Everyone needs a hobby. Michael Newdow’s is filing lawsuits to get the word “God” removed from things he says represent an establishment of religion. He’s been at it so long that the US Supreme Court rejected his latest appeal concerning “In God We Trust” on US currency – without comment.
Go away kid you bother me.
Michael Newdow is featured in one of Skip’s earliest posts at GraniteGrok. Thirteen years ago, Newdow was trying to get ‘God’ Out of the Pledge of Allegiance. He’s been in and out of court (seems like) every day since. Wasting court time and resources on his personal “pledge” to enforce his anti-theist will on most of a nation that could care less.
And he should know why. We’ve covered similar cases in lower courts.
On May 28th (2018), the 6th Circuit ruled that “In God We Trust” on US currency was not a burden to plaintiffs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 and dismissed their case. If you like to get into the weeds the decision makes for interesting reading.
Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit rests on the premise that the Motto, not unlike other images or representations, is little more than a historical nod to the nation’s heritage, and, that no reasonable person accepting US Currency in any commercial transaction could reasonably think that the motto was proselytizing.
In the 7th circuit case, the court cites previous SCOTUS rulings as part of its decision.
The Supreme Court has observed that the motto “In God We Trust” does no such thing. The motto merely acknowledges a part of our nation’s heritage (albeit a religious part). Lynch, 465 U.S. at 676. The Court has dismissed the notion that this symbol “pose[s] a real danger of establishment of a state church [as] far-fetched indeed.” Id. at 676, 686.
Not far enough apparently. But then Newdow is probably part of the erase history culture that takes out its frustrations on statues the way ISIS destroys ancient landmarks and treasured antiquities. They smash them.
Tyrannies can brook now idol other than the state. So, the wordless denial by SCOTUS is quite the message.
We’ve done this already, “get off my lawn” without saying a word.
Newdow does not, however, strike me as the sort to listen, and while determination and perseverance can be very positive traits (certainly not in serial killers), so I have some advice. If you can’t stop wasting taxpayer money and clogging up the court system, could you at least find an original argument that has not already been dismissed before your next march through the judicial system?
Or don’t you believe in that either?