Multifaith Mishegaas
- The same putz who was trying to remove God from the Pledge of Allegiance is now trying to remove God from money as well.
- How the secular humanist grinch didn’t steal Christmas. (subscription req’d)
- Supreme Court nominee Alito apprently has a thing for Muslim beards.
- Pregnant teacher fights firing by Catholic school.
- Joe Scarborough tackles a mysterious cult-like religion on his show. The transcript is here and the video is here.
“Putz”? If you mean that his lawsuits have poor timing with regard to political expediency, you may have a point, but if you’re commenting on the content, he’s just trying to enforce the Establishment Clause.
I’m with BZ.. if you let them keep the “God” on the money and in the pledge, sooner or later it will start to include Jesus and who knows what else is further down this slippery slope
Trust in God all you want in Church
It’s amazing how some people claim to find meanings in the Constitution that weren’t detected for decades or centuries, or even thought of by the people who drafted the Constitution and its amendments. And then these new meanings are presented as the only possible meaning, and anyone opposed is accused of being against the Constitution.
Of course, it’s possible to say that the Constitution allows things like putting “In God We Trust” on the money, but that these are bad policies. But we’ll need a better argument than the slippery slope here. If after 140 years we still don’t have money bearing the name of Jesus or anything else, you have to assume that the slope is not very slippery.
surely you’re kidding by calling him a putz? we think he’s a hero around here. granted, san francisco is the great fringe of american politics, but this guy, and the 9th circuit court of appeals, seem to be the only ones with their heads on straight about the division of church and state these days.
And let’s not forget that “under God” was inserted into the Pledge during the Cold War. Who’s the putz, the guy who felt the need to add it there in the first place for bizarre anti-communist reasons or the one who fought to have it restored to its original state?
Ugh- morning after morning of being forced to stand for the pledge. The school didn’t force me to say it as long as I stood. Then my last year of high school we insituted a moment of silent prayer. Still bow heads and pray to Jesus at the school board meetings.
I’m with the putz.
How absurd! Why have in “god” we trust when we could have a choice, like the quarters. To be even handed we could allow a greta diversity of trustees:
In the Trustee we Trust
In Hashem we Trust
In Noone we Trust
In Fox we Trust
In Mamma We Trust
or … we could sell commercial money-placement adds …
In Toshiba We Trust
In Enron We Trust
In Sally -Mae We Trust.
I have no problems with Michael Newdow.
The reason Newdow is a jerk is because god on money doesnt bother anyone, and he is simply doing this out of hatred of religion.
The claim that he is just trying to uphold and defend the constitution is quite suspect. There are many many federal laws and regulation that are far more questionable under the constitution than “god” on money (see the commerce clause). You do not hear the left trying to “enforce the constitution” in these circumstances.
So lets stop trying to pretend that we respect the constitution as some holy document, and be honest in that we all simply try to use it to promote our political viewpoints.
People like Newdow are simply haters of religion, and that is why he is an ass.
Dr. Newdow is no putz. “Under God” does not belong on coins. Let’s remember that the Nazis had “God is with us” on their belt buckles. How easy and senseless it is for countries to invoke God in their various evil missions. Under God torturing prisoners at Gitmo. Under God just means with Jesus loves us. Loose it already.
One doesn’t have to be a “hater of religion” to see the destructive effect that establishment of religion can have on religion — just look at Israel.