Talk:Michael Newdow

Minister

Crackpot. The guy's an ordained minister. Yes, it's a paper church, but still. If he's such a strong athiest, why'd he go and become an ordained minister? —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 08:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because the Universal Life Church is such a strong proponent of freedom of religion. I'm guessing maybe the irony has something to do with it too. --Maxamegalon2000 14:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is NPOV to call him crackpot. I find the irony quite interesting, as it is analogous to religious persons trying to infiltrate secular institutions, like science. PHF 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk page discussions don't have to be neutral. However, they do have to serve the purpose of improving the article, and are not for general discussions about the topic (i.e. Your personal opinion of Newdow). We can't ever prove crackpotitude ;) Now, if a person has a negative quality such as "racist" or "womanizer", that can be relevant to their biography (as long as respected and reliable third parties have specifically put forth that analysis of their character) 76.105.10.80 (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The Universal Life Church will make anyone a minister - some join up as a kind of joke. Saying Newdow is a crackpot may not be NPOV - perhaps it would be better to criticise him in more neutral terms. Autarch (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think people start churches for the sake of irony. His actually meets, 'every new moon', according to him in one of his speeches on youtube. Despite the humorous dressing, I imagine he is fairly serious about it, as its establishment may have some value in future legal arguments. -David Hunt, 27 April, 2008

Crackpot? This is an ignorant statement. Being a minister has nothing to do with whether you believe in a god or not. For example, Unitarians could be considered Atheists since they do not require one to believe in a god.Mr. Newdow is a lawyer and understands the PR value of aping the substance of traditional religious institutions. Some in the Atheist community advocate making Atheism a religion in order to gain equal government status to that of other philosophical organizations.Aredant 16:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no legal definition of minister. Anyone can use the title. I remember seeing a "minister" preaching on the streets, who had never gone to college at all, never got a theology degree, worked as a janitor in a post office, and whose "church" consisted of 8 people, most of them from his immediate family. I think Dr. Newdow uses the title Reverend as a challenge to the legal status of real ministers. That said, since he doesn't run a real church, his claims to be a minister are contrary to word's actual meaning in English. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Since the Universal Life Church will "ordain" literally anyone to the "ministry," why is this fact included in the introduction as if it were a significant detail about Newdow? If the ministry were his vocation, regardless of his personal beliefs about God, it would be relevant information to stick in the introductory paragraph, but as it stands it is merely a fun fact mentioned for irony's sake alone. Does anyone else believe it should be removed or at least relocated to a less prominent section of the article? 98.91.36.92 (talk) 11:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Titles

Newdow's doctorate and ordination both appear to come from the Universal Life Church, which will grant them to anyone no questions asked. [1] I don't think it's appropriate to use the titles "Rev." and "Dr." under those circumstances. Consequently I am removing them. (I'll grant that someone could be referred to as "Rev." if they were an actual Universal Life Church member, but as far as I can tell Newdow doesn't actually participate in the ULC in any way.) Elliotreed 04:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Oops! Newdow appears to be an actual medical doctor. [2] So that one I will grant. Elliotreed 04:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough to argue against removing the "Rev." title on my own, as long as it's mentioned in that first paragraph. --Maxamegalon2000 04:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that the the references to 'Dr. Newdow' and 'Mr. Newdow' throughout an article seems like fairly uncommon pattern in wikipedia articles. My suggestion is stick with 'Newdow' after the opening bit. If someone is reading the article, they are probably aware he is a he, a doctor, holds a law degree, and runs a church. -David Hunt, 27 April 2008.

