Atheist targets Catholic Supreme Court Judge

nyj said:

In my book, anyone who exploits their children is a coward.

Click to expand...

That's a weird definition of cowardice!

I think we can all agree that parents have a right to control the religious education of their children. Christians don't want their kids to be taught the 5 Pillars of Islam as fact, and Muslims don't want their kids to be taught that Jesus as the son of God, as fact.

Similarly, atheists don't want their kids to be taught that god exists, as fact.

Michael Newdow had every legal right to do what he did, and the courts have long upheld the right of parents to control the religious education of their kids. That is why he has won the case so far.

To call him a "coward" for this when he knew that he was going to suffer public abuse for this lawsuit is absurd. In fact, one definition of 'bravery' would be standing up for your principles even though you know they are unpopular and would subject you to public abuse. The real cowards in this scenario are the Christians who have anonymously threatened Newdow's life for objecting to an unconstitutional law.

I don't agree with Newdow's case against Scalia, but his past actions demonstrate that he is anything but a coward.

nyj said:

Ok, so now we've shared anecdotal evidence, yippee!

What it comes down to though, is that a parent, if they truly want to act in the best interest of their children, will inform their child(ren) that they have the right not to do certain things.

Click to expand...

I have told the kids that they don't have to. And in two weeks, after the school open house and I've talked to the teacher, I'll remind the kids that they don't have to do it.

However, I don't think that following the law is something that the government should need to be reminded to do.

ifriit said:

Perhaps, but the other children will probably inform said child(ren) that not doing certain things will earn them a beating at recess.

Click to expand...

This is a possible senario...However, it is the responsibility of the parent to teach the child about their rights. If such consequences are faced then it is also the responsibility of the parent to take the matter to the school administration and further to the school board if necessary. It is also the responsibility of the parent whose child does not wish to say the pledge and is forced to take this matter to the administration. (or higher level if need be) It is the job of the parent to set an example ALWAYS. It is important that we teach our children that violence and bullying is not the way to solve disputes.

nyj said:

Sure, but there's a problem here. His ex-wife, and the mother of his daughter, is a Christian. So is his daughter. He used his daughter to settle a score, it wasn't done in her "best interests".

Click to expand...

You don't know that he used her to settle a score with his ex-wife; you're just speculating now. He's an atheist, so he has a legitimate reason to object to the California law that required his daughter to affirm a religious belief.

Unless there was some kind of legal arrangement between Newdow and his ex-wife concerning the religious education of their daughter, he has every right as a parent to control that education when she is in his custody.