Newdow, the most hated man alive today

It appears Michael Newdow will replace Madalyn Murray O’Hair as the most hated person in America if he hasn't already.

I myself have written a couple of letters to the editor concerning the pledge. So I am familiar with this issue.
The pledge is one of the many xtian hot buttons like evolution, gay marriage, and abortion.
These are a few of the many reasons why the republicans won in 2004. The republicans love this stuff. They pretent to be surprized, amazed and horrified, but in reality they are rubbing thier hands together with glee.
I'm not saying Mr. Newdow should stop trying to restore the pledge, I support his effort. I just wish the "media" would stop using negative terms to decribe him, such as the "Under God" foe.
Media liberal bias my ass. (It may have been once, but not anymore) They should call him a hero for defending the constitution. A brave man for standing up for his rights as an American citizen. The xtians complain of percecution, they should try standing on the court house steps or the street corner and yell "I'm an athiest!" See what kind of reaction they get from the people on the street. When a preacher stands on his soap box, and he may be a bit radical. Everyone, most everyone will tolerate him, its his right..... But if its a liberal with a unpoplur message, what happens? How dare they, glares, the finger, spitting, even a fist fight if the message is particularity offensive.

So much for my ranting today, here is the lastest news concerning Mr. Newdow.

'Under God' foe sues again over pledge
Atheist joined in suit by other parents
Thursday, January 6, 2005 Posted: 10:29 AM EST (1529 GMT) SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- An atheist who sued because he did not want his young daughter exposed to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance has filed another lawsuit -- this time with other parents.
Michael Newdow won his case more than two years ago before a federal appeals court, which said it was an unconstitutional blending of church and state for public school students to pledge to God.
In June, however, the Supreme Court dismissed the case, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-aged daughter and because the girl's mother objected to the lawsuit.
In the latest challenge filed Monday in Sacramento federal court, eight co-plaintiffs have joined the suit, and all are custodial parents or the children themselves, Newdow said.
The plaintiffs' names have been withheld from the lawsuit.
"It's because of the potential adverse impacts of having your name on a case like this. That's why they are not named," Newdow said Wednesday.
He had promised to refile when the Supreme Court dismissed his case this summer.
"I want this decided on its merits," said Newdow, a doctor and a lawyer, who again is the attorney in the latest pledge case.
Although the Supreme Court sidestepped the broader question of separation of church and state when it tossed the case, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote separately that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
A fourth justice, Antonin Scalia, removed himself from the case after making off-the-bench remarks that seemed to telegraph his view that the pledge is constitutional.
Rehnquist wrote that the phrase "one nation under God" is more about ceremony and history than about religion. He likened the phrase to the motto "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and to the call that opens each session of the high court itself: "God save this honorable court."
Vickram Amar, a constitutional scholar at Hastings College of the Law, said that "this case starts with a 0-4 handicap from the Supreme Court's point of view. Lower court judges are not going to be oblivious to that" when they consider the issue.
No court date has been set.