i noticed in the personal area that he is concidered to be jewish and it is stated that he is of jewish back groud he being an athiest he has no right o be called a jew nor does have the right to be associated with the word jew or jewish this should be deleted as it gives us jews yet another blemish no that we dont have enough agaist us alread like antisemtism jews true jews beleive in GOD!! we are not atheiest we know who created us —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.37.4.38 (talk) 21:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You only need to add your comment once. That we have an entire category of Jewish atheists with articles suggests that your analysis is inaccurate. --Maxamegalon2000 23:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Whether he is classified as Jewish is not up to your personal interpretation. We do not decide whether they are worthy of the title, we simply report that they identify as. Again, this goes to the neutrality and original research rules - we do not take facts and make our own analysis out of them 76.105.10.80 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Judaism is not strictly just a religion in the Christian doctrinal sense of religion. In fact, neither is Hinduism or Buddhism. I'm not sure how much even Christian can be purely seen as doctrinal in the strictest sense of the word. In college I was often approached by Jewish missionaries who were looking for secular Jews to convert to religious Judaism. The first thing they asked was always "Are you Jewish?" They clearly meant by birth. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I hope that guy has gone to Albert Einstein's page (and the pages of numerous others), and added "he has no right o be called a jew nor does have the right to be associated with the word jew or jewish this should be deleted as it gives us jews yet another blemish no that we dont have enough agaist us alread like antisemtism..........." - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Obama's inauguration

I corrected several items in this section. I've been closely involved in this lawsuit and read every legal paper submitted by both sides and would be happy to provide references to any comment, and to include them in the article if anyone feels it's needed. Arodb (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Spamming

Please note a banned user operates a website which has no tie to the Michael Newdow. That website appears to be commerical in nature and has no business being listed in this article. Below is a list of spamming by that banned user adding in that link.

• 29 March 2007 930Luau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Add Gastrich's, which he cybersquatted
• 13 July 2006 Michael Bonjorno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[3]
• 2 February 2006 Turkmen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[4]
• 21 December 2005 Jason Gastrich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[5]

Should that link reappear please remove it without haste. Arbustoo 18:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Does he have a political agenda

I was interested to review his history and I was wondering what his political agenda was. It probably is not too cynical to call into question his honesty, given the nefarious behavior of the political machinery associated with the previous administration, and the lengths that the like of Cheney and Rove would stoop to advance their twisted views. For example, every time Micahel Newdow opens his mouth, the religious "right" gets lots of traction against the "..godless socialists running our country.." even if the Democrats in power are far from being any where near socialist (or even liberal or social for that matter), and are just as likely to cloak themselves in the mantle of organized religion.

In fact, I find it hard to believe that any of his actions are consistent with someone who has the drive, intelligence or conviction to be an emergency physician or a lawyer. (Regardless of what you think of the legal profession in the US, it isn't terribly easy to graduate from a decent law school as what most people think--of course it probably was a relief after medical school and residency, but still a lot more time and effort than most people appreciate.) His entire persona seems contrived to rub people the wrong way, and galvanize support behind the Jim Bakers and Jerry Falwells of the world

He is either a quixotic eccentric or, more plausible, a tool of the neocons and evangelicals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.99.19 (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you trying to say that he's too smart to be a Democrat, or that atheists aren't smart enough to be doctors and lawyers? --Maxamegalon2000 04:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

He is pursuing his cause in a way that tends to alienate people. There is a big difference between the intellectual sense and intelligence it takes to be a doctor and the social sense and skills it takes to win people over. Bostoner (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Rape allegation

This is a difficult section, which is both badly written an uninformative and in my opinion should be removed.

For example, it refers to a person named "Banning" while saying nothing about who they are in the rest of the article. In fact, this section itself seems to have no relation to any of the other subject matter. It contains no other discussion of his personal life, so I would argue that if it should remain, it at least should be rewritten completely. The citation is to fox news regarding his challenge to the inaugural prayer, so sounds as if the intention may be to smear Dr Newdow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.39.103 (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2010

I know this is old and the section is gone now, but just for future reference to anyone else reading, you should remove such unreferenced, potentially slanderous allegations 'IMMEDIATELY without asking, per the Biographies of living persons policy. Unlike other factoids which can wait months or years for verification, such damning statements against people's character are prohibited without proof 76.105.10.80 (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)