Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sowthistle · 07-22-2002, 11:40 AM

Since a lot of other people have been posting their Congressmen's replies, I thought I'd share what Mark Udall (D-Colo 2nd CD) wrote to me today. Perhaps he's had time to cool down, but this seems to me a reasonable and constructive reply to an issue which has made a lot of people very self-righteous and angry.

I am particularly impressive by this statement:

Quote:

I think
it is not a good idea for the Congress to attempt to define what
constitutes a religious practice or a prayer.

Here's the full text of his letter:

Quote:

<strong>
Thank you for letting me know you approve of the decision of the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals about reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag. I appreciate your taking the time to get in touch.

On June 27th, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 416 to 3, adopted
a resolution calling for the decision to be reconsidered. I voted for the
resolution because I favor reconsideration. I am not a lawyer, and I am
not prepared to conclude that its author - a long-serving judge originally
appointed by President Nixon - was clearly wrong as a matter of law.
However, it is my understanding that another appeals court, in a similar
case, has ruled differently. So, the issue does need to be resolved.

I am proud to recite the pledge because I personally think that, as the
resolution states, it "is not a prayer or a religious practice" and
its
recitation "is not a religious exercise" but instead "the verbal
expression of support for the United States of America." However, I think
it is not a good idea for the Congress to attempt to define what
constitutes a religious practice or a prayer. So, I am uncomfortable with
the parts of the resolution dealing with those points. The resolution is
only an expression of opinion, of course, but still I would have preferred
if those clauses had been omitted. On the other hand, I definitely agree
with the resolution's statement that "the United States Congress
recognizes the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in
the Pledge to refrain from its recitation."

Thanks again for contacting me. I see my job as being about more than
supporting or opposing legislation. I also see it as a chance to try to
bridge ideological divides and to bring people together to solve problems.
So, I welcome your letters and e-mails and always listen closely to what
you and other Coloradans have to say about the concerns of our communities
and the issues facing our state and nation.

Warm Regards,

Rep. Mark Udall
Member of Congress
</strong>

What that means he will do in the end is uncertain, but at least he seems to acknowledge that there are complexities to the issue.

ST

Philosoft · 07-22-2002, 12:25 PM

This is the most reasoned reply I have seen yet, but I am still disturbed by our lawmakers' insistence that the best way to deal with disagreement is to have an exclusive pledge and let non-monotheists opt out rather than have an inclusive pledge and let those who wish to individually add something do so.

Bokonon · 07-22-2002, 01:17 PM

That almost didn't sound like a boilerplate... almost. You're right, that was the best to date.

Grumpy · 07-22-2002, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
[Q]...I am still disturbed by our lawmakers' insistence that the best way to deal with disagreement is to have an exclusive pledge and let non-monotheists opt out rather than have an inclusive pledge and let those who wish to individually add something do so.[/Q]

...Like the Knights of Columbus were doing for years before they foisted their private version of the Pledge on everyone else. Did it bother the K-of-C in the pre "under God" years that they were somehow not saying the correct pledge? Is that why they insisted on the change?

You're right, that is a good point -- one that should really be hammered more often.

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

07-22-2002, 12:25 PM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	This is the most reasoned reply I have seen yet, but I am still disturbed by our lawmakers' insistence that the best way to deal with disagreement is to have an exclusive pledge and let non-monotheists opt out rather than have an inclusive pledge and let those who wish to individually add something do so.

07-22-2002, 01:17 PM	#3
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	That almost didn't sound like a boilerplate... almost. You're right, that was the best to date.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.