Michael Newdow Set To Eliminate ‘In God We Trust’ Motto

Posted on May 10, 2006

Hero of the left and posterboy for offended athiests, Michael Newdow, is in court arguing the national motto “In God We Trust” is unconstitutional. This oversensitive secular activist is best known for his legal challenge against the Pledge of Alligience.

Via WND

Michael Newdow, who filed a 162-page complaint against the president and Congress, will argue his case in federal district court in Sacramento May 19.

The national public-interest Thomas More Law Center has filed a brief supporting the United States government’s motion to dismiss the suit.

The Law Center argues, “This nation and its form of government were founded upon an essential idea: Individuals have God-given rights that the government may neither bestow nor deny.”

Richard Thompson, the center’s chief counsel, says Newdow’s “attempt to eliminate the mere acknowledgement of our religious heritage by our National Motto has no basis in constitutional law.”

“Even the Supreme Court, in past decisions, has understood there is an unbroken history of official invocations of Divine guidance beginning with our founding fathers and continuing to our present day leaders,” Thompson said.

Newdow denies the moniker of athiest activist:

“People say, ‘Are you an atheist activist?’ And I’m not,” he continued. “I couldn’t care less what anyone believes. I just care that our government treats everybody equally.”

A more accurate description of him would be a secular activist because, much like the ACLU, he is trying to force his “secular” views on the rest of America, and in the process erasing and rewriting our history.

You can help protect our history. Support the Thomas More Law Center.

Share on Facebook

Tweet This Post

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News

Trackback URL

Comments

5 Responses to “Michael Newdow Set To Eliminate ‘In God We Trust’ Motto”

The one with a brain on May 10th, 2006 9:26 am

“A more accurate description of him would be a secular activist because, much like the ACLU, he is trying to force his ’secular’ views on the rest of America…”

I doubt he really cares whether people subscribe to imaginary friends or not. It seems to me that he simply thinks that Christians — a large subsety of whom are renowned for constantly trying to force their superstitious and benighted views regarding health care, social policy, etc. on progressive America — deserve a taste of their own medicine. It’s great to see them react so harshly, because it just reinforces what a bunch of worthless, backward, undereducated, special-treatment-demanding whiners they too often are. Rooting out hypocrisy is never bad, is it?
Jay on May 10th, 2006 9:34 am

Just as you illustrate what an elitist snob you are, thinking you are better for having nothing to believe in.
The one with a brain on May 10th, 2006 10:05 am

“Just as you illustrate what an elitist snob you are, thinking you are better for having nothing to believe in.”

Are you really so narrow-minded that you think people who haven’t been cursed with irrational world views have “nothing to believe in”? Do you honestly think that supernatural overlords are all that’s available to put hope in, and that earthly concerns aren’t important? Are you truly incapable of seeing how untenable that premise is, and how much it resembles a comment such as “You don’t like baseball? Must be awful to have no athletes or sports teams to root for.”

If this is really where you’re coming from, Zeus help you. You’ve been brainwashed quite well and a part of my extends a measure of pity in your direction, because you didn’t ask to be treated so badly.
The one with a brain on May 10th, 2006 1:23 pm

Also, it’s funny as can be that you call people who disagree with your views “elitist snobs,” but have no qualms about calling atheists, ACLU members and Democrats every unkind name in the book. Maybe this is because you know that no one will interpret your vitroil as “elitist” (as trite and irrelevant a term as “liberal activist judge” or “gay agenda”), since unsupportable polemics come across not as condescending but as the brainchildren of unqualified dullards.
LeandroMan on May 25th, 2006 9:23 pm

These days, Americans aren’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

I simply don’t understand the theists in this country. The first constitutional amendment is very clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The word god in our pledge and money is respecting religion. He is fighting for the very respected document, the constitution. Anyone who opposes Michael Newdow opposes the first constitutional amendment.

Leandro
Freethinker

http://www.freethoughtnews.com