Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Viti · 06-26-2002, 04:46 PM

I believe we need to react just as strongly as the Christians. That all of our Senators are up in arms and already planning an amendment is unbelievable to me.

I am not a good writer, and maybe others aren't comfortable either. Would anyone be willing to write up something we can all use (or paraphrase or whatever) to send to our officials, newspapers, etc. Even if the Supreme Court rules against it, I think it is important for us to be heard. If anyone knows any liberal Christians who believe in church/state separation (yes they exist, I know several), they should be encouraged to speak out as well.

What do you all think?

Edited to add...anyone who has already composed a letter, it would be appreciated if you could post it here to help me and others out.

[ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

06-26-2002, 05:49 PM

Id agree to email my congressman and try everything I can do(admittedly not much, because of my age). Viva la revolution!

RufusAtticus · 06-26-2002, 06:17 PM

Form letters are fine. I send ACLU letters all the time to my congressman. He's a idiot. But at least he knows I'm here.

~~RvFvS~~

Viti · 06-26-2002, 06:26 PM

Hey Rufus...Mom and I both uses ACLU letters as well...in this case I need a form letter and ACLU aint got one that I know of.

Someone in this group has written up a masterpiece I just know it

SaguaroJen · 06-26-2002, 06:31 PM

I agree that a form type letter is not as effective but I, too, get ideas from the letters that others write.

Here's my spiel (note I chose to focus on my personal experience as a teacher and on the effect it has on children) ~

I'm writing to inform you that I'm in agreement with the decision of the 9th court which ruled that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional.

The issue is the specific phrase "under God" and it's constitutionality. Patriotism, an oath to the USA, moments of silence, etc. are *not* the problem; this is about freedom of religion. Changing the Pledge back to the pre-1954 version is the obvious solution.

The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. As an elementary school teacher, I witness how the Pledge ostracizes the students who can't ~ for whatever reason ~ participate. It is only theoretical that a student can choose not to participate in the oath because such action is essentially a protest. Children should not be put in a position where they have to refuse to participate in a daily classroom activity. Despite the best efforts of most teachers, students who do choose not to participate are often shunned. In a real classroom, there is no good way to handle the situation. The teacher says, "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" and a five year old is expected to refuse in front of classmates? Or an eight year old to voice philosophical concerns? Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, atheists and others may wish to pledge their allegiance but are thwarted by the added McCarthyistic knee-jerk phrase.

Thank you,
***************

I wrote to CNN, my Senators, and my local news (because they were unclear in their report). One of the key phrases *I* think needs included is that children must either participate or protest.

Jen

Jamie_L · 06-26-2002, 06:35 PM

Well, LadyShea has cast down the gauntlet. Fancying myself a bit of the poet, I can't help but give it a go:

"The founding fathers of our country cherished liberty. They knew that democracy, in its purest form, was but one step removed from mob rule. So they framed their Constitution with one guiding premise - the government must be limited in its powers, and the citizens must resverve all other rights. These rights are what protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These rights are what make the United States unique among nations.

The Bill of Rights laid out the ten most fundamental rights that the framers held dear. And first among those rights was freedom of religion. The framers of the Constitution knew that church and state melded together was a sure recipe for despotism and opression. We have seen this to be true even today. And just as the church can corrupt the government, so too can the government corrupt the church. Both flourish freely when separate, but whither into choking weeds when joined. The wall between church and state should not be trampled on lightly.

"One nation, under God," may seem innocuous to the Christian majority in this country. It may even be a part of our history, and culture. But when presented daily to a captive audience of children by a government institution, it respects an establishment of religion. Quite simply, this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.

The Pledge of Allegiance did not begin with a reference to God. It was intended purely as a patriotic statement - one that united all Americans with a vision of an "indivisable" nation. If the words "under God" drive a wedge between parts of our great land, then it does a disservice to the pledge, no matter how large the majority on one side may be. The Pledge was intended to unite us all, not just those in the majority.

In 1953, "under God" was added as a statement against Soviet Communism. It was intended to contrast the freedom Americans had to proclaim faith in God against the state-enforced atheism of the Soviet Union. Today, however, it makes some Americans feel like they are not free to express a faith or lack of faith that differs from that of the majority in power. Now the phrase creates the very problem it was intended to attack. We must not dishonor the good intentions of those who added the phrase "under God" to the pledge by allowing it to quash the very freedom of religion it was intended to celebrate.

Those of us who support the ruling of the 9th District Court of Appeals take our citizenship in the country seriously. We value the ideals laid out in the Constitution, and want to see them upheld. The rights of the Citizens of this great land must never be infringed. If we allow the rights of the few to be cast aside, we imperil us all."

