Michael Newdow Can Kiss My Ass

I’m aware that this country is full of petty and annoying people, but I rarely single anybody out as being a specific thorn in my side. That all changes today, because a certain name pops up in the news just often enough to piss me off to the point where I feel I need to vent. His name is Michael Newdow and if you don’t recognize the name, odds are you’ll recognize the issue that practically made him a cult celebrity.

This is the atheist who, back in 2000, sued the Sacramento School District because he didn’t think it was right that his daughter and other children in her school should be made to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. He argued that the Pledge violated the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution (which demands the separation of Church and State) because it refers to our “…one nation under God.”

Newdow says that folks who are gathered in public venues are supposed to be “protected” from state-sponsored religious declarations and, according to this peckerhead, we need “protection” from the words “under God.”

In 2002, a ruling was rendered in his favor, but about two years later, it was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court on what can only be described as a technicality (Newdow didn’t have custody of the daughter for whom he alleged to have filed the suit). God had seemingly dodged a bullet… and yet we hadn’t heard the last of Michael Newdow.

In November of 2005, he was back at it again, but not content with just trying to piss on our patriotic traditions, he decided to launch an attack on our money, too.

Side Note: Not long after reading about his first suit, I actually predicted this would be his next move, regardless of whether he won or lost Round One of his God attack.

Apparently, Newdow felt that having the motto “In God We Trust” on our coins and paper currency was a violation of his (and presumably our) First Amendment rights. By the middle of 2006, a federal judge rejected his suit, ruling that the words “In God We Trust” represent a “secular national slogan” that didn’t force any type of individual adherence to a belief in God.

In a follow-up interview (…on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed an act to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from ass-clowns like Newdow), he was quoted as saying,

"A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the establishment clause forbids."

All along, Michael Newdow has claimed to be “fighting for the Constitution” which is obviously a huge load of bullsh*t. He doesn’t give a sh*t about Americans or our rights.

He’s a bitter atheist with an axe to grind against God and this is his way of doing it.

Not surprisingly, he’s a physician with a law degree which is arguably the worst possible atheist in existence. For one, if he's ever saved even so much as one life during his practice, he’s probably already got a God complex of his own. Add to that his legal acumen to pick apart the Constitution to suit his own selfish desires and you get a potentially dangerous litigant who just might one day twist the truth enough to make others see things his way.

What Newdow fails to realize is that the establishment clause was never meant to guarantee that people would never be exposed to any type of religion whatsoever. You see churches all over the place, not to mention cemeteries with countless images of crosses, Jesus, Mary, etc. It does, however, prevent our government from forcing people to worship God... and I'm sorry, but reciting the Pledge of Allegiance or handling money that says, "In God We Trust" is not tantamount to pushing somebody to their knees and praying. Kids stand when reciting the Pledge as a show of respect. I've been to a Brazilian soccer game where their own anthem was sung. I might not be Brazilian and I might not know the words, but I still stood out of respect for the country and what it stands for.

So, what is this country supposed to do? Get rid of the Pledge of Allegiance? Alter it? Wouldn't it just be easier for his daughter to stand (in respect) and remain silent? And how about our “In God We Trust” motto? Do we just get rid of that, too? If so, do we then collect all of the previously minted coins and melt them down? Do we burn our paper currency?

And what about cities like Los Angeles (The Angels) and Sacramento (Sacrament)? Do we rename every city that has a religious name? And what about those cemeteries I mentioned? Do we hit every cemetery in America and remove every religious symbol we find, lest we offend anybody who doesn't believe in Jesus?

Where does this insanity end? Is Newdow gonna try to break into the National Archives and erase “all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” from the Declaration of Independence? And before I wrap this up, I'll say that it’s been my experience that liberals will often try to discredit “slippery slope” arguments based solely on principle. Yet I’m already seeing it with the desecration of marriage, I'm seeing it with the gay agenda... and I’m seeing it now with the atheists in our country and their attack on God.

And all of these bullsh*t court rulings start out the same damn way. Some person who lives their life against the grain comes up with an idea on how to get the entire country to conform to what they want, so they file a small suit in a small court. They win the suit and before we know it, the entire country is embroiled in debates that go on for years and even decades. The law changes quickly to favor the litigant, but it takes forever for the voting public to change it back. That is, of course, if we even CAN change it back.

I'm a Christian and a proud American... and whether Michael Newdow likes it or not, this great nation of ours was founded by Christians. The Pilgrims risked everything to come to this land for the sole purpose of having the freedom to practice Christianity without being persecuted or murdered.

