Bill Snedden

Rev. Matthews:

Your reasoning would be on point if the simple recitation of a heartfelt personal statement were the only issue in question. However, it is not.

The original language of the Pledge was officially recognized and sanctioned by the Congress in 1942. At that time, it became an official State oath and its prescribed language was recognized as such.

The issue at the heart of this debate is, despite the media's constant attempts to turn it into something else, the unconstitutional amendment of the Pledge that occurred in 1954, when the words "under god" were added. The addition was made for a clearly sectarian purpose and as such has no place in official documents or oaths of the United States, a constitutionally secular nation.

To suggest that some patriotic American citizens should simply ignore the official language and make up their own oath because the official one doesn't include them is patently offensive. It is clear from the Constitution that all offical State oaths and rituals should make every effort to include all Americans, not just some or most. The inclusion of the words "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance not only violated the Constitution, but it also actively excluded millions of Americans from fully participating in the official American oath of allegiance.

If you really believe that the Pledge should remain as it is currently, I'd like to hear at least one cogent legal or Constitutionally-based rationale why it should be so. Even with all the brouhaha raised about this in Congress I've yet to hear anyone attempt it.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

abe smith

I"d just like to point out that since the title "Reverend" has no LEGAL meaning, anyone [e.g. all of us here } can call themself "Reverend", and I suggest we start doing that. Or if you want to make it official, you can go to the "Universal Life Church" site on-line & get yourself ordained. Some of the titles are free; I believe you can become a Bishop-prick or a Cowardinal for the payment of a token fee. {But is that *simony*, tho?} I think we shd ALL be "reverend", or we shd stop calling Dave that. After all, Theology is the science the subject of wh/ is a human fiction. Ego sum the Reverend Abe Smith.

hezekiah jones

I had said:

"If [it] is really the case [that you support "religious freedom"] then, by definition, you should support a Pledge of Allegiance to the flag and the nation for which it stands that includes all Americans, not just those that believe in 'God.'"

You miss my point entirely. I'm not talking about polytheists or pantheists, although a polytheist certainly could have justifiably filed the same suit.

"Infringe" is not the sort of wishy washy term I had in mind. I have a much more forceful one: "Exclude."

Some patriotic Americans do not believe in "God." What exactly do we substitute for "God"? Or are we simply excluded from participating in the full recitation of the Pledge?

That is the question, "Reverend." At this point, it's a rhetorical one.

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

Darwin's Finch

Rev. Mathews, I second Bill's request. Let's have your legal analysis of this decision. Why was the majority decision incorrect? And please, keep your analysis on point; emotionalism and non sequiturs need not apply.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

britinusa

Of course, xians never indoctrinate their children, and never try to isolate their childrem from contact with atheism.
As others have already stated above, the OP contains so many fallacies its difficult to know where to start, so I'll just make a few observations.
Personally, I believe religious education should be compulsary in public schools. Let the kids study the bible. It will be a real eye-opener for them. RE is mandatory in UK schools, where atheism is much stronger. I've always said that if everyone read the bible this week, there would be millions more atheists/agnostics next week.
But to be fair, let the kids read Ingersoll, Sagan, Martin, Smith etc. I wonder how many xians would agree to this. I wonder how strong they think their religion is. I wonder how many would be prepared to risk such a scenario. We atheists would say "bring it on!"
The writer of this NY Times piece never once mentions the constitutionality (or lack) of "under god" in the pledge.
You people continue to miss the point. I wonder why?

Darwin's Finch

*Bumped* because I continue to await the good Reverend's cogent analysis of the Court's decision.

[ June 28, 2002: Message edited by: Darwin's Finch ]</p>

Spazmatic

Lots of us have gone after the fundies. I've gone after them in really popular boards and on a few shows... Won 'em all (thanks to the wonderful fact that we're right). We all need to pitch in, though, to make our voice heard... We are OUTNUMBERED, and without pressure, we will lose horribly without so much as making the noise to get heard.

Now, back to Mr. Matthews, and I would appreciate it if you actually read this this time and replied, seeing how you ignored my last post entirely...

Did you read my post at all? I believe I addressed that point, and if you still disagree, feel free to send your child to a class of 25 with 24 atheists and an atheist teacher and a little atheist ditty at the beginning of every day.

Only if you make JWs stop disfellowshipping people. And, in fact, make Christians in general start telling their kids some people don't believe in God! The point isn't that she won't know, because she will, but that she should not be indoctrinated in a place of education.

