| Home Page Two Columnists Submit an Article FAQs Contact Author Login |
Musings by AlfAlf Gordon (1,189) ![]() ![]() Alf Gordon ![]() Atheists Find "So Help Me God" in Inaugural Oath Offensive, File LawsuitPosted Monday, January 05, 2009 (1 day 18 hours ago.) Viewed 97 times. Some atheists and non-religious groups have taken offense yet again at the mention of God in a public forum. A lawsuit has been filed in Washington demanding that the phrase "so help me God" be removed from President-elect Obama's inaugural oath.
Plaintiff Michael Newdow, a California doctor and lawyer who has filed similar and unsuccessful suits in both 2001 and 2005, posted an advance copy of the lawsuit on the Internet. The American Humanist Association, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and atheist groups from Minnesota, Seattle, Florida are also named as plaintiffs in the suit.
The lawsuit says in part, "There can be no purpose for placing 'so help me God' in an oath or sponsoring prayers to God, other than promoting the particular point of view that God exists."
Newdow says that references to God during the ceremony violates the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion. He claims that he is unable to watch the inaugural ceremony with its current religious overtones because doing so would make him feel excluded and stigmatized.
"Plaintiffs are placed in the untenable position of having to choose between not watching the presidential inauguration or being forced to countenance endorsements of purely religious notions that they expressly deny," according to the lawsuit. Among those named in the lawsuit are Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts, who is expected to swear in the new president; the Presidential Inauguration Committee; the Joint Congressional Committee on Inauguration Ceremonies and its chairwoman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California; and the Armed Forces Inaugural Committee and its commander, Maj. Gen. Richard Rowe Jr. The two ministers scheduled to participate in the ceremony also are named: the Rev. Rick Warren and the Rev. Joseph Lowery.
I heard Newdow express his opinions as a guest on the "Laura Ingraham" radio talk show today. Newdow refused multiple times to answer Ingram's pointed questions as to how his rights were being violated. He tried to compare the discrimination of blacks, pre-civil rights era, to what he was experiencing by being forced to listen to someone say "so help me God." Ingraham asked him to list the specific discriminatory acts he was subject to, such as losing employment/being denied employment; being denied housing; or being denied any civil liberties. Newdow dodged the questions by attacking Ingraham and claiming she was not listening to his side of the story. He never did respond directly to her questioning.
I find it amusing that Newdow feels "excluded and stigmatized" by the mention of God in the ceremonies. I wonder if he feels the same way when conducting financial business with money that says "In God We Trust" on it. I also wonder if his next lawsuit will be directed against Hollywood filmmakers, scriptwriters, and actors, for the numerous references to God in American television and films (as in the phrases, "God d***!" and "Jesus Christ!"). Or maybe he just doesn't watch television and films so he doesn't feel so traumatized.
I am guessing that Mr. Newdow and Company care less about the violation of civil rights and more about imposing their belief system on the rest of the country. (I find this an amusing concept, for if the legal system would ever make that happen, they would indeed be establishing a form of religion in our country, something that Newdow claims they should not be doing.) This is just another example of a small yet vocal minority trying to impose its will on the majority. In any event, I would not want to be a patient of Dr. Newdow's. I shudder to think how impaired his healing abilities might become if I accidentally took God's name in vain while under his care. And if I ever heard the man say, "Oh, my God" while he's doing surgery on me, I...I...well, I will just have to sue!
Permalink Comments (4) Foreclosed Homes Have New Tenants--Activists Illegally Move Homeless Into Vacant HomesPosted Thursday, December 11, 2008 (27 days 8 hours ago.) Viewed 89 times. Picture yourself in this scenario: You are homeless. The nicer shelters are full; the others are places you would not want to house your dog, much less yourself or your family. Someone offers you an opportunity to stay rent-free in a house; all you have to do is put the utilities in your name and provide upkeep on the property. You gladly accept the offer, grateful for a chance to rebuild. It sounds like a wonderful idea. It's too bad the house in which you now reside does not belong to the person who is encouraging you to stay there. In fact, if police decide to get involved, you could be charged and arrested. Meet Max Rameau--unshaven, driving a beat-up car, wearing grungy cut-off sweat pants. The Miami resident and computer analyst formed "Take Back the Land", an activist organization that places homeless people in foreclosed homes without permission of the homeowner. He breaks into homes, shows them to prospective "clients", and assists the new "owners" with obtaining second-hand furniture, yard upkeep, and cleaning supplies. He charges them nothing for this service. "I think everyone deserves a home," says Rameau. "Homeless people across the country are squatting in empty homes. The question is: Is this going to be done out of desperation or with direction?" Squatters moving into vacant homes is nothing new. Go to bed one night and the home next to you is empty; wake up the next morning and you have new neighbors, many who turn to illegal activities such as prostitution and drug-dealing to survive. It can make living in even upscale neighborhoods a dangerous proposition. With the housing market