Freethought & Rationalism Archive

James Hamlin · 04-22-2003, 07:10 PM

It hurts to read this forum. Almost to the point that I turn green and tear off my shirt. Anyway...

Just thought I'd share one of my latest misadventures. I wrote my representative, David Dreier, about the House and the Senate's landslide votes supporting the Pledge of Allegiance in spite of the 9th circuit court's decision. As you probably guessed, I was showing disapproval of the Congress' actions.

So, today I received a response. It seems that no one read my letter. They didn't even read enough of it to find what my opinion was. Here's a quote from the response:

"Like you, I think many people have interpreted too broadly the First Ammendment's restriction against state establishment of religion.The First Amendment was written to guarantee religious freedom and neutrality, not descrimination."[emphasis mine]

What the hell kind of response is that? First of all, they apparently just read the topic of my letter and assumed I agreed. Then they send me this ridiculous statement. Of course, having schoolchildren say that this is one nation "Under God" is perfectly neutral with respect to religion. Removing that phrase is obviously descriminatory against monotheists.

Even though this guy is a conservative, I can't help but wonder what he is smoking.

Jewel · 04-23-2003, 03:13 AM

I'd reply to his form letter restating the points you made in your first letter. You may even want to explain (if your first letter didn't) what neutrality means or why taking the 'unger god' part out of the pledge is a neutral stance rather than a discriminatory one. Somehow I do not think 'neutrality' means what he thinks it means. In short make him aware that you do not agree with him. Quote some Jefferson. You may want to add a bit about the author of the original pledge, Francis Bellamy if you can still keep the letter short enough for your congressman's attention span.

dangin · 04-23-2003, 06:04 AM

Yes, I got the same form letter from each of my senators. Identical.

Jewel · 04-23-2003, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin
Yes, I got the same form letter from each of my senators. Identical.

Oh, I see, they just pretend that everybody agrees with them.

James Hamlin · 04-23-2003, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jewel
I'd reply to his form letter restating the points you made in your first letter. You may even want to explain (if your first letter didn't) what neutrality means or why taking the 'unger god' part out of the pledge is a neutral stance rather than a discriminatory one.

This is what I am going to do. Still, Dreier's lack of interest in the opinions of his constituents is depressing.

Tyler A DiPietro · 04-23-2003, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Even though this guy is a conservative, I can't help but wonder what he is smoking.

He's addicted to the worst of all narcotics. Religion.

Jewel · 04-23-2003, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Hamlin
This is what I am going to do. Still, Dreier's lack of interest in the opinions of his constituents is depressing.

I know what you mean. I grew up in NC (land of Jesse Helms). I've nearly had a constant headache from doing :banghead: so much.

Keep fighting the good fight.

-Jewel

Just Another Infidel · 04-23-2003, 07:07 PM

Here's the "guts" of the reply I received from Senatoer Maria Cantwell (WA):

Quote:

As you know, on June 26, 2002, in a 2 to 1 decision, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the 1954 federal law violated the Constitution's requirement that there be a clear separation between churchand state.

On the day of the decision, I joined with 98 of my Senate colleagues and voted on the Senate floor for a resolution expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance. While the original Pledge stated "'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all," after millions of repetitions since 1954, the current wording of the Pledge is a widely accepted expression of our patriotic commitment to American democracy.
...
You will be pleased to know that on March 4, I joined with 93 of my Senate colleagues to pass another resolution expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance in response to the February 28 decision. I will continue to support our Pledge of Allegiance as the Supreme Court hears this matter.

RawData · 04-23-2003, 09:12 PM

And these are the people supposedly upholding the Constitution.
(I'm from that Murray state also).
I am disgusted. If stupid people could forget how to breathe, we would have no congress, president, or supreme court...

RD
:banghead:

ElectEngr · 04-24-2003, 08:01 AM

I don't understand something....(there's alot of things I really don't understand but...)

How did congress gain the authority to change the original Pledge to begin with. I mean, it would be like congress dictating a whole new chapter to "Gone with the Wind".

Later,
ElectEngr

04-22-2003, 07:10 PM	#1
James Hamlin Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: USA Posts: 155	Letter to my Congressman It hurts to read this forum. Almost to the point that I turn green and tear off my shirt. Anyway... Just thought I'd share one of my latest misadventures. I wrote my representative, David Dreier, about the House and the Senate's landslide votes supporting the Pledge of Allegiance in spite of the 9th circuit court's decision. As you probably guessed, I was showing disapproval of the Congress' actions. So, today I received a response. It seems that no one read my letter. They didn't even read enough of it to find what my opinion was. Here's a quote from the response: "Like you, I think many people have interpreted too broadly the First Ammendment's restriction against state establishment of religion.The First Amendment was written to guarantee religious freedom and neutrality, not descrimination."[emphasis mine] What the hell kind of response is that? First of all, they apparently just read the topic of my letter and assumed I agreed. Then they send me this ridiculous statement. Of course, having schoolchildren say that this is one nation "Under God" is perfectly neutral with respect to religion. Removing that phrase is obviously descriminatory against monotheists. Even though this guy is a conservative, I can't help but wonder what he is smoking.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-23-2003, 03:13 AM	#2
Jewel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Northern Virginia, USA Posts: 1,112	I'd reply to his form letter restating the points you made in your first letter. You may even want to explain (if your first letter didn't) what neutrality means or why taking the 'unger god' part out of the pledge is a neutral stance rather than a discriminatory one. Somehow I do not think 'neutrality' means what he thinks it means. In short make him aware that you do not agree with him. Quote some Jefferson. You may want to add a bit about the author of the original pledge, Francis Bellamy if you can still keep the letter short enough for your congressman's attention span.

04-23-2003, 06:04 AM	#3
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Yes, I got the same form letter from each of my senators. Identical.

04-23-2003, 09:12 PM	#9
RawData Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Puget Sound, WA, US Posts: 1,022	And these are the people supposedly upholding the Constitution. (I'm from that Murray state also). I am disgusted. If stupid people could forget how to breathe, we would have no congress, president, or supreme court... RD :banghead:

04-24-2003, 08:01 AM	#10
ElectEngr Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: ahhh, I've moved since then.... Posts: 1,729	I don't understand something....(there's alot of things I really don't understand but...) How did congress gain the authority to change the original Pledge to begin with. I mean, it would be like congress dictating a whole new chapter to "Gone with the Wind". Later, ElectEngr

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.