Michalel Newdow

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Michalel Newdow
18
Fri, 06-11-2004 - 10:13pm
Here's an interesting article about the Michael Newdow, who brought the pledge case to court. It turns out someone fabricated stories about what he said in court, published it online, and even attempted to get Newdow removed from the bar.

My feelings about the pledge and "under God" are lukewarm. Obviously I don't think anyone should be forced to pledge the flag, I don't really see a big deal about leaving the Under God in or taking the Under God out, and just let anyone who wishes to add it in, or take it out etc. I do get rankled when I hear or read of some student being forced to pledge the flag (illegal, supreme court ruled on that), but not so much of the "under God" part, just the general principle that no one should be forced to make a promise or pledge if they really don't mean it.

But I think if this guy did libel Newdow, he isn't to bright. After all , everything said in a court room under oath is a matter of record. Anyone who lies about what someone says in court can EASILY be proven a liar.

But I've always kind of wondered about Newdow's claims of telephone death threats. It seems in this day & age, with caller i.d., telephone conversation recorders, etc. that it would be very easy to press charges against someone for making threatening phone calls. I've alway wondered if he really got such phone calls, and if so, why he didn't press charges.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/061104ap_nw_pledge_libel.html


Opinions, comments ?

TIA,

Pages

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 8:47am
>>>Here's an interesting article about the Michael Newdow, who brought the pledge case to court. It turns out someone fabricated stories about what he said in court, published it online, and even attempted to get Newdow removed from the bar.

Interesting as I've been researching cyberlibel as well. It is very upsetting when somebody posts lies about you online.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 9:18am
Hmmm, interesting, because when I've made a few posts about those e-mails that are forwarded to me that turn out to be on line false rumours you seemed to defend the practice. Even said I was making a mountain out of a mole hill.

However, if you are referring to my comment to you that you condone discrimination against non-Christians, I apologise for that. I should have framed that as a question, or said that I get that impression based on something , and asked you to clarify. Please accept my apology.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 9:39am
*snort* Some reverend! So much for the 9th commandment.

DD

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 9:50am
At first I thought he was just passing along a rumor spread on the internet. But then I read that he tried to get Mr Newdow dis barred. Any sympathy I had that this man might have just been another passenger on the "misinformation highway" vanished when I read that. It's one thing to forward an urban legend without checking its truthfulness (still not a good thing tho') but to take legal action someone based on rumors, or innuendo, well that's realllllly bad, and dumb too, what a person says in a courtroom under oath is a matter of public record. The reverend shot himself in the foot. Mr. Newdow says he doesn't want the money, and he probobly won't ever see a dime of it anyway, but the reverend's credibility is now shot to all H-E- double toothpicks.

I thought it was commandment #8 against bearing false witness. I thought #9 was against coveting. Of course, I grew up with the Catholic version of the commandments, I think they are numbered a little differently.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 10:00am


Just did a google search on the 10Cs.

Turns out we're both right. The protestant version of the 10C put the not bearing false witness commandment at #9, the Catholic version at #8.

Don't you just love the internet ?!


Edited 6/12/2004 10:02 am ET ET by idramamama

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Sat, 06-12-2004 - 8:52pm
I want a public apology in a seperate thread with a clear statement that what you said was FALSE. More than an apology is necessary. A RETRACTION is necessary. Your comments were FALSE and defamatory.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
Sun, 06-13-2004 - 5:07am
Guess my roots are showing! LOL

DD

Avatar for jillianmarie77
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 6:52pm
<<
emoticon:

message #: 6186.7 in response to 6186.3

from: emmlevin

to: idramamama

date: Jun-12 5:52 pm

replies: 8

next message>

next discussion>>




I want a public apology in a seperate thread with a clear statement that what you said was FALSE. More than an apology is necessary. A RETRACTION is necessary. Your comments were FALSE and defamatory.

Mary>>>



* What is this all about? (I'm nosey) I mean is it THAT serious? A simple sincere apology isn't GOOD enough? What could someone have possibly said?

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 8:24pm
I made a statement that Mary condones discrimination against non-Christians. I should have said, "I get the impression that you condone such discrimination" instead of stating it like I did. She has implied the same about me, (only vice-versa) but has been more clever and subtle about it. I clumsily stated my impression as fact. I regret the clumsy, blatant way I worded it, but I still do have that impression and I haven't really seen any demonstration from her that she is even mildly concerned when a non-Christian is discriminated against, socially, on the job, in school, etc. But she is very vocal against any and all discrimination against Christian, or even what she percieves as the slightest hint of an insult against her faith. That is why I can't issue a "full retraction." But I do apologise for the nasty way I stated my opinion as if it were a fact. That is the best I can do, and I am sorry that she is so hurt, that can not accept my apology.

I won't offer another apology, because I believe that no apology will be good enough for her. I feel bad that she's so upset about it, I feel bad that she has felt chased off this board a few times,. I don't want anyone to feel unwelcome here, but I don't want to have to grovel on my hands and knees either.

This is a debate board on a topic that is so sensitive that it has been a long standing rule of social etiquette that you don't discuss Religion, Politics or Sex in casual social conversation. Now I see why. I've come to expect tempers to flare on this debate board. I feel bad when it is my temper that flares, but I accept that some "flaring" is part and parcel of this debate.

But I still enjoy coming here, but it gives me the opportunity to learn about others peoples beliefs, beyond just what the "official teachings" of their faith are, but what people really deep down think. So even tho' things can get heated around here, I still enjoy exchanging and debating with everyone here.

Jillianmarie, thanks for your concern. I appreciate it.



Avatar for jillianmarie77
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 11:57am
You shouldn't offer another apology in my opinion. Your apology was sincere and if it wasn't big and fancy enough for the person you apologized to that is that person's problem. We are all responsible for our own behaviour and feelings. YOu did what you needed to do and now it is up to the other person to be christlike and forgive or to hold a grudge and be juvenile.

I hope you read what wytchy said about cyberlible - don't be scared.

And now, I'll bow out as this is none of my business and I've been a huge buttinski.

Sometimes I get all indignant but then I get over it *wink*

Pages