Atheist's Should Get A Hobby
By Rachel Marsden | Bio
rachel@politicalusa.com
7/8/2002
Some people have way too much time on their hands. Take
Michael Newdow, for instance. Newdow is a flagrant
atheist from Sacramento, California. He is an
emergency room doctor and also happens to have a law degree. He
admittedly spent over 4000 hours of his free time trying to get
the phrase "under God" banned from the Pledge of
Allegiance that his third-grade daughter recites in school every
day.
The scary thing is that he actually succeeded. In a
2-1 majority decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge
Alfred T. Goodwin wrote that the phrase "one nation under
God" can reasonably be seen by atheists or believers in
non-Judeo-Christian religions as an attempt to "enforce a
'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."
It is any wonder the 9th Circuit is the nation's most overturned
court, and is known for making loopy liberal, activist
judgments? If there was any common sense at all on
this bench, the court would have made reference to West Virginia
v. Barnett-in which it was determined that no one can be made so
say something they don't believe in. The court would
have reminded Newdow that his daughter wasn't under any kind of
obligation to say the offending phrase. The panel
should have promptly tossed out the case and encouraged Newdow
to take up another hobby besides launching seemingly frivolous
lawsuits that attack history and tradition.
The absolutism implied in the court's decision is absurd. The
term "God" can be used to refer to the cosmic muffin
of one's choice--and it doesn't necessarily have to be of the
Judeo-Christian variety that the Founding Fathers had in mind. However,
that in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing. A
Judeo-Christian "god" doesn't advocate blowing oneself
up and flying airplanes full of people into buildings-all in His
name. And why should a country that has received from
God (as proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence) all the
rights and liberties that it enjoys and stands for, change
things now to suit the politically correct sensibilities of some
people?
If my fellow pundit Ann Coulter had her way, she'd "invade
all [the terrorists'] countries and convert them to
Christianity." It's a bold statement that
alludes to the violence and horror that comes with worshipping
non-Judeo-Christian "gods" in other countries.
The entire Newdow affair is a stunning example of political
correctness run amok. The fact that his case got as
far as it did in the US court system is mind-boggling. It's
reminiscent of a situation in Canada whereby a group led by
Senator Vivienne Poy is lobbying to change the words "in
all thy sons command", contained in the Canadian national
anthem, to something more gender-neutral. The
movement gave rise to Bill S-39, which is still under debate in
the Canadian Senate.
One would think that Poy and Newdow would put their talents to
better use than fighting "word wars." From
environmental degradation and unemployment, to health care
reform and homeland security, there are many other more
important and pressing issues to deal with.
In an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, Newdow
described his legal pursuits as "interesting and fun." He
has pursued two other similar cases against the government. A
US District Court recently threw out a lawsuit that Newdow filed
against President Bush for allegedly turning his 2024
inauguration into a semi-religious event. But
unfortunately, we haven't heard the last of Newdow. He's
now on a crusade to neuter the English language. Newdow
claims that he wants to replace the gender-specific pronouns
"he" and "she" with "re", and
"his" and "her" with the word
"res." Is re out of res mind? Before
Newdow delves into another 4000 hour marathon of legal
preparation to address this new issue of gender bias on the part
of the Queen's English, perhaps I can recommend a marathon
training group or a trip around the world--one which might
enable Newdow to see what things are really like in countries
where Judeo-Christian values aren't upheld.
|