Newdow v. God

There's an article somewhere in your local newspaper about Michael Newdow's appearance before the Supreme Court, challenging Congress' attempt to promote the belief in a God and subservience to it, through the Pledge of Allegiance. Sounds like he argued rather persuasively, but the main question on most of the justices' minds was what grounds they could use to decide the case against him, not whether he might actually have a valid point and grounds for complaint.

With Scalia out of the picture and a few not-entirely-unsympathetic justices on the bench, it's conceivable that Newdow will win. But I doubt it. An irrational contempt for atheists is too deeply ingrained in our culture. People actually dismiss Newdow's objections because he "just an atheist". Theists treat us like second-class citizens, because that's what they're taught by their parents, their preachers, and - thanks to recitations of the Pledge - their teachers.

Well, I'm certainly no better than anyone else, so why not sink to their level:

To anyone who thinks this is no big deal, and Newdow and the rest of us should just stop complaining, I respectfully invite you to pull your heads out of your asses and start showing some of the concern for your fellow man that most of your religions preach. If the "under God" bit is really (as Justice Souter tried to argue) so tepid that it really doesn't mean anything, why do you insist on keeping it there?

And to anyone who firmly believes that "under God" really does belong in a state-declared pledge to our national banner... all I can do is tell you to go suck on the business end of a shotgun, you small-minded turd. And on the off chance that you're right about all this, I hope you end up in Hell. You deserve it for being such a spiteful winner.

The above is my own personal opinion. If it offends you... good. Now you know how I feel about the crap you keep giving to people like me.