So Newdow continues to fight the good fight

[DavidDvorkin]

This time against "In God We Trust" on our currency, and he gets dumped on in LBN.

"Doesn't this guy have anything better to do?" "He's just a glory hog."

Surely, standing up for separation of Church and State, especially in the current climate, is one of the most important things any American can do!

[ozone_man]

1. It's about time a case like this came around.

I also don't appreciate people trivializing it, just like our Pledge and Intelligent Design in our Schools. Time to fight back, one step at a time.

The powerful clergy that was responsible for this motto on our coinage in 1861 would never have been successful at the time of our Founders, who knew how to keep them away from government. We've been back sliding ever since.

[salvorhardin]

2. Exactly!

This guy is one of the few people who are willing to chip away at the inequities in our laws and policies.

[dad]

3. Seriously.

I read that thread and thought I was going to barf. I expect that out of the general populace, but not DU. One person got it right. He said something like, what if money said "We do not put our trust in gods / there are no gods". I bet people would give a shit if money said that.
Personally, it bugs me every time I read that on a bill.
I stick to credit cards as much as possible. Much more atheist-friendly :)

[immoderate]

5. Yep.

I always ask people to tell me what it means. It is a nonsensical statement. It surely makes currency seem less trustworthy.

--IMM

[DavidDvorkin]

6. DU keeps disappointing me

on the matter of religion.

I'm unhappy that so many DUers are religious, to begin with. I'm biased that way, and I make no apologies for my bias. But beyond that, I'm constantly astonished and disappointed that so many of those religious DUers don't support separationism.

Or if they do, they don't see how important it is to fight the removal of each and every brick from the wall. What they see as a minor or trivial issue, such as the religious motto on our currency, is an important battle in the total war of religion against the secular state. The fundies understand that, and our wish our side did.

[ozone_man]

11. I look at it this way.

There's more room for discussion. If everyone is like minded on this issue, then our work is done.

But it's nice to have a safe harbor like this forum to rest among like minded company.

I get a kick out of people whose argument is that there are more important things to talk about. There may be, but that doesn't take away from the need to correct this clear violation of separation of church and state.

[trotsky]

9. The worst part is,

the graffiti on currency and unnecessary phrase in the pledge are actually used by theocrats to justify their belief that this is a "Christian" nation. Self-fulfilling. That's why it's important to wage these battles.

[Book Lover]

4. I had avoided that thread for days

Just posted in it now. *sigh* Whadda world...

[immoderate]

7. Great job by K-W on that thread.

Kickin' ass!

--IMM

[Bill McBlueState]

8. My post on this is revealing a telling pattern

Look at this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5413313&mesg_id=5413313

80% of DUers agree that phrase is unconstitutional. But they're so chickenshit about the wall of separation, they freak out if a single lawyer of the thousands in the US decides to take it to court.

[salvorhardin]

10. "It's unconstitutional, but I don't care about the First Amendment"

That's the general feeling I got from the responses in your thread. Very sad.

For future references, the Treasury has a good history of the usage of the phrase. I didn't know it was actually our freaking national motto!
http://www.treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

[toddaa]

12. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

The majority of posters on DU hate civil liberties, free speech, free thought, and any weakening of the fascist police state. Once the Fascist Repubs are out of office, DU activists will quickly replace them with fascist Democrats. If you think I'm overreacting, then go find Modem Butterfly and ask her what she thinks about DU's attitude to free thought is.

You guys seem to think words like liberalism and progressivism have something to do with liberty and freedom of conscience.

[salvorhardin]

15. toddaa! You radical, you!

Good on you!

[funflower]

13. Newdow is right, but he raised a lot of money for the * campaign.

I agree that the Pledge and the "motto" are both McCarthy era propaganda and should go. However, given the current climate, I don't think the political cost of this battle is worth it right now.

[progressoid]

14. He raised money for *? Didn't know that.

I too think it should go, but the last thing we need now is another hot button used to misdirect people from our side.

[funflower]

17. I don't mean he INTENTIONALLY raised money for *. It's just that these

kinds of issues drive the RW crowd to their checkbooks like nothing else.

