3DChizl

Read the following. In my conversation with Ms. Capito, she was stunned at the question" In asking fo a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge and motto, aren't you admitting that it is unconstitutional?"
I urged her to "defend, not amend" the constitution.

She said she would think about it.

<a href="http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wv02_capito/pr072502pledgepc.html" target="_blank">http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/wv02_capito/pr072502pledgepc.html</a>
WASHINGTON?At a press conference today, Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) unveiled new legislation that calls for a constitutional amendment to protect the pledge of allegiance with its current language and the national motto, ?In God We Trust? printed on U.S. currency.

?The 9th Circuit Court ruling gives a clear indication that all public references to God are under attack. It?s time we provide strong protections to America?s foundation,? said Rep. Capito.

?God was a part of America?s blueprint that our founding forefathers created. We must protect that core foundation. It is a fundamental part of who we are as a nation,? said Rep. Capito.

Congresswoman Capito, an original co-sponsor of the bill, joined other original co-sponsors of the measure, including the bill?s author, Rep. Chip Pickering (R-MS) and representatives of other supportive organizations such as the American Family Association, the Traditional Values Coalition.

Also announced at the press conference, the launch of a new website, Wepledge.com, which allows viewers to sign a petition in support of the constitutional amendment. The site, sponsored by the American Family Association, is a drive to gather ten million signatures.

Rep. Pickering sent a letter to members of Congress, urging them to support the plan and sign onto the letter. Congresswoman Capito was one of the first members to sign the letter and become an original co-sponsor of the bill.

The letter states, ?Amending the Constitution is never taken lightly, nor should it be. Yet Congress can no longer sit idly while the courts rewrite our nation?s history and traditions.?

In June, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional and, therefore, could not be recited in public schools. Congresswoman Capito was quick to express outrage at the ruling, calling it ?utterly un-American.?

Autonemesis

Blah blah blah blah blah.... show me the money. Where is the text of this alleged amendment? Why are they hiding it?

Oh, here it is:

Just as I thought. They totally do not understand what part of the Constitution is construed to forbid recitation of the pledge by a government employee. It is not the 1st, it is the 14th. The proposed amendment will not accomplish what they desire.

I still think that whatever its form, it has a snowball's chance in Tvashtar Catena of being passed by 2/3 of the state legislatures.

Toto

But it is the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the 14th.

An amendment like that would sweep through the state legislatures like wildfire. You saw 99 Senators pandering to the "under God" vote, didn't you? Do you think there are state legislatures full of more courageous or more enlightened thinkers?

Even pro-separation senators are afraid of this. They would rather spend their political capital on a hard issue (like choice) than stir up the monster of the "under God" contingent.

RichardMorey

I think this is interesting. If it is passed, does this REALLY do what they want? The recitation of the Pledge in its current form is not prohibited now in any way.
With this wording, it is still open (I think) to the charge that state encouragement to say the pledge is unconstitutional under the first amendment.
But probably any court will throw that out, saying that it is absurd to say that encouraged recitation of a part of the constitution is unconstitutional.
They haven't dealt with the real reasoning behind the Newdow decision, and they will simply create, with this amendment, a Constitution that seems to contradict itself.

What they should do to make themselves impervious is to write up an amendment that says
"Government supported religious indoctrination shall not be construed to violate the first amendment. Neither shall the courts interpret the Constitution in ways that are different from the way the 107th Congress and 43rd President of the United States of America."

That should do it.

Zimyatin

Yeah, this amendment does nothing. It is not illegal to recite the pledge - where did they come up with that crap?! I know I'm preaching to the choir but the 9th circuit decision was about state-action religious coercion.

Even though I don't think this will do anything it still scares the bejebus out of me. Our Constitution has only be amended 27 times because of delibrate hurdles written into it by the framers. If this crap passes with ease then I fear that the door may be wide open for the religious wackies. If this is easy, why not re-write the 1st amendment? How 'bout a "Christian Nation" amendment? Only the IPU (PBUHHH) knows.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Zimyatin ]</p>

Defiant Heretic

I'd like to point out that the main reason Congress is so vehemently against the 9th's decision is because they think everyone else is. Although some of them may care, for the most part it's just vote pandering.

What we need to do is write our newspapers and congressmen. Mark out the words 'In God We Trust' on our money. Recite the pledge without saying 'under God'. Let the sycophants in Washington know that by kissing the ass of the religious right, they are alienating a large percentage of voters who still support a secular America.

