Amazon

Hi, everyone.
In the Donohue thread I mentioned some points that I think are constantly being dodged or misrepresented by the anti-ruling folks. I thought maybe writing a letter to clarify those points would increase the chances that others would understand the ruling a little better.
I am about to send this to many papers, and i will also send bits and pieces of this separately, since the papers are more likely to print the smaller pieces. Here goes:

"As a person who supports the Ninth Circuit Court’s opinion, and thinks that the phrase “under God” should never have been added to the Pledge in the first place since it plainly endorses monotheism, I have read with interest the opinions from varied perspectives. However, there seems to be some confusion as to what the issues really are.

Here is a sampling of the common fallacies aimed at those who support the Pledge decision, along with the responses to try to clear up the misunderstandings:

1. "You are trying to eliminate religion from every part of public life."

A. No, just the publicly-FUNDED parts of public life. If the government pays for a program, a building, or an employee who makes laws or interacts with the public, it would not be appropriate for that program, building, or employee to appear to express an opinion on religion while representing the government. Neutrality for the common good.

2. "You want to keep all children from pledging allegiance to their country."

A. No, we just want the religious qualifier removed. The Pledge as written identifies the four enemies of the Republic as Atheism (under God), rebellion (Indivisible), tyranny (with Liberty), and injustice (and Justice for All). There can be no clearer example of a violation of the first Amendment – and no clearer message to school children - than for the government to define a view about God as one of the four great enemies of the Republic. Besides, if your family believes in a God, hopefully you acknowledge that God with your children at home, instead of expecting the school to do it for you.

3. “Because one person was offended by "under God" in the Pledge, the court ruled that all students should be banned from reciting it.”

A. No, the court ruled as it did because it found that certain state and federal actions violated the Establishment Clause, not because "one person was offended."

4. “If you don’t want to say ‘under God’, don’t say it.”

A. The patriotic oath that applies to all Americans should not have any phrase in it that does not apply specifically to patriotism. Patriotism and religion are two separate issues, and mingling them in an official oath is inappropriate. The Pledge, in its original form (without “under God”), includes all Americans. It would be more appropriate to ADD any content you wish to add, according to your religious beliefs.

5. "Majority rules."

A. Religion is not majority rule – it is personal, private, and not to be influenced by the government. The first amendment underscores that important point. Do these people actually think all non-Christians should have to endure Christian rituals because there are more of them than us?

6. "Tradition"

A. Actually, since many of the objectionable God in government situations have been created in the last 50 years, I would say that it's more like a disturbing fad. There was “under God” inserted into the Pledge, then “In God We Trust” on money, then the national motto was changed to “In God We trust”, and now we have “In God We Trust” in schools, proposed faith-based initiatives, etc. All in the last 50 years. It seems our Congress is losing sight of the lawful, as well as traditional, first amendment.

7. "You are infringing on our right to worship."

A. I would like to hear how ANYONE is denied his or her right to worship on their own time in this country, as long as the rituals do not harm others. Sure, Little Johnny is not allowed to stand up during math class to start a group prayer, but he's also not allowed to disrupt class to start telling stories from the latest Harry Potter book or today's baseball game. Likewise, Mr. or Ms. Teacher, being an authority figure, should not represent any religion while he or she is being paid by tax dollars. If you disagree, imagine an atheist, Wiccan, Pagan, or Satanist teacher who had the right to influence your child’s opinion on religion every day. Also, holding all innocent bystanders hostage to public prayers is rude and treads on the rights of others. Worship all you want, on your own time. It is your right.

8. "This country was founded on Christian principles, and our founding fathers were Christians."

A. Anyone who says this has not read the biographies of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, or James Madison.
In 1797 America made a treaty with Tripoli, declaring that "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.
The Ten Commandments were not the model for American law. The first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before Moses. If Americans honored the commandment against "coveting," free enterprise would collapse! It is no surprise that the Supreme Court has ruled that posting the Ten Commandments in public schools is unconstitutional.

9. “Referring to God in the Pledge is not necessarily religious. It’s ceremonial.”

A. Any mention of a worshipped deity in an official government oath or song is religious. Besides, if one has so little respect for a God as to believe in Him but insist that repeating His name doesn’t really mean anything, why worship or believe in Him at all?

10. "If you don't like it, you can leave the country."

A. This hatred and bigotry is the most horrifying and enlightening part of this whole issue. It proves that religions can breed intolerance and can feed on ignorance unless their followers learn to do their own research and think for themselves. It shows that they have nothing of substance to say on the real issues, and must resort to thinly-veiled threats and character assassination to make any point at all.

If, perhaps, people who object to the Pledge ruling would stick to the facts and educate themselves on this subject, we could have an open and honest debate."

So, what would you change, besides the length?

Freethinking Ferret

Perhaps you could address the "our founding fathers were xian" argument. Your founding fathers were also white, but that doesn't mean the pledge needs to reflect that... there's no way anyone would stand for "one WHITE nation". And so on. However, this would just add to the length...

Buffman

This was written under Washington's presidency, and approved by the Senate under John Adams.

This Treaty received unanimous approval of the Senate and full endorsement of Pres. John Adams.

Amazon

Buffman, are you sure?
I got my info from the FFRF.
I had better chase this fact myself to find out one way or the other.

mariemrm

Amazon:
I like it! It is a good format and you have answered, with clarity and without hyperbole, most, if not all, of the statements usually made by those who object to the ruling. This is something I have been looking for: talking points to go by when my conversation with others gets too immersed in emotion and deteriorates into a yelling match. Can I have your permission to copy parts of it for my own use?
Marie

Amazon

You absolutely have my permission, Marie.
I cannot claim intellectual property on this - it's a mish-mosh of what we all have been talking about in this forum since the decision happened. I just got tired of hearing the same fact-evading garbage from the anti-ruling folks, and I wanted to put the responses in a format that would not require them to try to figure out what I was referring to.

Thank you for your kind words. I sent this letter to several papers in the Chicago area yesterday and I would love it if this type of clarification would show up in papers all over the place.

Buffman

Amazon

Yes!

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tripoli1.htm</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston4.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/boston4.htm</a>

(Added)

I seriously doubt that G. Washington ever saw this Treaty. Note when and where it was officially signed. (There was no Concorde then.) The point is, don't try to tie it to Washington. some atheists back in the early 1950's attempted to do that and they were wrong.

[ July 18, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Amazon

Thanks for your help, Buffman.
I'll follow up.

szcax

Nice letter! Keep us posted on whether it reaches any papers - especially if some fundy zealot tries to bash it. It's always a laugh to see someone try to counteract logos by spouting ethos and pathos!