Philosoft

I sent my erstwhile Senator a modest letter by email, basically imploring him to make sure his judgement is consistent with the Constitution. This is what I received:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals'
ruling declaring the Pledge of Allegiance an unconstitutional endorsement
of religion. I share your anger about this decision.

The Ninth Circuit's decision is one of the most twisted rulings I have
ever seen. This ruling should be overturned - even if it requires
amending the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence leaves no
doubt about the attitude of our founding fathers with regard to divine
providence. The author's of the Declaration wrote, "We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are
life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Immediately following the
ruling, the Senate voted 99-0 to pass a resolution condemning the Ninth
Circuit's decision.

Yes, clearly he "shares my anger."
Well, this appears to me to be a form letter in response to anything received with the words "9th Circuit" or "pledge" or "under God." Obviously the good Senator didn't read what I wrote. So a big, fat strikeout for me. Anybody got any good news on the political front?

Secular Elation

This proves that they are sending auto replies.

Krieger

The same thing happened to Pompous Bastard!

Except he said he was going to take it to the papers or something.

Grumpy

Ahem. Did I just hear someone admit that the 9th Circuit correctly found "Under God" to be unconstitutional?

Because the constitution wouldn't need amending if "Under God" were already permissible.

One of the last sane

I would be tempted to write back "Thank you for demonstrating your illiteracy".
What an insult, to send you a letter that shows he didn't even read yours.

crazyfingers

I've sent a letter to my two senators. If I get something like that in return someone at their office would at least get a call from me.

Philosoft

I think a phone call is not out of the question. A follow-up letter would apparently do little good. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

The Other Michael

I just got a similar email reply from Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA).

I took her to task over her anti-9th Circuit actions, and her letter says she agrees with me that the ruling was wrong.

I feel sooooo listened to.

yuck,
Michael

The Other Michael

I just got off the phone with Senator DiFi's staff. I let them know that I didn't appreciate getting the wrong "yes we agree with you that the decision was 'orrible" form reply, and that I thought it showed a lack of professionalism when they can't send me the "we appreciate your thoughts, be we disagree" form letter.

Clowns.

Michael
(who is having trouble with typos because my hands seem to be shaking with rage for some reason)

4th Generation Atheist

Quite true. The more we use the Constitution to demonstrate that atheists have citizenship and humanity the closer they get to amending it to state that we don't!!!

America. Freedom. Nice experiments. And of shorter duration so far than most people think! The norm for most of human history is hatred, bigotry and cruelty and it is perfectly clear that certain elements of our culture desperately crave a return to the norm. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

We make a statement concerning something we don't like. "Religion in the public square." What's the fundies' next demand? "Religion in the public square!" Our words! Next up: "America is not a Christian nation" Their statement? "America is a Christian Nation!" I bet if we'd spelled it "Xn" in our initial statements it would be spelled that way in their rallying cry. Why don't they just cut to the chase: "We oppose whatever the atheists want! We demand whatever they object to! Because we don't have any ideas of our own---we just hate atheists!!! Let's make that resolution a constitutional amendment!!!" Look at all the little fights; you'll see they rarely use their own words, just parrot back ours. To a lesser extent you'll also see this in the abortion and gay rights issues, though there, the more frequent infuriating thing is the requirement that all others use their terminology. Hence the norm now for the use of the term "unborn child", even in the traditionally liberal-biased Washington Pest; in a few years, the average adult will have no idea what a "foetus" is. No one dares use this term, and the government itself is required by directive to use the other. Because fundies demanded it!! All good people are fundies!!! <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

But see, I will keep a little composure. I have one smiley left and I won't use it. Rant off.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>