| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Larry Mundinger" |
| Date: |
14 Jun 2004 02:04:25 PM |
| Object: |
American Atheists Action Alert |
American Atheists Action Alert
RALLY FOR THE NEWDOW CASE!
By now, you've heard the bad news. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the
appeal of California Atheist Michael Newdow, who argued that the "under
God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance violated the constitutional
separation of church and state. The eight justices circumvented the legal
merits of the case, focusing instead on the obscure issue of "standing."
For fifty years, the "religionized Pledge" has stood as an insult to our
nation's Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers.
Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, told news media earlier
today that another suit challenging the "under God" portion of the pledge
is being planned.
In the meantime, we urge you to RALLY FOR THE NEWDOW CASE. Visit our page
at http://www.atheists.org/pledge for details.
* Organize and announce rallies to be held today and tomorrow. Get the
word out! Visit http://www.atheists.org/pledge to announce your event, or
find out more information about what may be happening in your area.
* We join with other groups in urging you to assemble peacefully in front
of the Federal Building in your area. Bring appropriate signs and banners.
* Write letters to the editor of your local publication supporting Dr.
Newdow's position in the case!
WHAT: RALLY FOR THE CASE throughout the nation!
WHEN: Today-tomorrow (June 14-15, 2004)
WHERE: In front of your local Federal or Federal Court Building
MORE INFO: Post your rally announcements or find out what is planned in
your area at http://www.atheists.org/pledge . Groups planning action
should e-mail information as soon as possible to egauci@atheists.org.
(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for
nonbelievers; works for the total separation of church and state; and
addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
--
Larry Mundinger (aa#451)
American Atheists Internet Representative <irep @ atheists.org>
<http://www.atheists.org/> <http://www.americanatheist.org/>
<http://www.atheistviewpoint.tv/>
.
|
|
| User: "Carpe Clayton...Seize The Atheist" |
|
| Title: Re: American Atheists Action Alert |
14 Jun 2004 07:46:29 PM |
|
|
"Larry Mundinger" <see.below@signature.org> wrote in message
news:%wmzc.25182$FC3.6536@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
American Atheists Action Alert
RALLY FOR THE NEWDOW CASE!
By now, you've heard the bad news. The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected
the
appeal of California Atheist Michael Newdow, who argued that the "under
God" portion of the Pledge of Allegiance violated the constitutional
separation of church and state. The eight justices circumvented the legal
merits of the case, focusing instead on the obscure issue of "standing."
For fifty years, the "religionized Pledge" has stood as an insult to our
nation's Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other nonbelievers.
Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists, told news media earlier
today that another suit challenging the "under God" portion of the pledge
is being planned.
I would like to think that by tomorrow morning there will be another 1000
cases bought against the pledge by atheist parents who DO have full custody
of their children!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: American Atheists Action Alert |
16 Jun 2004 02:12:29 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 15:04:25 -0400, Larry Mundinger <see.below@signature.org> wrote in
alt.atheism:
American Atheists Action Alert
RALLY FOR THE NEWDOW CASE!
Know what? rallying and shouting about the Newdow decision is certain to make atheists and
free-thinkers out to be the intellectual twins of YEC's. There's no parallel between "the Court
denied him standing!" and "Remember the Maine!"
We may feel that the Court dodged a land-mine by not ruling on the merits (it did, after
all,) but it is also the case that such a ruling would have upset state jurisprudence concerning
the religious rights of parents in custody matters, a thing they may be forgiven for taking as
of greater immediate substantive moment to a much larger class of aggrieved parties than the
pledge qua the pledge, never mind the extent of the perceived perfidy vis-a-vis Federalism.
They're not necessarily wrong to wait for a formally cleaner case to rule on the First Amendment
issue involved. It's of some import that the Court failed to follow the counsel of three
dissenters who would have ruled on the merits so they could affirm the pledge's Constitutional
probity.
When the right ruling comes, free of excessive side-issues dragging the Court unwillingly
into matters not directly germane to the First Amendment argument, it will be less divisive,
intellectually clearer, and harder to attack. It was a smart move. Newdow's claim of standing
was much weaker than his argument on the merits. That problem can *and will* be fixed, in
a case coming to a theater near you some time soon. Save the screaming for when it has the most
political effectiveness, instead of bolstering the opposition's attempts to demonize us as
obnoxious niggling nags.
--
/Apostate
atheist #(e^7.5657933) I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; billions served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
