atheistdave

I didn't expect any better, but at least he did reply to the note I sent asking that "under god" be kept out of the pledge.

Dave

" Thank you for contacting me regarding the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals decision that the Pledge of Allegiance, as long as it includes
the phrase "under God," is unconstitutional.

On June 26, 2002, The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the policy of voluntarily reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in California public school classrooms constituted an improper
endorsement of religion due to the words "under God." The court has placed a stay on their own ruling. No changes will be made to the Pledge, or the way it is recited in California Public Schools unless the stay is lifted.


I feel that the court's decision represents the triumph of legal hair splitting over common sense and should be reversed. My disappointment with this verdict prompted me to cosponsor Senate
Resolution 292. This resolution expressed the Senate's strong dissapproval of the Ninth Circuit decision and was unanimously approved. In addition to this resolution, the Senate voted unanimously to recodify the section of the United States code relating to the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase "under God".

Again, thank you for contacting me. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as the Senate continues to discussion regarding the Pledge. I appreciate your thoughts and I hope that you will continue to keep me informed of the issues that are important to you.

Best wishes,

Evan Bayh
United States Senator

EB/jdd

Sincerely,

Evan Bayh"

Stephen Maturin

As canned letters go, this one isn't bad. Its description of the Ninth Circuit's holding is incomplete, but accurate as far as it goes. Better than that, at least from the standpoint of Bayh's staff, it's a one-size-fits-all letter. Thus, staffers don't have to worry about embarassing blunders like sending the "con" response to a "pro" constituent.

Even so, the senator's reasons for disagreeing with the court are as maddening as ever. "Legal hair splitting" my narrow, lilywhite ass! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

simian

What troubles me the most is that the "legal hair splitting" phrase will be used up to exactly the point where his personal religion is excluded. Some days I am hopeful that people will see that promoting generic christianity (or generic "religion") can and frequently does grow into promoting a specific denomination (Thank you, Mr. Madison for pointing this out more than 200 years ago). I doubt (assuming he is not Catholic) he would appreciate "one nation under God, as recognized through the guidance of his holiness the pope". If "god" can be pushed in there because most Americans are Christians, why not the pope because the largest denomination in the US is Catholic? Should Maryland have statues of the virgin mary with the "hail mary" prayer inscribed under it - if the 10 Commandments are part of "our cultural history," then the virgin mary is part of the "cultural history" of MD. Enough of my ranting for now.

Simian

Shadowy Man

How will he "keep your thougts in mind" if he hasn't even read your letter?

butswana

He looks like such a nice young man. Too bad he's a spineless pussy. A Democrat in Indiana, who would have thought? They say he might be President one day.

atheistdave

This definitely changed my opinion of him. I may have to start voting something other than the big two.

Dave

Buffman

I have found S.R. 292/S 2690 to be a historically flawed, and perhaps even intentionally designed, piece of fundamentalist Christian propaganda. It is so filled with error, that I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with it. The fact that 99 U.S. Senators signed on so quickly is one of the saddest examples of historical ignorance I have ever observed from elected members of America's highest "so-called" delibrative body. I would fire any office staff member that allowed me to sign it without question or correction. It is flawed legislation. Those responsible for its production and passage should be kicked out of office...every last one of them. (Yes! I am disgusted with the lack of ethical and moral principles demonstrated by our Congress and Administration. Being unaware of the errors is no excuse for those being paid by the public to produce the most constitutionally accurate and beneficial legislation for our country...regardless of the well known political machinations that have become the norm rather than the exception.)

Grumpy

Reasons? I didn't see any reasons. He was disappointed and thinks it should be reversed. But the letter doesn't say why.

Then again, that's standard political speech. Restate the question, provide excessive background, and end your statement with an obvious fact ("I'm agin' it") without illuminating why. That way, people will think you have talked for so long that you must have answered the question, when in fact you had barely begun.