The ‘Patriot’

The ‘Patriot’
Vol: 9 Issue: 27 Thursday, June 27, 2002

“But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven” – Matthew 10:33

Court Protects Children From God

A lawsuit filed by a California doctor who objected to his daughter being exposed to the word “God” resulted in the California 9th Circuit Court ruling the Pledge of Allegiance is unConstitutional.

The ruling, if allowed to stand, would bar schoolchildren from reciting the pledge in the nine Western states covered by the court.

Washington Responds

The stupidity of the court’s ruling is staggering in its scope. At least, ‘stupid’ is the word used by a number of lawmakers, including Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

He went a bit further, including both the ruling and the judge under the same adjective — stupid. Byrd warned from the Senate floor that the judges involved had reached the pinnacles of their careers, since any promotions must be approved by the Senate.

The decision was written by Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, whom Byrd called an “atheist lawyer.”

“I hope his name never comes before this body for any promotion, because he will be remembered,” Byrd said.

Four hours after the ruling was announced, the Senate tabled the legislation it was considering so it could vote on a resolution condemning both the decision and the judge who handed it down.

The condemnatory resolution was passed unanimously, 99-0. Jesse Helms wasn’t there or it would have been 101-0 [Helms was so angry he’d likely have tried to vote twice].

The decision created a bi-partisan united front more quickly and with more unanimous conviction by lawmakers than the war we are fighting against determined lunatics who have dedicated themselves to America’s destruction. And with good reason.

If God is unconstitutional, then our destruction is virtually assured.

Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said the decison was, “Nuts. Just nuts.. . .I think we need to send a clear message that the Congress disagrees, the Congress is going to intervene, the Congress is going to do all that it can do to live up to the expectations of the American people,” Daschle said.

“What’s next?” asked Rep. Roy Blunt, R-Texas. “Will our courts, in their zeal to abolish all religious faith from public arenas, outlaw ‘God Bless America’ too?”

Joe Liebermann called for a Constitutional amendment to make sure God remains in the Pledge.

President Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, branded the appeals court decision “ridiculous” and said the Justice Department would fight it. “The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision,” Fleischer said.

The House and Senate recite the pledge every morning before starting work – the House since 1988 and the Senate since 1999.

After voting to condemn the judge, the Senate met on the Capitol Building steps to recite the Pledge, in public, with special emphasis on the phrase, “One nation, under God”.

The Atheist Speaks

The atheist who filed the case, Dr. Michael A. Newdow gave an interview on CNN. In it, he admitted that the Pledge of Allegiance wasn’t what bothered him. That was just an excuse to bring about the lawsuit.

It all started when Newdow, an atheist, had an epiphany buying soap in Florida six years ago. He looked down to see “In God We Trust” on his money, got offended and starting filing lawsuits against the government for injecting religion into public life.

Using his 8-year-old daughter for legal standing after he moved to California, Newdow convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that forcing her to recite “one nation under God” amounted to government endorsement of religion.

He said he used his daughter in the lawsuit because “you have to play games with the court” to get legal standing. An earlier lawsuit challenging the pledge was tossed out by a judge because his daughter wasn’t old enough for school at the time.

The Right To Steal the Rights of Others

Newdow says he’s a patriot defending the Constitution, but his words prove he is just as agenda-driven as those whose ‘rights’ he claims to be ‘defending’ by seeking to overturn the rights of others.

He argues the Constitution grants the right not to believe in God.

Evidently, that is a ‘right’ that should be imposed involuntarily on all of America to protect his 2nd grader from having to hear that anybody else does.

His right not to believe in God is more important, ruled the court, than my right not to believe in Michael Newdow, who by definition, is his own god.

“The words were put there by very wise people, and I think it should be upheld.”

But then Newdow let slip his real agenda: “And when atheists are the majority in this country, those people who believe in God will be protected by this decision as much as I am.” Ahh.

Memo to Dr. Newdow: It says “In God WE Trust” not, “In God I trust”. You have the right not to believe in anything. But what about the rest of us, and our rights? There are lots of Americans who DO trust in God. As Newdow himself noted, atheists are NOT the majority.

In 21st century America, selfishness is a much more common virtue than selflessness –maybe because the God Who blessed us with such bounty gives us more opportunities to be selfish than selfless.

September 11 demonstrated the kind of selflessness we are capable of. But it took the murder of thousands to bring it out.

The court noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has said students cannot hold religious invocations at graduations and cannot be compelled to recite the pledge.

But when the pledge is recited in a classroom, the appeals court said, a student who objects is confronted with an “unacceptable choice between participating and protesting.”

It evidently never occurred to anybody that there was a third choice. Not participating. What is more fair than that?

If 17 kids want to play baseball and one doesn’t — is it reasonable for the school to cancel the game, or let the one kid go play what he wants?

Instead, the court ruled the whole country has to change to satisfy one kid’s selfish parent with an axe to grind against any religion except his.

An ‘acceptable choice’ — to my mind, anyway — would be for the one kid not to say it and leave the rest of the country alone.

Or so it would seem. Maybe I’m just no good at math.

