandon its traditions simply to appease their personal political agendas," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel David Cortman. "The phrase 'one nation under God,' was used in President Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, long before Congress added it to the Pledge. Further, the filers of this lawsuit have not shown that they have suffered any legal harm."
A copy of the friend-of-the-court brief filed by ADF attorneys and local counsel Michael J. Compitello in The Freedom from Religion Foundation v. The Congress of the United States of America is available at www.telladf.org/UserDocs/PledgeAmicus.pdf.
Those who oppose religious liberty will continue to launch their attacks. But by God's grace, we will continue to meet the in the courtroom again and again, preserving religious freedom for our children and grandchildren. This battle can be won, if it is fought under God!
Those that do not wish to be under God can go to the devil!
Michael Newdow should crawl under a rock and croak.
Yep !!
Same auld Sh!t
Those who refuse to be governed by God will be governed by tyrants.
There is a difference?
After watching the Baptists and Born Agains go after Romney and the Mormons, I now support eliminating 'God' from the government. I see no downside at all.
I don’t care. I’m tired of hearing about this guy. Somebody get rid of him........please.
Yes, there’s a profound difference. Are there some denominational demagogues who can cause havoc? Of course, but they should not be confused with God Himself. “Forest”, “trees” and all that.
I fail to see the downside from eliminating 'God' and Religion from the government.
Do you really want to see the Government advocating Muslim religious positions? Why should the Baptist God take priority over the Mormon God, or the Catholic God? Why not the Jewish God?
I think you are missing a great distinction.
In America we have freedom *of* religion. That means we can believe any way we like in any public forum. That includes our churches, our homes, the street corner or, yes, even the halls of government.
Many European governments practice the freedom *from* religion approach. In this model religious people are not allowed to engage in public discourse if it is influenced by their faith.
If we come to politics or the government as some tabula rasa then this is fine. However, the American concept that “all men are created equal,” which is easily and scientifically disproved, is up for grabs. It’s basis was found in the religious society that created it.
As a member of a religious minority (Eastern Orthodox) I am not interested in assisting or supporting some of the Baptist organizations that do things I find questionable. On the other hand, I don’t want the government to come back and say that I can’t express my views on the burning of Serbian Orthodox churches simply because it could be determined that I held that view for “religious reasons.” If I were a senator, should I not vote on such issues?
So, no, freedom *from* religion in public discourse is not a good thing. For one thing, it’s a lie. Our government and its constituents were not created as a tabula rasa.
Freedom *of* religion is the correct approach. I can believe what I want and, in places where public discourse is allowed, I am allowed to discuss anything I choose.
You are free to believe whatever you like and express those views as well. Real discourse vs. authoritarian censorship.
If the consequence is that someone is not elected because their religion is not representative of their constituents and that is important to the constituents, then, whether it is really best for the people, this is the way it is. The alternative is that all religious people are effectively excluded from government service.
If that’s what you want, there’s a country off the coast of Florida that works that way.
Ping to read later
It is when our government gets in the business of passing laws based on religious beliefs of certain law makers that I get nervous. Laws against 'sinning' take away our liberty.
If we come to politics or the government as some tabula rasa then this is fine. However, the American concept that “all men are created equal,” which is easily and scientifically disproved, is up for grabs. It’s basis was found in the religious society that created it.
Interesting quote, "All men are created equal' The founding fathers obviously didn't believe it (slavery, women, etc) and religion 'God' certainly doesn't teach it. Christian Religion teaches that all men are born sinners and reprobates.
As a member of a religious minority (Eastern Orthodox) I am not interested in assisting or supporting some of the Baptist organizations that do things I find questionable. On the other hand, I don’t want the government to come back and say that I can’t express my views on the burning of Serbian Orthodox churches simply because it could be determined that I held that view for “religious reasons.” If I were a senator, should I not vote on such issues?
What does a burning Church in Serbia have to do with being a United States Senator? Now their burning our embassy is a different matter (which they did). That is US territory.
So, no, freedom *from* religion in public discourse is not a good thing. For one thing, it’s a lie. Our government and its constituents were not created as a tabula rasa.
May I dare say that you only like it as long as the government is espousing your religious beliefs. You will change your opinion when the Muslims start making political progress.