[DavidDvorkin]

19. So we shouldn't speak out on such an important issue

Because it might energize the bad guys?

[funflower]

22. I'm just saying there's a cost involved.

[ozone_man]

16. Is he a Libertarian?

The Libertarians are usually quite vocal about defending constitutional freedoms. Who knows, maybe this could cause a bit of realignment, win the Libertarians away from the party of God. :)

[funflower]

18. I don't know what his party affiliation is. I meant that he gets the RW

base charged up.

That's a thought that the pledge/motto issue might peel a few libertarians away from the republican party. Every good libertarian should support Newdow.

[trotsky]

20. Gay marriage got the RW base charged up.

Should we stop fighting for equal rights for homosexuals?

Abortion gets the RW base charged up.
Does that mean we stop fighting for reproductive rights?

And so on.

[funflower]

23. Not saying we shouldn't fight for those things, but you can't rule if you

aren't in office.

[trotsky]

27. The point is,

which issues are you going to pick to be "safe enough" to win?

You say we should focus on dead soldiers. It's horrible what *'s Iraq misadventure has wrought, but is that it? What if the Repukes co-opt that strategy and have a plan that starts rolling troops out by next year's elections?

What will the Democrats stand for?

[funflower]

28. We'll stand for whatever we want - when we control something.

For now, we just spend a lot of time being outvoted.

[trotsky]

29. As we have been outvoted

supporting civil rights, affirmative action, fair taxation, ad nauseum. The Repukes will take whatever issue we stand for and make it into a wedge. Either we fight for justice or we don't.

[funflower]

31. Outvoted by a narrow margin. We can win next time.

[trotsky]

32. Fine, the atheists can fuck off.

The gays too, we don't need 'em.

Right?

[funflower]

33. Calm down, buddy. I didn't say that.

[funflower]

34. We stand for religious freedom and freedom to love whom we love.

We might not get the motto off of the money or legalize gay marriage nationwide for while. It would be nice if we could put a stop to the "faith-based initiative," and the wave of states passing anti-gay ballot measures. I will gladly accept progress, even if it is not perfect.

BTW, I hate "under God" in the pledge, too.

[funflower]

24. Personally, I think in 06 and 08 we should talk about dead soldiers and

leave the sex and religion until January 21, 2009.

[ozone_man]

30. My misunderstanding.

I thought you meant direct contributions. In that case, I'd have to disagree and say that it's a case that should be heard. We can't compromise on everything down the line. The compromising Democrats voted for the Iraq war because they had no spine. It's time to get one.

2006 and 2008 will be very bad years for Republicans in my opinion. Now's not the time to play it safe. No bunting this time, time to hit away.

[toddaa]

21. Of course he's libertarian

He's for liberty, ain't he? The LP is far more committed to freedom of conscience than the most Democrats are. Too bad about the wage slavery, though. Bit of a blind spot for them.

[funflower]

25. I've never understood why so many libertarians side w/ the repugs.

I think a lot of them are repugs who are embarrassed about the fundy wing of the party.

[toddaa]

26. The don't

There is a certain subset of libertarians like Ron Paul, who have tried to use the GOP as a means of getting their limited government ideals put into place, but most hate Republicans as much as Democrats, but for different reasons. I used to be a member of the LP, because of its positions on First and Fourth Amendment issues, along with their pretty respectable foreign policy issues, but I slowly grew tired of the capitalism at any cost wing that seems to have become the sole purpose of the party. As my political outlook veered towards socialism, I found I had no place in the party. On the other hand, if you strip out their bizarre allegiance to free market solutions to economic and environmental problems, they are way better than Republicans and, in fact, have a very sizable population of atheists in their ranks. All you have to do is take a look at Antiwar.com to see how much more committed they are in ending all forms of American Imperialism, than most in the Democratic leadership.

In my experience, every Libertarian I've come across would never, even with a gun to their head, ever vote for a Republican. They usually spend most of their time and money trying to get their candidates on ballots. If nothing else, they keep the viability of third party candidacies front and center, which is good regardless of your political affiliation.