Michael New­dow is an Amer­i­can attor­ney and emer­gency med­i­cine physi­cian. He is best known for his efforts to ban recita­tions of the cur­rent ver­sion of the Pledge of Alle­giance in pub­lic schools in the United States because of its inclu­sion of the phrase “under God”. Most recently, he filed a law­suit to pre­vent ref­er­ences to God and reli­gion from being part of Pres­i­dent Obama’s inau­gu­ra­tion. You can read Dr. Newdow’s legal briefs and other mate­ri­als at http://​www​.restorethe​p​ledge​.com/

When we asked him if he had any edi­to­ri­als he would be will­ing to share with us, he for­warded the fol­low­ing essay pre­pared in advance of the Jan­u­ary 2009 inau­gu­ra­tion. While you may not agree with Dr. Newdow’s the­ol­ogy, his views on reli­gious equal­ity are thought pro­vok­ing.  What do you think?  Post your com­ments below.  Editor


By Michael New­dow, Esq.
Posted on Reli​gious​Lib​erty​.TV with the per­mis­sion of the author.

Mr. Obama plans to con­tinue the prac­tice, first intro­duced in 1937, of hav­ing clergy espouse the view that belief in God is supe­rior to disbelief.

There is noth­ing equal when the gov­ern­ment explic­itly chooses to place one belief sys­tem above another.

 
 

2 Comments

  1. rlbolton says:

    While Newdow’s rea­son­ing has some merit, the fact remains that athe­ists have no apolo­getic for moral behav­ior like those who are moti­vated by a reli­gion have. I dis­agree with his premise, that athe­ism is equal to or supe­rior to religion.

    It is true that all peo­ple are cre­ated to be free and equal, whether they are black or white, slave or free, edu­cated or une­d­u­cated. Yet we can see that they are not free and equal because of dif­fer­ences of oppor­tu­nity and choice. Tyranny and oppres­sion, polit­i­cal cor­rup­tion and nat­ural dis­as­ters, and other cir­cum­stances have lim­ited oppor­tu­nity and choice for some people.

    But argu­ing that philo­soph­i­cally there is noth­ing supe­rior about reli­gion in con­trast to god­less­ness is not a good par­al­lel. For instance, care for the weak and help­less is accepted as nor­mal in US soci­ety today, but it is a Chris­t­ian prin­ci­ple that was not a given before Christ. The sick and weak have long been despised and rejected, either left to die or out­right killed even.

    While there has been injus­tice in the name of reli­gion, it is against the prin­ci­ples of the gospel. There is no “guid­ing light” for athe­ists that offers moral instruc­tion or a foun­da­tion for mak­ing moral deci­sions. I am uncom­fort­able accept­ing Newdow’s premise.

  2. rlbolton says:

    While Newdow’s rea­son­ing has some merit, the fact remains that athe­ists have no apolo­getic for moral behav­ior like those who are moti­vated by a reli­gion have. I dis­agree with his premise, that athe­ism is equal to or supe­rior to religion.

    It is true that all peo­ple are cre­ated to be free and equal, whether they are black or white, slave or free, edu­cated or une­d­u­cated. Yet we can see that they are not free and equal because of dif­fer­ences of oppor­tu­nity and choice. Tyranny and oppres­sion, polit­i­cal cor­rup­tion and nat­ural dis­as­ters, and other cir­cum­stances have lim­ited oppor­tu­nity and choice for some people.

    But argu­ing that philo­soph­i­cally there is noth­ing supe­rior about reli­gion in con­trast to god­less­ness is not a good par­al­lel. For instance, care for the weak and help­less is accepted as nor­mal in US soci­ety today, but it is a Chris­t­ian prin­ci­ple that was not a given before Christ. The sick and weak have long been despised and rejected, either left to die or out­right killed even.

    While there has been injus­tice in the name of reli­gion, it is against the prin­ci­ples of the gospel. There is no “guid­ing light” for athe­ists that offers moral instruc­tion or a foun­da­tion for mak­ing moral deci­sions. I am uncom­fort­able accept­ing Newdow’s premise.

 
 
%d bloggers like this: