November 19, 2005
New attempt to remove reference to God from coinage in USTopics: Faith, Persecution, Religion
It looks like Nudow, the Californian (where else but..) atheist who lost his original case to prevent the pledge of allegience being recited at school using his estranged daugher, is at it again. This guy definately needs a "day" job, he has way too much time on his hands.
This time he is suing to have the motto that refers to God taken off coinage on the grounds that it endorses religion. At the same time he is waiting on the results of a pending appeal after he successfully made the same challenge on the pledge of allegiance on behalf of three other families. The judge who heard this case sided with Newdow, and the authorities have appealed.
As an Australian, I have a keen interest in such cases. The argument that is being used by Newdow to make the challenge is based upon the legitimate principle of the separation of Church and State. Newdow is making a direct challenge agains the motto "In God we Trust" because of his own lack of belief in God. His claim that the constitution forbids reference to religion is a false one, because it is doubtful that this was the original intention of the American founding fathers. The judge who has sided with Newdow is one who is not necessarily familiar with constitutional law, especially the principle of separation of Church and State.
My understanding of this principle, based upon the historical European experience, is that the founding fathers had in mind the notion that no one religion would be endorsed by the State. Few believe that their intention was to ban the State mentioning God, or even banning all references to God. Newdow is simply engaging in a form of Christian and Jewish persecution since he is attempting to impose his minority views upon the majority of the citizens of the United States.
Newdow and the ACLU are in the habit of challenging anything that has to do with Judaism and Christianity.
When one looks at these cases in the context of a historical perspective, it becomes clear that people like Newdow are in fact aiding and abetting the enemy. When Queen Isabella took action against certain Jews in Spain during the Spanish Inquisition it is because they were involved in espionage or sabotage - they were secret financiers of the invasion of the Moors in Spain. In some ways the behaviour of the Newdows of this world is similar to the Jewish financiers of past Muslim terror campaigns. His actions are in fact aiding and abetting the enemy.
If the terrorists are successful in their campaign to subjugate the western nations, then what we would see is a State imposed religion. This is the situation in every nation where there is sharia law. This is what Newdow and his ilk have not understood about the separation of the powers of Church and State. If we do not want to see in the future, the institution of Sharia law then we, who are citizens of western countries must be heard in protesting against frivolous legal actions of atheists who have their own axe to grind.
Posted by at November 19, 2005 3:05 AM
Articles Related to Faith, Persecution, Religion:
- New attempt to remove reference to God from coinage in US - Nov 19, 2005