|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is nothing short of cowardice on the part of all nine justices of the Supreme Court, and it comes at the expense of fatherhood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The war on fathers is officially institutionalized. Now all the man-haters know they can count on the SC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually 3 out of the 8 justices dissented, ruling that Newdow did have standing to sue and the case should have been decided on its (lack of) merits. Since Scalia recused himself, we don't know for sure what his official position would have been but I think it's a fair bet he would have joined the dissenters, making it a 5-4 decision.
But yes, the decision as it stands is the equivalent of a notice posted on the doors of the SC: Fathers' Rights Not Considered Here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:48 PM June 14th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
I find it difficult to be sympathetic to someone who shoots himself in the foot; promoting atheism
indirectly promotes feminism which is the reason men have lost much of the paternal rights.
"... Man as peasant or noble turns towards, man as priest turns away from, woman .. what he shall bequeath is intellectual, and rejected woman bears no part in it..."
Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West", 1922
"Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged..."
The Northwest Ordinance of 1787
"We know better than to repeal our Masculine systems.... Rather than give up this, which would completely subject Us to the Despotism of the Petticoat, I hope General Washington, and all our brave Heroes would fight."
John ADAMS, 1776
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>I find it difficult to be sympathetic to someone >who shoots himself in the foot; promoting >atheism indirectly promotes feminism which is >the reason men have lost much of the paternal >rights.
I disagree wholeheartedly, no one should have their religion used against them with regard to paternity and their right to raise their child and make decisions in that child's life.
Oh, I'll agree that more atheists are feminists than masculinists, but that is not to say that they are always linked. I'm an atheist and find absolutely nothing wrong with also supporting men's rights.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My thoughts exactly, just sub in "agnostic" for "atheist" in the above text.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:58 PM June 16th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm an atheist, and I'm a strong supporter of men's rights.
I really think it's counterproductive for men to turn this into a religious issue. It shouldn't have anything to do with atheism or faith in religious mysticism. Of course, since religion does deal with the issue of the proper standing of men and women, including the ever-so important abortion issue, I suppose it's inevitable that it will come up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:49 PM June 16th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm an atheist, and I'm a strong supporter of men's rights."
So am I - but I support religion because I see the value in it. True understanding and tolerance is evidenced by supporting things you do not believe in or are not aligned with your own self interest. If a Christian promotes Christianity or an atheist atheism they appear to be only promoting their own self interest. In this case I am not being that altruistic because I am a man and I have said it is in the interests of men to promote religion.
"I really think it's counterproductive for men to turn this into a religious issue."
I think you have that backwards: *it is* a religious issue and we are trying to turn it into a men's rights issues.
"Of course, since religion does deal with the issue of the proper standing of men and women"
Well, if we want a "proper standing of men and women" don't we want to promote religion? Or can you give me something that has in the past worked better? (I am not interested in any speculative untested means.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In wich countries men are treated like second class citizens?, in wich countires men do not have te right to rise their children?, in wich countries children are used as an excuse to force men to performe salve labor for women,(child support), and their properties stolen from them? ..........................
Countries with Judeo christian values, christianity is a feminist religion, everyone knows that, who is the majority of people attending churches? women.
Islam on the other hand has very fair and clear divorce laws, that has not changed since 800 years, child support? whats that?, marital properties? give me a break, jailing dads .......
Those are things christians do not muslims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:27 PM June 17th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"Mohammad said: 'I saw Paradise and I stretched my hand to pluck a bunch of grapes, then I saw Hell (fire), and I have never before seen such a horrible sight as that the majority of its dwellers were women.' The people asked, 'O Allah's apostle, what is the reason for that?' He replied, 'Because of their ungratefulness.' It was said, 'Do they disbelieve in Allah?' He replied, 'They are not thankful to their husbands and they are ungrateful for the favors done to them. Even if you do some good to one of them, all your life when she sees some harshness from you she will say, "I have never seen any good from you.""'
Sahih of al-Bukhari (Vol. 7, p. 96)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
can't you anonymous users at least sign your posts? doesn't have to be a real name or anything, just so I can tell you apart.
Oh, I think that the ruling was an easy way out for the supreme court to solve a religious issue. But I think in this case it was because it was a DAD involved that it was "resolved" in that way.
Though, honestly I think he does do it for his own reasons, not particularly for his daughter.
But personally I don't see the point in promoting religion despite the fact it may help the men's movement if you yourself don't agree with religion - I'd be miserable if I was living in an egalitarian but fanatic society, instead of a rather feminist but moderately unaffiliated one. See my point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:04 PM June 16th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
I think the Supreme Court's wimping out has less to do with men's issues and more to do with their not wanting to decide a basic constitutional issue.
It is pathetic because this sort of issue is exactly what the Supreme Court is duty-bound to resolve. The Court probably didn't want to issue an unpopular ruling stating that leading public schoolchildren in reciting the phrase "one nation under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance constituted an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment.
That's too bad, because pressuing public schoolchildren to recite that does, in fact, constitute a government establishment of religion.
Sometimes I am astonished at the realization that we aren't still living in caves.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