Freedom *of* religion is the correct approach. I can believe what I want and, in places where public discourse is allowed, I am allowed to discuss anything I choose.
I agree. The problem I have is when the government starts legislating Religious beliefs.
If the consequence is that someone is not elected because their religion is not representative of their constituents and that is important to the constituents, then, whether it is really best for the people, this is the way it is. The alternative is that all religious people are effectively excluded from government service.
So then, you don't have a problem with Muslims passing any legislation that they want? That is how I now view Baptists :( I understand now why Jews and Blacks don't vote Republican.
Our country was built on a constitution that prohibits passing laws that discriminate based on religious views. Anything that weakens that barrier causes us to lose liberty and our inalienable rights.
If our constitutional rights are strong, it doesn't matter who gets elected or what religion they may believe in. Weakening those constitutional barriers makes us all losers.
“I agree. The problem I have is when the government starts legislating Religious beliefs.”
I respectfully suggest you read Jaroslav Pelikan’s Vindication of Tradition. Our government is based on a tradition steeped in religion. If you throw out the religious views that created that government you will not have an explanation for why the government is at it is.
“So then, you don’t have a problem with Muslims passing any legislation that they want? That is how I now view Baptists :( I understand now why Jews and Blacks don’t vote Republican.”
No, I would have a problem if Muslims became a majority and they passed a law in contravention of the constitution and our liberties. If a law on abortion, marriage or some other issue came up, I would not expect them to ask, “Now how would I vote if I weren’t religious?” Their religion informs their judgment. If a voter thinks otherwise they are foolish.
According to what your model appears to advocate, only agnostics and atheists would be allowed to be members of the government.
“If our constitutional rights are strong, it doesn’t matter who gets elected or what religion they may believe in. Weakening those constitutional barriers makes us all losers.”
And what barrier is broken if you allow people to speak their religious views in a public forum, such as in congress? In your model, freedom consists of forced agnosticism or atheism on every member of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. That’s a “freedom” I can do without.
BTW, your view that Christianity teaches that all men are born sinners and reprobates is quite wrong. The scholastics and those descended from that school think so, but, as I mentioned, I’m Eastern Orthodox. We have never taught the doctrine of Original Sin. Since we’re pretty much the oldest Christian group around, I think you painted with a brush that’s too broad.
I am very familiar with our countries history and why many came here. They were fleeing government/religious combinations that were persecuting them, state sponsored religions.
No, I would have a problem if Muslims became a majority and they passed a law in contravention of the constitution and our liberties. If a law on abortion, marriage or some other issue came up, I would not expect them to ask, “Now how would I vote if I weren’t religious?” Their religion informs their judgment. If a voter thinks otherwise they are foolish.
Precisely my point :) But the constitution should be a bulwark that prevents legislatures from imposing their religious values on me. I don't happen to like Sharia law myself, nor do I like the Republican Government banning Internet gambling. I see very little difference between a legislature banning gambling or imposing Sharia Law, both are a violation (in my not so humble opinion) of the constitution.
According to what your model appears to advocate, only agnostics and atheists would be allowed to be members of the government.
No, anyone can be a member of the government. They just shouldn't be able to pass any law they see fit, especially not religion based laws. The extermination order against Mormons was only rescinded 20 years ago.
And what barrier is broken if you allow people to speak their religious views in a public forum, such as in congress? In your model, freedom consists of forced agnosticism or atheism on every member of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. That’s a “freedom” I can do without.
None. The barriers are broken when they create laws that are in line with their religious beliefs and contrary to the constitution. For example, all of the sin taxes, amnesty, laws against gambling, drugs etc. The governments purpose should be to protect our liberties not restrict them.
BTW, your view that Christianity teaches that all men are born sinners and reprobates is quite wrong. The scholastics and those descended from that school think so, but, as I mentioned, I’m Eastern Orthodox. We have never taught the doctrine of Original Sin. Since we’re pretty much the oldest Christian group around, I think you painted with a brush that’s too broad.
Well, then I guess the Baptists and the Born Agains consider you a cultist and not Christian then : ) I am just parroting back their spiel.
Did you know that Baptists claim to be the oldest "Christian' group around? Straight from John the Baptist to modern times. LOL They are even older than 'Christianity'.
Our government should not be a Theocracy. And Religious people should not try and impose their religious views on others via passing laws.
ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.