Diversity... The most over-used word, along with multiculturalism, in social science, ever. Diversity will ALWAYS exist, even more so if you try to stomp it out. We're not here to speak about diversity. It is freedom of exercise and freedom from government indoctrination that this is about.

Good. Then stop showing that you do.

So is Satan. Can we say under Satan? Would you send your children to a school that said that?

It will be overturned unless the Supreme Court gets it through its thick head that it's supposed to defend rights, not public opinion. The third branch is there for a reason, but people seem to have forgotten that.

You take the problem far too literally. The issue is simple. Teacher stating that the nation is under god. Student supposed to listen to teacher. Get the picture?

It's much worse with atheists and other free thinkers. People seem to have come to accept the cult that is the JWs, but not free thinkers. You really didn't read my post at all, did you?

Reverend Mykeru

abe smith

Fuck that. Go to the <a href="http://www.subgenius.com" target="_blank">Church of the SubGenius</a>, pay your $30 to "Bob" and become the kind of Reverend that fundies fear, or are just confused by, or don't understand. Same diff.

Remember: "Eternal Slavation or TRIPLE your money back". Let's see you get that kind of deal from Yahweh.

BTW, David Matthews is a cowardly pink-boy who seems completely unprepared to address the legal issues. He seems more comfortable with Paul Veitz (Atheism's Absent Father) type pseudo-social, pseudo-psychological pseudo analysis.

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

Typhon

Mr. Mathews,

Your efforts to disparage atheism as "yet another religion," which, for the untold time and for the benefit of yet another theist who either is naturally or purposefully being obtuse on the subject, is strictly a lack of belief in a god or gods, is a rather weak opener. To paraphrase one memorable poster to this forum: "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." Hopefully with that opening misunderstanding on your part, put aside, let's continue on with the more major problems with your unsupported claim.

Several points should be addressed, as you show that you either are unaware of the details and even the heart of the case, or else are being deliberately misleading.

One. In numerous interviews Dr. Newdow has stated that he believes in the constitutional right of the separation of church and state. He feels this is a patriotic and highly American value, nay duty, for which, regardless of religious beliefs, or in his case, lack of any such beliefs, all Americans should be eager to embrace and defend. He is in opposition to the unconstitutional 1954 addition of "under God" to the pledge of allegiance, and with good reason. The pledge was not intended to endorse the Christian religion, or any religion, especially not in a state enacted ritual drafted to express the patriotism of all Americans, not merely those who belong to a certain religious majority. To this end, he specifically stated that his daughter was a legal point around which to focus the challenge. He has been very clear about this. This is nothing unusual or new to the field of legal battles.

Two. Aside from the fact that the removal of the pledge's unconstitutional material is not primarily to "shield" his daughter from anything, he does find it understandably irksome and unacceptable that she should have to either recite this theist motto or else feel the considerable pressure of exclusion that children are especially subject to under such circumstances as at in school and before the assembled notice of their peers. Dr. Newdow, having no belief in god or gods has understandably no wish to have his young daughter exposed to this unconstitutional endorsement of a particular god at the hands of the state. He has good reason to distrust the constant and unrelenting barrage of pro-god propaganda and the constant attempts to indoctrinate and marginalize non-believers, that dominate our private and regrettably, public, spheres. It is often in our youth where belief is most firmly seated in at least its early formation, and subsequently, difficult to shake no matter how faulty or illogical those beliefs may be. It is doubtful that for example, many fervent Christians would be happy with the state having them say each day a pledge of allegiance that contained in it, "one nation under Allah." This would be especially true, if the prevailing cultural and religious majority in and outside of the school, both publicly and privately, were geared towards spreading and supporting Muslim beliefs and teachings. They I think, had they been part of an under-fire minority position, like Dr. Newdow, would have had more than justifiable concern over the situation.

Three. Despite these valid parental concerns noted above, as well as Dr. Newdow's honest assessment of the reasons for the suit, the fact remains that the 1954 Congressional modification of the previously non-religious pledge, into an illegal affirmation of the Christian faith (in their misguided efforts to fight off confusion with "godless commies," a fear born of McCarthyism), is clearly unconstitutional, as the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal so ruled. Dr. Newdow's reasoning for his suit is based primarily on this salient fact. If for example, the pledge of allegiance was mandatorily read each morning in the local post office or DMV office, with the customers present and asked to recite as well as the staff, rather than at school, it would still be much the same issue. Dr. Newdow would likely be the first to state that there would be no difference here, as regards to the legality of the challenge, merely that he would not have as nearly an emotional and high profile hook, such as defense of his child, however valid, for the media's attention to the issue. As it stands, it is the case, that Dr. Newdow's daughter is being unlawfully and regularly exposed to state led endorsement of religion, against Dr. Newdow's parental will and in violation of constitutional rights.