collapsing, many communities are trying to come up with solutions to prevent this scenario. In Cleveland, advocates are working with the city to allow homeless people to legally move into and repair empty, dilapidated houses. Some property owners in Atlanta are paying homeless people to live in abandoned homes as a security measure. Each of these solutions is legal. In Miami, Rameau and his organization don't try working with either city officials or homeowners. They illegally move people into unoccupied homes--scouting out prospective vacancies, breaking into them, moving a homeless family in, changing locks. Example: Marie Nadine Pierre, 39, had been sleeping at a shelter with her toddler. She said she had been homeless off and on for a year, after losing various jobs and getting evicted from several apartments. In November, Rameau drove her to a foreclosed home in a primariy Haitian neighborhood. The house had been purchased in 2006 for $430,000 and the owner rented it to friends of Rameau. When the homeowner allowed the home to go into foreclosure in October, Rameau's friends were evicted. Rameau swooped in, helping Pierre move in with her daughter. His justification is that having someone live in the house prevents thieves from ransacking it and squatters from moving in. Pierre is thrilled. "My heart is heavy. I've lived in a lot of different shelters, a lot of bad situations. In my own home, I'm free. I'm a human being now." Both Rameau and Pierre could be arrested on various charges ranging from breaking and entering, to trespassing, to vandalism. But Miami spokeswoman Kelly Penton says that the city is not taking steps to stop Rameau or his organization from continuing their illegal activity. "There are no actions on the city's part to stop this," she says in an e-mail. "It is important to note that if people trespass into private property, it is up to the property owner to take action to remove those individuals." For his part, Rameau is not worried. "There's a real need here, and there's a disconnect between the need and the law," he says. "Being arrested is just one of the potential factors in doing this." I am sure Rameau's heart is in the right place, although I strongly disagree with his end-justifies-the-means mentality. Other activists in other communities are working to find legal ways to resolve their issues; Rameau should be willing to do the same. But I must wonder why Rameau's group does not focus on the newly-homeless--in other words, the families who owned the home initially. If Rameau would put his efforts into keeping the existing homeowners in their home, he would prevent the growth of the homeless population, allow neighborhoods to keep good neighbors in the home, and maintain home values in the neighborhood. His excuses about the disconnect between the need and the law are valid, but it is not his group's place to reinterpret law, and it is not as if other programs for the homeless do not exist. He needs to follow the laws or suffer the consequences, and allow property owners to make the decision what to do with their own property.
Permalink Comments (9) Planned Parenthood's Christmas Gift: Gift Certificates for AbortionsPosted Tuesday, December 02, 2008 (36 days 1 hour ago.) Viewed 249 times. Are you having a difficult time trying to find the right Christmas gift for the pregnant female in your life? Planned Parenthood wants to make the process easier. How about a gift certificate for an abortion? The organization's Indiana branch is offering this unique gift opportunity on its Web site. Certificates can be purchased online in $25 increments, or for any amount if the purchaser visits any of the organization's 35 health centers, and can be redeemed at any of those health centers regardless of where the certificate was purchased. Planned Parenthood of Indiana president and CEO Betty Cockrum explains that the gift certificate can be used by both women and men to cover services like screenings, birth control, breast exams, and Pap tests. "Nearly 800,000 Hoosiers don't have health insurance and can't afford basic health services," she says. "Why not buy a loved one a gift this holiday season that they really need and one that will contribute to their health throughout the year? The gift certificates are also a wonderful idea for that person in your life who puts everyone else first and has been putting off taking care of her or his own health. Now, there's no excuse for those people in your life not to get the basic health care that they need." I was surprised to learn that Planned Parenthood offers other health care services, particularly because of their famous (or would that be infamous?) stand on the so-called pro-choice issue. Of course, as a male I cannot take advantage of most of them (obviously I am not a part of their target demographic). Still, I know many people on my gift list who would appreciate the opportunity to get a discount on terminating an unwanted life. In fact, this weekend I may jump into my car and drive straight to Indiana to purchase gift certificates for my loved ones. But I have to stop in Nebraska first to drop off that annoying teenage child that I can no longer control and do not want to have to take care of any longer. I have no need to feel any guilt or shame about either option; I am simply taking advantage of our culture's renewed concerns over today's youth. So why not join me? Get in the Christmas spirit. Choose the gift of choice and show that special someone--your wife, your daughter, your significant other, your one-night stand--just how much you really care. And Merry Christmas to all--or to almost all...
Permalink Comments (6) |
Archives:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Home |
Page Two |
FAQ's |
Contact |
Terms of Service |
Article Submission Guidelines |
Writers' Contests |
Privacy |
Mission / About
Copyright © 1999-2009 SearchWarp.com, All Rights Reserved - SearchWarp.com is an IcoLogic, Inc. Company