Sincerely,

Jamie

ksagnostic · 06-26-2002, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jamie_L:
<strong>Well, LadyShea has cast down the gauntlet. Fancying myself a bit of the poet, I can't help but give it a go:

"The founding fathers of our country cherished liberty. They knew that democracy, in its purest form, was but one step removed from mob rule. So they framed their Constitution with one guiding premise - the government must be limited in its powers, and the citizens must resverve all other rights. These rights are what protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These rights are what make the United States unique among nations.

The Bill of Rights laid out the ten most fundamental rights that the framers held dear. And first among those rights was freedom of religion. The framers of the Constitution knew that church and state melded together was a sure recipe for despotism and opression. We have seen this to be true even today. And just as the church can corrupt the government, so too can the government corrupt the church. Both flourish freely when separate, but whither into choking weeds when joined. The wall between church and state should not be trampled on lightly.

"One nation, under God," may seem innocuous to the Christian majority in this country. It may even be a part of our history, and culture. But when presented daily to a captive audience of children by a government institution, it respects an establishment of religion. Quite simply, this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment.

The Pledge of Allegiance did not begin with a reference to God. It was intended purely as a patriotic statement - one that united all Americans with a vision of an "indivisable" nation. If the words "under God" drive a wedge between parts of our great land, then it does a disservice to the pledge, no matter how large the majority on one side may be. The Pledge was intended to unite us all, not just those in the majority.

In 1953, "under God" was added as a statement against Soviet Communism. It was intended to contrast the freedom Americans had to proclaim faith in God against the state-enforced atheism of the Soviet Union. Today, however, it makes some Americans feel like they are not free to express a faith or lack of faith that differs from that of the majority in power. Now the phrase creates the very problem it was intended to attack. We must not dishonor the good intentions of those who added the phrase "under God" to the pledge by allowing it to quash the very freedom of religion it was intended to celebrate.

Those of us who support the ruling of the 9th District Court of Appeals take our citizenship in the country seriously. We value the ideals laid out in the Constitution, and want to see them upheld. The rights of the Citizens of this great land must never be infringed. If we allow the rights of the few to be cast aside, we imperil us all."

Sincerely,

Jamie</strong>

THAT was well done, particularly your characterization of the reason why "Under God" was included in the first place, and why it is counterproductive now. THIS is the kind of commentary we will need to be producing.

Viti · 06-26-2002, 07:14 PM

Good ones guys! May I use ideas from your letters?

d'naturalist · 06-26-2002, 09:52 PM

This isn't so much a letter as a post I started writing in the mega-thread on this subject. Then I thought some of the ideas might be more useful here.

------------------

I've been pacing back and forth most of the day, trying to figure out the best way to explain why I agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. I've listened to pundit after pundit on TV news/talk shows telling me that no one is forcing me to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so I should let things be. Finally, it hit me...

I'm a 7th generation American! I WANT to pledge allegiance to my flag and my country!!! I'M NOT ALLOWED TO!!!

I am told by my government that in order to express my patriotism, I must surrender my first amendment right to freely hold my own personal beliefs. In order to pledge allegiance to my flag and my country, I must pay hommage to an alleged deity and the religions that worship it, whether I believe in them or not!

Every day in this country, over 32 million Americans are denied the right to be both proud Americans and freely nonreligious, secular, atheistic, agnostic, buddhist, taoist, hindu, wiccan, pagan, humanist, or practice their NATIVE American or Hawaiian beliefs. What's worse, the government feels it is acceptable to create a hostile school environment for the children of those 32 million Americans.

It needs to be noted that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't say pledging allegiance to our flag was unconstitutional, it said that those two words -- added 62 years after the Pledge was originally written -- denied a significant minority of American citizens the right to make that pledge freely, without being coerced into surrendering their first amendment right to their own personal beliefs.

As I said earlier, I'm a 7th generation American, and I love this country. I'm proud of it's diversity and the courage with which that diverse society lives and plays and works and laughs and cries and stands together. After 9/11, I bore the pain of being made to feel like an unwelcomed guest in my own homeland, because I knew my extended family -- my country -- needed all the "God Bless Americas" and religious fervor to feel safe and whole again. I didn't complain because I care about this wild collection of people and respect their right to freely hold, practice, and express their own personal beliefs. It breaks my heart to realize that in their eyes I don't deserve that same right.

Sorry if I got a little melodramatic writing this, but it's late and I'm a bit emotionally drained. It's been a rollercoaster of a day.

Happy tidings, my friends... may we all live to see a better tomorrow.

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: d'Naturalist ]</p>

Arrowman · 06-26-2002, 10:41 PM

As a long time writer of letters to the editor, may I offer some cross-Pacific advice.