Four. Lastly, what Dr. Newdow's complaint is about, is the state led endorsement of religion in a public, taxpayer supported classroom. It is disingenuous in the extreme or else woefully naïve to think that both children and adults in this country are not daily exposed to the private and rabid propaganda of religion, atheists and theists alike. As an atheist and the future father of my own offspring, I can assure you that it is nearly impossible to avoid the constant references and prostelyzing of the religious majority in movies, advertisements, cartoons, political speeches, churches, magazines, books, daytime TV, and even the frequent invasion of my own home and property (or else person while in a public setting) by the foot soldiers of faith. Dr. Newdow is perfectly aware that these sources exist, and will always exist in counterpoint to his own beliefs, and which he has a right to raise his own daughter in, which in this case, just happen to be a lack of any belief in a god or gods. This suit is not an effort to "hide" his daughter away from religion. That would be impossible. It is however, an applaudable effort to keep the noisome endorsement of religion out of the hands of the state, where is has been constitutionally ruled to be disallowed.

Where pray tell, is the support for this outrageous and unsubstantiated claim? Your comments are completely without merit or basis as far as I can see, and are simply yet another attempt to turn a legal battle, into a war of religious propaganda. Considering that Christians of one stripe or another, hold the current majority in terms of religion in this nation, I am always amazed at their insecurity and strident caterwauling, when they lose even the smallest foothold in the public sphere.

The idea that Dr. Newdow is or could avoid contact with theism is pure bunk. That atheism is a "weak idea" is not only completely unsupported, but spurious as well. I am afraid you are 0 for 2 so far Mr. Mathews.

Atheism is indeed a minority viewpoint in America, although it is a growing one, along with many other diverse, non-Christian belief systems. It is in fact, one of the primary roles of a democratic government to protect the interests of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. This is exactly what in part, the long and bloody struggle of civil rights were about, the protection of minority groups from the oppression and unlawful tyranny of the white, mind you Christian, majority in the United States. Should blacks, women, Hispanics, and other minority groups have stayed meekly quiet over the injustices dealt to them, simply because racial prejudice was "alive and well in the United States?" Should we have dismissed their complaints, and continuing struggles, because they were and are "dependent upon the Courts to protect and isolate it (them) from any public contact" with bigotry, injustice, and hate?

I am afraid it seems only evident that you are either without basic understanding of the issue, or else are attacking what is a clear violation of the constitutional right of all citizens, for the lawful separation of church and state, out of misguide religious fervor. What exactly are you so afraid of here Mr. Mathews?

If any point has been proven here, it is indeed, that religion, at least the fundamentalist Christian sort that holds our nation in a political and private stranglehold, is so insecure and so fearful of non-belief, that it will go to any lengths, stoop to any depths, to prevent those who lack belief in its validity of having the same rights and privileges granted to them under the constitution of the United States. So fearful, that it views the loss of any ground in what many Christian-Americans see as a public battlefield for the armies of faith, as a virulent and willful attack upon religion itself. So fearful, that these wonderful theists have expressed their displeasure in death-threats, hate-filled speeches, rants by publicly elected officials to blackball and punish judges involved in the case, promises by our un-elected presidential usurper to place new judges who will support religion over secular rights, and in general a frenzied and fearful backlash against a non-Christian, non-theist minority.

This is exactly the kind of "moral outrage" and hate filled political and private posturing that we saw with the dawning of the civil rights era. I can only hope that fifty years from now, we will have seen a similar advance, and the dismantling of the unlawful and unseemly power of such hate and religious bigotry now holding court over the constitutional separation of church and state.

.T.

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

Autonemesis

You couldn't be more mistaken. Dr. Newdow has said many times that his daughter attends public school, and remains in the class when the pledge is recited. I recall that he said that she participates in reciting it, but refrains from repeating the gratuitous "under God" homily. He is fighting this on principle, his daughter's involvement extends no further than giving Dr. Newdow standing in order to sue.

Imagine that, he is fighting on principle, with little to gain personally. Some people might dare to characterize such a man as having "integrity" and "honesty". I am one of them.