Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Newdow Files Suit To Take National Motto Off Currency

(An AFA email)

Tells ACLU meeting "In God We Trust" must go

Dear Travis,

Michael Newdow, who has already filed a suit to take "under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, is now suing to remove our national motto from our currency. Newdow told the ACLU of Oklahoma that the national motto on U.S. currency is a violation of the separation of church and state. He is offended because he is an atheist. He wants to use the Federal courts to make his atheism the official religion of America.

Newdow filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which recently ruled that judges, not parents, have the final say in what will be taught school children concerning sex education. These same liberal judges supported Newdow and ruled that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional. That suit was dismissed due to a technicality so Newdow sued again. The 9th U.S. Circuit is expected to agree with Newdow. The case will then go to the U.S. Supreme Court for final action.

Help us secure one million signatures on the petition below to stop Newdow. Remember that only one personMadelyn Murray O'Harewas able to get prayer in schools banned. We must not allow one personNewdowto get our national motto removed from our currency by our silence.

During the last session of Congress, Representative Chip Pickering introduced a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to use and recite the motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. Your petition will encourage Rep. Pickering to re-introduce his constitutional amendment in the present session of Congress and send a message to the liberal judges of the 9th U.S. Circuit.

Please act quickly, and forward this to friends and family.

Click here to sign the petition now!

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and ChairmanAmerican Family Association


Kristin said...

Oh no, not Mr. Newdow again!

Anonymous said...

The AFA is lying in two ways - O'Hair didn't single-handedly get "prayer in schools banned."

First, prayers weren't banned - students can pray all they want. All that was stopped was the practice of the government writing prayers for students to recite.

Second, even if O'Hair had never existed, the end results would still have been the same because her case was combined with another one from Pennsylvania - a case involving a Christian family challenging official school prayers.

The reactions to the Abington V. Schempp decision eliminating official school prayers were similar to reactions to Newdow. Who today, though, would argue that school officials or state officials have the authority to write official government prayers for children to recite each day in public schools? No one who cares about religious freedom, that's for sure.

The Abington decision enhanced religious liberty by giving children in public schools more room to pray how they want and when they want - or not at all, if they want. For the AFA to cite it as an example of something that undermines religious liberty suggests that they either have trouble comprehending reality or that they have an agenda completely opposed to religious freedom.

Reggie said...

Hey, just wanted to let you know I have moved my Blog address so you can update your Blogroll. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Jeff said...

I signed the petition. Keep up your good work.

As for Anonymous, if the only prayers that are banned are government sponsored/written, then why are students who try to freely express their faith through prayer continually get harrassed? I agree that students shouldn't be forced to recite prayers written by the government, but we're way beyond that now.

Jeff said...

Also, I've added you to my blogroll.