Jamie_L and d'Naturalist have bother offered excellent letters, although of course both may need to be modified and trimmed for particular audiences. No point in writing a 400-word letter to a newspaper that won't publish anything over 300 - or worse, edit at their whim.

Main thing - keep the language moderate and reasoned. Avoid terms like "crazy collection of people" and "knee-jerk reaction" (which I saw somewhere). Avoid anything even remotely pejorative or disrespectful of you opponents, no matter how strongly you feel. Do not give them any opportunity to criticise you on anything other than the issue at hand.

This is the time to make a difference, not make a point.

Avoid, if possible, saying things which identify yours as an "Atheist position". Don't identify yourself as an atheist if it's not directly germane to your letter. Is that "hiding" or "not being true"? No. It is simply not letting the opposition to seize on a side issue and use ad hominem attack to hide from the real issue.

Don't forget that the majority of your readers will be Christians, and very likely the majority of them will not have a good understanding of the real nature of atheism. Talk to them in your letter; don't "preach to the choir".

<end of lecture>
Good luck, guys!

06-26-2002, 04:46 PM	#1
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Email/letter campaign in support of 9th circuit I believe we need to react just as strongly as the Christians. That all of our Senators are up in arms and already planning an amendment is unbelievable to me. I am not a good writer, and maybe others aren't comfortable either. Would anyone be willing to write up something we can all use (or paraphrase or whatever) to send to our officials, newspapers, etc. Even if the Supreme Court rules against it, I think it is important for us to be heard. If anyone knows any liberal Christians who believe in church/state separation (yes they exist, I know several), they should be encouraged to speak out as well. What do you all think? Edited to add...anyone who has already composed a letter, it would be appreciated if you could post it here to help me and others out. [ June 26, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

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

06-26-2002, 05:49 PM	#2
himynameisPwn Guest Posts: n/a	Id agree to email my congressman and try everything I can do(admittedly not much, because of my age). Viva la revolution!

06-26-2002, 06:17 PM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Form letters are fine. I send ACLU letters all the time to my congressman. He's a idiot. But at least he knows I'm here. ~~RvFvS~~

06-26-2002, 06:26 PM	#4
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Hey Rufus...Mom and I both uses ACLU letters as well...in this case I need a form letter and ACLU aint got one that I know of. Someone in this group has written up a masterpiece I just know it

06-26-2002, 06:31 PM	#5
SaguaroJen Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Arizona Posts: 646	I agree that a form type letter is not as effective but I, too, get ideas from the letters that others write. Here's my spiel (note I chose to focus on my personal experience as a teacher and on the effect it has on children) ~ I'm writing to inform you that I'm in agreement with the decision of the 9th court which ruled that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional. The issue is the specific phrase "under God" and it's constitutionality. Patriotism, an oath to the USA, moments of silence, etc. are not the problem; this is about freedom of religion. Changing the Pledge back to the pre-1954 version is the obvious solution. The phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. As an elementary school teacher, I witness how the Pledge ostracizes the students who can't ~ for whatever reason ~ participate. It is only theoretical that a student can choose not to participate in the oath because such action is essentially a protest. Children should not be put in a position where they have to refuse to participate in a daily classroom activity. Despite the best efforts of most teachers, students who do choose not to participate are often shunned. In a real classroom, there is no good way to handle the situation. The teacher says, "Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance" and a five year old is expected to refuse in front of classmates? Or an eight year old to voice philosophical concerns? Buddhists, Taoists, Wiccans, atheists and others may wish to pledge their allegiance but are thwarted by the added McCarthyistic knee-jerk phrase. Thank you, *************** I wrote to CNN, my Senators, and my local news (because they were unclear in their report). One of the key phrases I think needs included is that children must either participate or protest. Jen

