Newdow told the audience that he is overwhelmed by the abundance of words beginning with the letter C that are used to describe the United States' history.
"You have the Colonial era, the Continental Congresses, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention," Newdow said. "It's really quite confusing. Just think about who discovered this place: Christopher Columbus, who comes to this new continent where communities congregate and coalesce into colonies such as Connecticut and the Carolinas.'
He continued to relay the events from colonization to the creation of the Constitution through alliteration.
Aside from being an accomplished orator, Newdow is also a singer-songwriter. He presented two of his songs during the lecture.
The first was a tune about the inaugural use of "So help me God," and the other was a melody about the Ten Commandments rock that was placed in the Alabama judicial building several years ago.
Newdow's next project is challenging the placement of "In God We Trust" upon American currency.
"I'm an atheist," he said. "I don't believe in God, so why does my money have to say that?"
I'm someone who can't stand media hounds, so why does my internet have to have a picture of him with a guitar on it?
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
"I don't believe in God, so why does my money have to say that?"
Simple concept dipwad. The majority of the people do believe in God.
I'm an atheist, why do I have to be associated with dipwads like Newdow?
To elaborate my view --
I can understand why somebody with a religious belief system incompatible with a ceremonial invocation of God might object -- say, a Goddess religion with its own equivalent of "you shall not honor other deities". (Fortunately, exclusivist deities tend to be traditionally male, which avoids the problem.)
But if you're an athiest, why be any more offended by "In God We Trust" than, oh, an inscription of "In Captain Kirk We Trust"? If Newdow really believes God's fictional, why does it bother him so much? It may be silly to have it on the money, but it's hardly important.
I guess we can say there are (at least) two kinds of atheists. I could put it in a way that is much kinder to Newdow. There are the mellow atheists who accept the diversity of theistic and nontheistic beliefs and doesn't get upset about all the God-recognizing that occurs around him and graciously goes along when the others want to include him. And there are the kind like Newdow whose belief that there is no God is an important belief, essentially his religion, and he feels he needs to evangelize, to get others to abandon their false beliefs and join him. He feels violated and manipulated if they impose the false beliefs on him.
It's the second type that tends to get the spotlight. Very similar to the way fundamentalist Christians or Muslims have a higher media profile than the moderate, liberal ones.
MD - since I live with a guy like Newdow ("singer/songwriter" with a guitar who has issues with the God on money thing) and have known/dated enough of those types - experience has led me to believe that "doctrinal atheist" gets the most bang for the buck both in terms of accuracy of description and annoyance from the person I'm using the it on.
I'll agree with the proselytization thing - I tend to hear from more people who want to convert others to atheism.
Often, it's by mentioning that people who follow other religions are stupid and superstitious. Huge turnoff. As far as I'm concerned, atheism and theism are on the same footing, so there's no reason to call anyone else's beliefs stupid.
Sorry, Mr. Newdow, you'll have to come up with a better reason than "I'm Offended!"
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा