RichardMorey

After reading about the experiences of those here, I figured I'd post my letter. I haven't gotten a response yet.

My letter:
----------------
Vote 'no' on a possible pledge amendment.

As I'm sure you are aware, the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance has met with much ire from many people. There is a Constitutional amendment in the works, and it has the support of many conservative organizations. Is this really a good idea?

No. If enacted, this would be the first mention of a god in the constitution. Not even in the Presidential oath of office is a god mentioned (This is added by Presidents). Surely, if the Founding Fathers had wanted an oath to a god, this would have been the place to put it; after all, the President is the chief executive. They did not, and for good reason.

The government of the United States of America, as affirmed by many Supreme Court decisions in the past, is a secular government. To encourage children to pledge their allegiance to a nation 'under God' is tantamount to encouraging them to pledge allegience to God. This is decidedly non-secular.

However, there is the claim that saying 'under God' is not religious, but patriotic. What I don't understand is why must it be either/or? To say 'one nation under God' is BOTH patriotic and religious. For many people, patriotism and religion are intertwined. The Senators who have used this argument have used a common logical fallacy called 'false dichotomy' to achieve their ends.

This being the case, it is inappropriate for government to assert itself in favor of a religious viewpoint (that this is one nation 'under god').

Contrary to what was stated by many Senators reacting to the news (I believe that Tom Daschle called the decision 'nuts'), an analysis of the decision shows that it is in line with precedent. Even Senate Republican Policy Committee argues forcefully for this view (see <a href="http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd070202.htm" target="_blank">http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/releases/1999/jd070202.htm</a>). The difference between Conservatives and Liberals is often that Conservatives see the cases supporting a wall between church and state as negative, while Liberals affirm that these support greater freedom of religion. I am of the latter view. The United States is the most religious democracy (for better or worse) and this is because of the separation of church and state, not in spite of it.

In summary, the Ninth Circuit Court decision both was rational and in line with precedent, and violates no one's right to say 'under God'. It merely gets the government out of the business of encouraging children to pledge their alligience to a nation 'under God'. Getting rid of 'under God' in the pledge affirms religious liberty, and any Constitutional Amendment to put it in permanantly undermines this religious liberty and is contrary to spirit of the first amendment. Vote 'no' on the pledge amendment, when it arrives.

Thank you for meeting us outside your office last week and for the picture. I look forward to seeing you in debates for the upcoming election.

-------------End letter

What do you think? Do you think it will make a difference?

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: RichardMorey ]</p>

snoiduspoitus

Here's what I sent to Paul Wellstone...

Dear Mr. Wellstone:

It was August 27, 1988, when George Bush declared: "I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation ‘under God’.”

And there you have it. With inclusion of the words ‘under God’ in 1954, it became acceptable, possibly even fashionable, to label atheists as unpatriotic. Strange then, that our politicians are falling all over themselves declaring that the Pledge of Allegiance is all about patriotism, and has nothing to do with religion.

I have supported you in the workplace and in the public for years. I can no longer do so, since you have fallen prey to the legacy of McCarthyism and have chosen, for political expediency, to trample on my right to see my child raised as I see fit without government interference.

I served my nation in the US Army, and am no less patriotic than any other American.

Will you agree with this statement of George W. Bush? “We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God, and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.” Well, hats off to the new litmus test imposed by our Monarch, despite Article VI of the US Constitution: “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any Office or public trust under the United States.”

Ostensibly, you’re in complete agreement with the President on this issue as well.

I am thankful that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, however briefly, has once again returned me to full citizenship despite the government's instruction and opinion concerning my belief in deities, and forcing them on my son and daughter in public school.

snoiduspoitus

And here's what I got back:

July 16, 2002

Mr. Richard A. Pommier
17284 Us 71
Long Prairie, MN 56347

Dear Mr. Pommier:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Pledge of Allegiance. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this matter.

On June 26, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals - which does not have jurisdiction over Minnesota - ruled in Newman v. U.S. Congress that the 1954 law that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance violates the First Amendment of thec onstitution. The next day, in immediate reaction to this ruling, the Senate unanimously passed S. 2690, legislation that reaffirms the 1954 language of the Pledge. That same day, the 9th Circuit Court blocked implementation of its own ruling in Newman. Thus, the ruling will not take effect in that circuit, if at all, until the case has been adjudicated on appeal.

I supported S. 2690 because I believe that the court's ruling was wrong. I do not believe that voluntary recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance
violates the First Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion. I understand the need for the federal courts to balance
carefully the establishment and free exercise clauses of the First Amendment, and I do not believe that the current pledge -- or appearances
of "In God We Trust" on our coinage, for example -- fails this important test.

However, I also believe that students who do not wish to recite the Pledge should not be forced to do so. You can be assured, therefore, that I
will continue to support strongly the Supreme Court's 1943 decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, in which the Court ruled that compulsory recitation of the Pledge is unconstitutional.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I hope you will keep me informed on matters that concern you.

Sincerely,


Paul David Wellstone
United States Senator

RichardMorey

Looks like a form letter to me.....

Buffman

Here is an issue about which I have heard/read nothing.

After carefully reviewing S 2690, and the 16 items used as the supporting basis/justification, I have to wonder just how many of these Senators read, or had their staffs read, those historical statements for accuracy or applicability. Based on my review of the history, my guess would be "None." (Naturally that makes one wonder exactly who it was that put that list together and got people to sign-on.)

Many of the historical statements in those 16 items are flat-out wrong, or at best, only half-truths. When a U.S. Senator bases his/her support for legislation on error and half-truths, it is my opinion that he/she forfeits the right to represent the public that elected him/her.

Obviously, given the rapidity with which 99 Senators signed on to S 2690, they did so for what they believed was political expediency. Wouldn't it be especially heartening to make all of them pay for placing politics before principle?
I would love to see their historical stupidity exposed in the national media. Unfortunately, the national media representatives either don't know history themselves or aren't interested in providing accurate reporting.

RichardMorey

Buffman, perhaps we could put together a point by point refutation of it?

<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107VcgpIG::" target="_blank">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107VcgpIG::</a>

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: RichardMorey ]</p>

Buffman

E-mail on the way. Thank you.

RichardMorey

I've read it over; you must have hunted for those quotes!

I think it needs an overhaul in the format - I'm converting it into HTML. I'll put the formatted version up when I get it done.

Toto

Now I feel guilty. Buffman sent me his research, but I haven't done anything with it. &lt;work, life, etc.&gt;

It appears that S 2690 was passed in a spasm of seeing which party could out-flag the other, and sent to the House Judiciary Committee, where it sits with no hearing scheduled. The House may actually have something better to do than pass a bill that will have absolutely no legal effect, (see their agenda <a href="http://www.house.gov/judiciary/" target="_blank">here</a>) especially since the Republicans have not been able to gain any mileage from it. If this is the case, the less said the better. But if this bill ever does come up again, we should be prepared.

Is there a sympathetic member here: <a href="http://www.house.gov/judiciary/members.htm" target="_blank">Members of the House Judiciary Committee</a>, who could have the research on hand?

Buffman

Toto

I rather suspect that it has gone here:

<a href="http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/committee.cgi?commcode=hjudiciary_constitution&sit e=congressmerge" target="_blank">http://www.congressmerge.com/onlinedb/cgi-bin/committee.cgi?commcode=hjudiciary_constitution&sit e=congressmerge</a>

Perhaps there might be members of the Minority that would enjoy having some potential ammunition in their possession.