RufusAtticus

Here is the one I sent to my local paper:

I would like to pledge my support for the recent US 9th Court of Appeals decision that the 1954 version of the Pledge of Allegiance violates the constitutional prohibition against the establishment of religion (Newdow v. US Congress). The Pledge plainly and obviously promotes a religious message, as demonstrated by both the 1954 law and the public outrage that this decision has created. This was not always the case. Originally the pledge stood for patriotism, but that was not enough for ‘50s era McCarthyism. It was modified in 1954 to include the words “under God.” Our government wanted to sponsor the misguided belief that one must believe in God to be a patriot. This of course is against everything out country stands for and is an affront to our non-believing veterans. (Yes, Virigina, there are foxhole atheists.) If the constitution clearly prohibits religious tests for office (Article VI), why do we have this religious test of patriotism?

Election-year politicians and close-minded members of the public would like to make this out as an assault on American values, but they do not realize that there is no freedom of religion without freedom from religion. The real assault comes from those who seek to abolish the plurality and secularity valued by our founding fathers. Because of them, not the non-believers, government-sponsorship of the Pledge has been ruled unconstitutional. “[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” (Treaty of Tripoli, 1796-97).

I support the rights of all Americans, and I hope you will too. Once again we are “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Today is a good day to be an American.

Godless Dave

From a friend of mine in Seattle to one of Washington's senators:

Viti

See final version below

[ June 27, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

Spazmatic

I sent my 4 letters (senators, rep, prez) out about an hour after the senate went berserk. I'm hoping there'll be some sort of impact... Anyways, best of luck, and, remember... We probably can't win this one, but it's a chance for some media coverage. Don't underestimate defending the ruling on talkshows and so forth.

Viti

Here is my final version, signed sealed and delivered to the newspaper and my congresspeople

wordsmyth

ok, I plagiarized shamelessly from a couple of you, but here is what I came up with...

The recent ruling of the 9th Circuit Court on the un-Constitutionality of the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance has caused quite a furor with those who oppose the decision. I fully support the Court’s ruling and I’m appalled at the apparent intolerance of equal rights and liberties for some American’s religious beliefs as exhibited by the media and our own government officials.

Lets start with a brief history of the Pledge of Allegiance.

Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. The original Pledge read as follows: ‘I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’ He considered placing the word, ‘equality,’ in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [* ‘to’ was added in October, 1892]

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the leadership of ‘The American Legion’ and ‘The Daughters of the American Revolution’, changed the words, ‘my Flag’, to ‘the Flag of the United States of America.’ Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, ‘under God,’ to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer. This addition was meant to be a testimony to the United States first amendment right to freedom of religion and a condemnation of Communisms lack of religious freedom during the Cold War.

The phrase ‘under God,’ poses two important problems, however.

First, it violates the Establishment Clause, which states ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ These opening words of the First Amendment to the Constitution set forth a dual guarantee of religious liberty. Both the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause operate to protect the religious liberty and freedom of conscience of all Americans.

Secondly, the phrase ‘under God’ excludes over 35 million Americans that have non-Judeo/Christian beliefs or are simply non-religious (e.g. Atheist, Agnostic, et al.). This creates a conflict between the phrases ‘one nation under God,’ and ‘indivisible,’. It insinuates a division based solely on religious belief and implies that only those who hold a specific belief are a part of the indivisible nation.

Since the 9th Circuit Court ruling, many Christians, the media, certain members of Congress, and even the White House have openly stated that the ruling is ‘un-American’ and those who support it are ‘un-patriotic’. To this I reply that freedom of religion exists to protect the religious beliefs of all Americans whether they are Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.; and for those without any religious belief freedom of religion also means freedom from religion. Our founding fathers considered freedom of religion so fundamentally important they made it the First Amendment to the Constitution and even included the Establishment Clause to ensure a definite separation between Church and State, so I believe upholding its intent is both very American and very Patriotic.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: wordsmyth ]</p>