Newdow’s argument in a nutshell can be expressed this way. “I don’t like it, millions do. Instead of accepting the will of the majority, I will make the majority bend to mine.”

Newdow says he has thrown the country into a tailspin only partly out of ‘conviction’ — if such is possible for an atheist.

“I’m not a crusader,” he said. “This is interesting and it’s fun.”


You have to hand it to his guy. The entire Senate condemned the ruling. The President of the United States took time away from a G-8 meeting to denounce the ruling from abroad. The entire country is incensed, with the exception of those few morons who think it’s all about them.

Ok, don’t like moron? Too harsh? “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.” [Psalms 14:1, 53:1]

Take it up with Him.

But to Newdow, this wasn’t really about his daughter’s rights. As he said, it is ‘interesting and it’s fun.’

Dr. Newdow also has a degree in law. It’s a good thing he practices medicine. He talks way too much to be an effective lawyer.

Newdow told the San Fransciso Chronicle that his family was not particularly religious growing up, but he considers atheism a ‘religion’ – his words, not mine.

So in Newdow’s world, only his religious rights count. Why is that? Because Newdow believes in Newdow. Evidently, since most of the rest of us believe in God, Newdow feels left out.

Newdow said he recognizes that politicians need to invoke God because more than 90 percent of the country claims to be religious.

Newdow — The Greatest American?

“I hope that they would think I am one of the greatest Americans,” said Newdow. “I am upholding the constitution. I’m a patriot.”

Sorry, Doctor. The ‘greatest’ Americans make sacrifices FOR their country, not demand sacrifices FROM it.

A ‘patriot?’ Let’s boil this line of reasoning down a bit.

Newdow views atheism as a religion. He admittedly used his daughter to get legal standing for his lawsuits. Why would that be necessary?

As he admits, 90% of America ‘is religious’ — but they hold to a different religion that he does.

[BTW, atheism, or secular humanism, was ruled a religion by the Supreme Court. Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) held that secular humanism is a ‘religion’ and ordered the extension of 501(c)3 religious tax exemption status to its ‘clergy’].

So, in ‘defense of democracy’, Dr. ‘Patriot’ sued to have his religious views elevated above those of 90% of America.

He admittedly used his second grade daughter to advance his own religious agenda because he couldn’t get legal standing on the merits of his real argument.

[I wonder how she’ll feel about it when she grows up? William Murray, Madeline Murray O’Hair’s son, grew up to be a fundamentalist Christian preacher. They never spoke again]

His agenda is so selfish as to be staggering, yet he portrays himself as a patriot. He argued, and the 9th Circuit agreed, that his child has only two choices regarding the Pledge. Either participate, or protest. Neither is acceptable, ruled the court.

The third choice, that of simply not participating, was not considered.

Newdow argued, and the court agreed, that the only fair way was to force every child in a nine state area to meet the demands of one little girl too young to have an opinion in the first place.

The decision is sure to be overturned. It is hard to imagine upholding a law that puts a the agenda of single person ahead of the rights of millions to acknowledge the Source of our freedoms and blessing.

I would like to go on record at this point by agreeing with the entire United States Senate, Republican, Democrat or other. The ruling was stupid. The judges were stupid. But not Michael Newdow.

He isn’t stupid. He’s a liar.

Either in the interviews in which he said he was using his daughter to gain legal standing for a different case, or in court, when he swore his purpose was to prevent the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America from damaging his 2nd grade daughter.

He isn’t a patriot.

A patriot puts his country ahead of himself, not the other way around. He isn’t upholding the Constitution.

It says “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.”

According to a 1925 Supreme Court decision authored by Justice McReynolds, liberty ”denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and generally to enjoy those privileges long recognized at common law as essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.’

What about the right of the people to peaceably assemble or to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences? Acknowleging America as a nation under God affords me more than merely the pursuit of happiness, it is happiness defined.

How is restricting our Constitutional freedoms ‘patriotic’?

Who Came First? America? Or God?

If acknowledging God means ‘establishing’ a religion, Who came first? America? or God? It is difficult to ‘establish’ anything that preexisted the ‘establishing authority’ — which Newdow successfully argued was the US Congress.

The Puritans believed in God before there was an America or a Constitution. God was well established before the first Puritan got on the first ship heading west from England.

If the Pledge of Allegiance is unConstitutional because it contains the phrase, ‘under God’ then it follows that the Declaration of Independence is also unConstitutional.

Taken to the extremes of idiocy, [and I have no doubt one day that extreme will be met] the Constitution itself can be termed unConstitutional, since it acknowleges a Republic governed by Constitutional law rooted in Biblical law. All life, liberty and property are deemed Constitutionally protected because of that Biblical Law.

What the 9th Circuit Court did was establish Newdow’s religion — atheism — as the state religion of the American West — a clear-cut, unambiguous, undeniable violation of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

Patriot, Dr. Newdow? For stealing from children the right to pledge allegiance to America and acknowledge the Author of its blessings?

I think not. ‘Selfish opportunist’ comes a lot closer.

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s