This is our history... and I see no reason to try and rewrite it to suit the needs of one pigheaded man.

And yet, people like him are slowly succeeding in their goal to oust God from our country. Don't believe me? Okay, well have you seen the new U.S. One Dollar coins that were recently minted for mass circulation? If not, have a look at one of them and see if you can find the motto “In God We Trust.” If you take a quick glance at the coin, you probably won’t find our motto.

If, however, you squint your eyes and look at the edge of the coin, you just might be able to make out the engraved words. This is how it f**king starts and based on what the courts have done to destroy the institution of marriage in these last few years, I predict it’s only a matter of time before some liberal court votes to do away with all God-related mottos from our currency and our pledges.

Just be careful what you wish for because God doesn't stick around where He's not wanted and if you keep pushing Him out the door, He'll leave... and take His blessings, His protection and His salvation somewhere else. And trust me when I say that America needs God's protection now more than ever.

I don't know about you, but God's always got a place in my home and if Jesus ever knocks on my door, He'll be greeted with open arms. <")))><

My Take on Ephesians 2:8-9

I’ll start off with a little disclaimer:

I’m not a theologian.
Never have been.
Probably never will be.

Then again, the fact that I don’t zap people with a magic wand or fight dragons doesn’t disqualify me from reading a Harry Potter book or having an opinion about it. So, with that said, I want to take a look at a Bible passage that has literally caused several hundreds of years’ worth of arguments between Catholics and Protestants:

Ephesians 2:8-9

If you have a King James Bible handy, grab it. If you’re like most people, you’ll probably wind up coughing and/or sneezing from the dust you kick up by moving your Bible from wherever it’s been, but no matter. Here’s how my Bible reads:

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

Some Protestants have taken these words and used them to explain that just doing good things won’t get you into Heaven, but that faith in Jesus is, by itself, sufficient. Some Catholics will go on to read the next verse (10), which says,

“For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”

To the average Catholic, this translates to needing to do charity work or perhaps volunteering some time to work for the church. In short, we need to do good deeds because faith in Jesus isn’t sufficient. I believe both sides are a little off the mark. I’ll explain with a visual image that seems to make sense (…at least to me).

Let's say you have a small table and, in the center of that table, sits an empty glass. You’re thirsty and you have a pitcher of water. Pouring water on the surface of the table won't fill the glass, right? All you'll do is make a mess and waste water. Furthermore, you won't be able to quench your thirst by drinking from that glass because, duh, it'll still be empty. At best, you could grab some paper towels, wipe down the table and maybe clear off some dust. That’s the most you could hope to accomplish with a wet table and an empty glass.

However, by filling the glass with an abundance of water, you'll not only have a full glass to drink, but if your glass can't contain all of the water that it's receiving, it will overflow, spilling water on the table. Both examples will get the table wet, but if your primary goal is to quench your thirst, then pouring water on the table is relatively pointless. On the other hand, a glass that is overflowing with water will, by cause and effect, make the table wet.

So, how does God tell the difference between true Christians and people who just say they’re Christians?

Well, only God can answer that question for sure, but if it were up to me to spot the true, blue Christian, I’d look for the dude with the wet table AND the full glass.

Why?

Because God made that table wet… and in my opinion, this is how people will know if you have the love of God in your heart. If the symbolism’s throwing anybody off, think of the water as representing God’s love and the glass as representing the human heart. The spilled water on the table represents your good deeds which, like the water on the table, you can do regardless of whether or not Jesus resides in your heart.

What finite human heart can contain the infinite love of the LORD? None can, so if God has filled your heart with His love, He’s not just gonna give you enough to satisfy your own needs. He’s gonna give you enough love to spread the wealth and actually make you WANT to love and help others. By filling a man’s heart with God’s love, the good deeds that are now within his heart to want to do are actually a very positive after-effect. If you truly have Jesus in your heart and soul, you’re just moved from within to do good for others and it's not something you have to fake.

Doing good deeds because you think they’ll help earn your way into Heaven is like dumping water on your table and leaving your glass empty. If your heart lacks the love of the Lord, then the good deeds you do are relatively worthless in the spiritual sense. God will see your empty glass and know that the water on the table didn’t come from Him.

I’m not saying that this is the correct interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-9, but it’s the one that makes the most sense to me. Much like the thirteenth chapter of 1 Corinthians, the Ephesians passage reminds me of just how pointless it is to have faith without good works or conversely, to do good works with no faith. The full and complete Christian will have both and I doubt either Catholicism or Protestantism would argue with me on that.