Gut Rumbles
 

January 04, 2006

Calling michael newdow

California isn't the only place that's home to an athiest asshole. Italy has one, too.

An Italian court is tackling Jesus -- and whether the Roman Catholic Church may be breaking the law by teaching that he existed 2,000 years ago.

The case pits against each other two men in their 70s, who are from the same central Italian town and even went to the same seminary school in their teenage years.

The defendant, Enrico Righi, went on to become a priest writing for the parish newspaper. The plaintiff, Luigi Cascioli, became a vocal atheist who, after years of legal wrangling, is set to get his day in court later this month.

Just damn! As an athiest, I wish these self-aggrandizing bastards would just STF up and get a real life. All Newdow and Cascioli prove is that sanctimonious bullshittery is NOT confined to any religion. Nobody is forcing them to worship anything. Quit bitching.

Some people just don't have enough to do.

Comments

So Michael Newdow claimed to be raped by his wife.
BAWAAAHHAHAHAHAHAHHWWWAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHH!!!!!


Fucking pussy.

Posted by: rightisright on January 4, 2006 09:21 PM

Atheism is a religion more intolerant than islam.

Posted by: Yogimus on January 4, 2006 10:54 PM

I am staying out of this one LOL...you might kick me off your blog :)

Posted by: Lisa on January 5, 2006 07:46 AM

Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure, as is (St.) Luke, author of one gospel. Accuracy of the gospels is another question.

Posted by: Larry on January 5, 2006 03:44 PM

As an atheist, I applaud Michael Newdow for having the courage of his convictions, and for doing what he thinks is right. Since you claim to be an atheist, I'm surprised you don't.
People just don't get it. How many Christians would put up with having their children stand and recite an oath of allegiance, "under Allah"? "under Satan"? I can tell you...not one Christian would allow it. Why do my atheist children have to shut their mouths and/or leave the room when the pledge is recited? And further more, why does my money have "God" written on it? Somehow, the juxtaposition of the 2 are all wrong.

I don't give a flying horse flop whether you pray all day and all night to the mystical mushroom people or to your God of choice...but I'll support Newdow's actions for as long as the Christian God is sponsored in the schools and the courts and Fort Knox with MY atheist tax dollars.

Other than that, I'm enjoying reading about your houseguest. Hope y'all are havin' fun!

Posted by: Boadicea on January 5, 2006 09:12 PM

Since you claim to be an atheist, I'm surprised you don't.

You shouldn't be -- Rob's an atheist, not an idiot.

Posted by: McGehee on January 6, 2006 12:36 PM

Where did "idiot" come from? I really AM surprised that an atheist wouldn't appreciate what Newdow's trying to accomplish. I admire Michael Newdow, and I assure you, I am not an idiot.
Did you have a cogent response to my post above? I really am curious why the Christian right insists on stuffing their God in my face in every venue from schools to courthouses to freakin' highschool basketball games, and would love to discuss this subject with anyone willing to share their viewpoint. Do you have it in you to discuss my post without resorting to one-liner drive-by insults? If so, bring it on.

Posted by: Boadicea on January 6, 2006 08:34 PM

Did you have a cogent response to my post above?

Perhaps "cogent" is in the eye of the beholder -- but the reason Rob isn't an idiot is, he doesn't try to abolish everything that offends him. Which is what Newdow, who is an idiot, is trying to do.

And if you applaud him, well...

Posted by: McGehee on January 7, 2006 03:41 PM

Let's see... Newdow observes that his tax dollars are going to support public schools
which discriminate against people who don't believe in God. Plain and simple. And he's an idiot for trying to change that?

Where do you get the idea that he's trying to "abolish" anything? Looks to me like he's trying to uphold what the founders of our country had in mind with separation of church and state.

Are you willing for YOUR tax dollars to go to a school which, every morning, requires the children to stand up and swear allegiance to the flag, one nation, under Beelzebub? I'm going to guess not. Yet if I understand your stance, if you worked to change that, you would be an idiot? Guess we have differing definitions of idiot.

Thanks for taking the time to respond though. Seriously.

Posted by: Boadicea on January 7, 2006 09:57 PM

Discrimination is not the presence of "under God" on your money. Real discrimination is a bitch. The majority of this country is comprised of theists, particularly Christians, deal with it. Being offended by everything is weak.

Posted by: John on January 8, 2006 05:07 AM

Ah, another voice heard from. Thanks for responding.

For starters, I must point out that nowhere on our money does it say "under God". The under God comes in the rote recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance...an oath which compels children to stand and affirm their loyalty to a nation which is ostensibly under the benificent guidance of a god. That's peachy if you buy into that, but if, like me, you don't believe in that, the notion of your child being compelled to utter such an oath is more than troubling...it is dictating theology to your child. This is NOT the function of the public schools and indeed breaches the wall of separation between church and state. To say that MY child should remain silent or leave the room because uttering such a pledge is tantamount to encouraging her to lie IS discrimination.

I'm also puzzled why Christians think it's a good idea to print "In God We Trust" on our filthy lucre. The 2 just don't seem to have any relationship other than to tout a religious philosophy. I, and approximately 10% of Americans, DON'T trust what we don't believe is true. I don't think the phrase belongs on our money.

Your final argument, that America is a Christian nation and I should just deal with it is the most telling. The Constitution of the United States was established in part to protect the minority from the majority. I don't care if you pray all day and all night, if you believe in fairies, or if you think there are lizard people living in the center of the earth, your religious beliefs are yours. I don't think they belong in our tax-funded public schools.

Being offended by everything IS weak. Fortunately, the atheists I know are NOT offended by everything, unlike, I might add, many Christians I know.

Posted by: Boadicea on January 8, 2006 12:19 PM

Assume You are the LAWmaker confronting
Nedow's claim
or the Italien Judge now confronting
the claim of Cascioli

What would You say , What side would You let prevail?

I would say "get away from these hoaks like
catholizisme and Jesus,Allah etc."

Leave each other alone and come back to me
if one of your basic rights are touched like:
-honor
-property
-freedom
-health ,limb and life

hlg Switzerland

Posted by: DR. LEE GIGER on January 14, 2006 07:51 PM

Michael Newdow is an absolute fucking moron who deserves to be sent to Siberia and then he can get frostbite and die!

Posted by: John on August 27, 2009 08:34 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.