CaptainDave

Defiant Heretic,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. We need to show our representatives that we are not a force to ignore. It is important to note that "we" includes a significant number of Christians who see the proposed amendment as the double-edged sword that it is.

Alonzo Fyfe

(1) As I pointed out in the thread "letters", writing letters to (federal) representatives is largely a waste of time. Federal legislators care about campaign contributions and votes. The focus must not be on the legislators, but on the people they represent. You must talk to the people and get the people to change their mind.

Else, even if you get this legislator to side with you, he will be voted out of office at the next opportunity and replaced with somebody else who will do what this one did not.

(2) Letters to the editor are better, but only as a part of a general program to persuade the people not to vote for a politician willing to vote for a politician who will seek to repeal the 1st Amendment.

If you attack religion in your letter, you are turning 80% of the population against you and guaranteeing enough votes to pass any amendment.

80% of your readers believe in some sort of God, so the best letter to write should be one about why a theist should not support this type of amendment.

(3) I think that crossing out "In God We Trust" from the money is a bad idea. Most people who see it will think of it as an attack on God -- an anti-religious statement. "Just as they cross God off of our money they are trying to cross God out of our lives."

If you want to do something to make a statement, make sure that you make a statement that people understand. Otherwise, you are making the job of getting this amendment passed that much easier for the opposition.

(4) Those sycophants in Washington know what they are doing. If given a choice between alienating 20% of the population or 80% of the population, they will go for the 20%. If you want them to change their mind, you need to help pull together a coalition of at least 51% who will endorse your side of this issue. If your "large percentage of the voters" is 50% or less, then you are telling those synchophants that they benefit more by supporting your opponents then they benefit by supporting you.

Summary:

So, the task is to do whatever you can to get 50% + 1 of the people standing opposed to such a change in the Constitution. You can only do this by talking to the people, putting your arguments in terms that they can understand, and basing the arguments on values that they share.

Almost all people share an interest in fairness. Almost all people share a dislike for the inquisition, crusades, as well as the religious violence of th 30 years war and English Revolution. They share a distaste for what the Taliban does against nonbelievers. These are things that can be used to put together the 50% + 1 coalition that will oppose these types of changes to the Constitution.

But we are not going to do anything unless we make our friends, our families, our co-workers, our neighbors, and whomever may listen aware of these concerns.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

CaptainDave

Alonzo, Your latest post is as thought provoking and logical as ever. I have some issues with it though. Here's my take on it:


I don't think you pointed out any such thing. You made a convincing case that writing to federal representatives is less effective than writing to local representatives. I agree. But writing to federal representatives is hardly a waste of time. As I pointed out on your "letters" thread, (and you concured) the AU website contains tools that make it ridiculously easy to fire off a form letter to federal reps. The letters may only be treated as a tally, but then so are votes in an election. Do you believe voting in a federal election is a waste of time?

I agree that 80% them vs. 20% us is pretty bad but not as bad as 100% them vs. 0% us. I think that was Defiant Heretect's main point. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I have faith that some of our federal reps will actually have the balls (or ovaries) to do what they were elected to do - represent ALL of us, not just those with a majority religious belief. But we have to let them know that we're here and that we care. The squeaky wheel get's the grease.

I agree that the FOCUS should be on the people. But to what end? Obviously, to influence the legislators! We can do that as individuals too. Both are important.

This should be obvious. Let us not be blinded by our own rage and frustration and fail to recognize this. There are a significant number of Christians and other religious types who support the separation of church and state. They recognize that the establishment of mono-theism is a step in the direction of establishing Christianity which is a step in the direction of establishing a specific sect of Christianity.

I think this one deserves a thread of it's own!

I don't think it's that simple. Believing in a cause and voting in accordance with that belief are two very different things. How many people vote with a single cause in mind? Perhaps it is more important to express your devotion to your cause - as you (Alonzo) so effectively did in your thread, "From My Dad."

Yeah brother! Whether we like it or not, we're at the begining of a cultural war. Let's not make enemies of those who are our allies.

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: CaptainDave ]</p>

Autonemesis

Then it would be the first measure of any kind that ever did that, to my knowledge. Though if you can name some other amendment that "swpet like wildfire" I'm all ears.

I think the likelihood of any constitutional amendment even getting sent to the states is very low. As several people pointed out, the less reactionary in Congress just want the issue to go away. I predict it stalls in comittee indefinitely.