06-26-2002, 06:35 PM	#6
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	Well, LadyShea has cast down the gauntlet. Fancying myself a bit of the poet, I can't help but give it a go: "The founding fathers of our country cherished liberty. They knew that democracy, in its purest form, was but one step removed from mob rule. So they framed their Constitution with one guiding premise - the government must be limited in its powers, and the citizens must resverve all other rights. These rights are what protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. These rights are what make the United States unique among nations. The Bill of Rights laid out the ten most fundamental rights that the framers held dear. And first among those rights was freedom of religion. The framers of the Constitution knew that church and state melded together was a sure recipe for despotism and opression. We have seen this to be true even today. And just as the church can corrupt the government, so too can the government corrupt the church. Both flourish freely when separate, but whither into choking weeds when joined. The wall between church and state should not be trampled on lightly. "One nation, under God," may seem innocuous to the Christian majority in this country. It may even be a part of our history, and culture. But when presented daily to a captive audience of children by a government institution, it respects an establishment of religion. Quite simply, this violates the letter and spirit of the First Amendment. The Pledge of Allegiance did not begin with a reference to God. It was intended purely as a patriotic statement - one that united all Americans with a vision of an "indivisable" nation. If the words "under God" drive a wedge between parts of our great land, then it does a disservice to the pledge, no matter how large the majority on one side may be. The Pledge was intended to unite us all, not just those in the majority. In 1953, "under God" was added as a statement against Soviet Communism. It was intended to contrast the freedom Americans had to proclaim faith in God against the state-enforced atheism of the Soviet Union. Today, however, it makes some Americans feel like they are not free to express a faith or lack of faith that differs from that of the majority in power. Now the phrase creates the very problem it was intended to attack. We must not dishonor the good intentions of those who added the phrase "under God" to the pledge by allowing it to quash the very freedom of religion it was intended to celebrate. Those of us who support the ruling of the 9th District Court of Appeals take our citizenship in the country seriously. We value the ideals laid out in the Constitution, and want to see them upheld. The rights of the Citizens of this great land must never be infringed. If we allow the rights of the few to be cast aside, we imperil us all." Sincerely, Jamie

06-26-2002, 07:14 PM	#8
Viti Contributor Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Down South Posts: 12,879	Good ones guys! May I use ideas from your letters?

06-26-2002, 09:52 PM	#9
d'naturalist Regular Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: USA Posts: 245	This isn't so much a letter as a post I started writing in the mega-thread on this subject. Then I thought some of the ideas might be more useful here. ------------------ I've been pacing back and forth most of the day, trying to figure out the best way to explain why I agree with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling. I've listened to pundit after pundit on TV news/talk shows telling me that no one is forcing me to say the Pledge of Allegiance, so I should let things be. Finally, it hit me... I'm a 7th generation American! I WANT to pledge allegiance to my flag and my country!!! I'M NOT ALLOWED TO!!! I am told by my government that in order to express my patriotism, I must surrender my first amendment right to freely hold my own personal beliefs. In order to pledge allegiance to my flag and my country, I must pay hommage to an alleged deity and the religions that worship it, whether I believe in them or not! Every day in this country, over 32 million Americans are denied the right to be both proud Americans and freely nonreligious, secular, atheistic, agnostic, buddhist, taoist, hindu, wiccan, pagan, humanist, or practice their NATIVE American or Hawaiian beliefs. What's worse, the government feels it is acceptable to create a hostile school environment for the children of those 32 million Americans. It needs to be noted that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't say pledging allegiance to our flag was unconstitutional, it said that those two words -- added 62 years after the Pledge was originally written -- denied a significant minority of American citizens the right to make that pledge freely, without being coerced into surrendering their first amendment right to their own personal beliefs. As I said earlier, I'm a 7th generation American, and I love this country. I'm proud of it's diversity and the courage with which that diverse society lives and plays and works and laughs and cries and stands together. After 9/11, I bore the pain of being made to feel like an unwelcomed guest in my own homeland, because I knew my extended family -- my country -- needed all the "God Bless Americas" and religious fervor to feel safe and whole again. I didn't complain because I care about this wild collection of people and respect their right to freely hold, practice, and express their own personal beliefs. It breaks my heart to realize that in their eyes I don't deserve that same right. Sorry if I got a little melodramatic writing this, but it's late and I'm a bit emotionally drained. It's been a rollercoaster of a day. Happy tidings, my friends... may we all live to see a better tomorrow. [ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: d'Naturalist ]</p>

06-26-2002, 10:41 PM	#10
Arrowman Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Adelaide, South Australia Posts: 1,358	As a long time writer of letters to the editor, may I offer some cross-Pacific advice. Jamie_L and d'Naturalist have bother offered excellent letters, although of course both may need to be modified and trimmed for particular audiences. No point in writing a 400-word letter to a newspaper that won't publish anything over 300 - or worse, edit at their whim. Main thing - keep the language moderate and reasoned. Avoid terms like "crazy collection of people" and "knee-jerk reaction" (which I saw somewhere). Avoid anything even remotely pejorative or disrespectful of you opponents, no matter how strongly you feel. Do not give them any opportunity to criticise you on anything other than the issue at hand. This is the time to make a difference, not make a point. Avoid, if possible, saying things which identify yours as an "Atheist position". Don't identify yourself as an atheist if it's not directly germane to your letter. Is that "hiding" or "not being true"? No. It is simply not letting the opposition to seize on a side issue and use ad hominem attack to hide from the real issue. Don't forget that the majority of your readers will be Christians, and very likely the majority of them will not have a good understanding of the real nature of atheism. Talk to them in your letter; don't "preach to the choir". <end of lecture> Good luck, guys!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.