Michael Newdow is causing me to appreciate the relative saneness of the Madeline Murray O'Hare era.

Terpfan has kindly listed a couple of Newdow's latest suits, which include placing a ban on the hand on the Bible at the presidential inauguration. He has, in short, made a VERY bad name for atheists.

I have known many atheists in my day, and I have had a good deal of respect for them. Though we disagree on a fundamental level, they have reached their conclusions through their own intellectual reasonings and personal exploration. My Christian beliefs have come from the same process. Most atheists welcome and invite the free exchange of ideas.

Newdow is NOT an atheist. He is an ANTITHEIST. There's a world of difference.

An atheist believes there is no God. An antitheist believes not only that there is no God, but that those who believe in God are stupid and their beliefs must be pounded out on the altar of secularity.

An atheist has no problem with the pledge saying "under God; they just ask that they not be forced to recite it. An antitheist has a problem with the word "God" being used in any public forum, and will fight to have it removed, at the cost of the rights of those who DO believe.

An atheist has no problem with the practice of religion. An antitheist sees any practice of religion as an intrusion on THEIR rights, and will fight to remove same.

I have spoken with many of my atheist friends, and asked why anyone would feel offended, for instance, to attend an event inside a church. If God is not real, there should be no fear on their part in walking into that church, and they shouldn't feel offended if a family event was held inside a church. Most of my atheist friends have agreed (it's very similar to a vegetarian who tactfully arranges with a host of a barbeque to bring their own "meat". Most folks of religious persuasion will willingly tolerate and even embrace a loved one, so long as their own personal beliefs aren't trampled).

I knew an atheist politician once. At all of his swearing ins, he put his hand on a nicely leatherbound book that contained several historical and political documents of the United States and the state he represented, feeling it was a more appropriate object. He was never challenged in doing this, and in fact, many other politicians have done the same. George W. Bush is, as every president before him, a man who has at least some respect for the Holy Bible. He has every right to have his beliefs represented at his inauguration. Michael Newdow is a well funded minority who is trying to oppress the majority with his narrowly held beliefs, and who has very limited respect for the constitution (..."nor prohibit the free exercise thereof"), or, for that matter, of any who oppose him. Citizens of the United States should be able to sue Newdow and all of those who represent him for their time and energies that have tied up the courts with frivolous lawsuits to represent the views of a bigot.

Respectfully submitted,

Gideon MacLeish