[BES Friends] Fw: [aha] Supreme Court Pledge Decision: Let Your Voices Be Heard

[Steve Meskin]

I am forwarding the attached to the BES mailing lists because I feel many
people on the lists will have a high interest in this subject.
Steve Meskin

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <web at americanhumanist.org>
> To: <aha at npogroups.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 16, 2004 9:20 AM
> Subject: [aha] Supreme Court Pledge Decision: Let Your Voices Be Heard
>
>
> > Supreme Court Pledge Decision: Let Your Voices Be Heard
> >
> > On Monday the Supreme Court used a technicality to dodge the controversy
> > surrounding the constitutionality of the recitation of the phrase "under
> > God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools. The
> Supreme
> > Court only ruled that Michael Newdow does not have standing to bring the
> > case.
> >
> > Our position is that regardless of the legal technicality, the Pledge
> > remains an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
> >
> > The presence of "under God" and "indivisible" creates a contradictory
> oath.
> > Rather than uniting the American people, the Pledge discriminates
between
> > monotheistic religious Americans and nonreligious or polytheistic
> Americans.
> > The inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge confers second-class
> citizenship
> > upon those who hold a particular outlook on religion.
> >
> > ACTION
> >
> > We urge you to send letters and/or opinion editorials to your local
paper
> > protesting this decision. We cannot let our rights be trampled under
> > majority rule -- our voices must be heard!
> >
> > Included below for reference is an example letter submitted to the
> > Washington Post on Tuesday by executive director Tony Hileman in
response
> to an
> > editorial,
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41979-2004Jun14.html
> >
> > To find contact information for your newspaper editorial staff check
their
> > website or go to:
> http://www.congress.org/stickers/?dir=congressorg&media=1
> >
> > Please copy us on your letters and e-mails, and don't forget to include
> your
> > full contact information.
> > ---
> > Letter to the editor
> >
> > Yesterday's editorial, "Never Mind the Pledge" claims there is "no
> guarantee
> > that the court would have spoken coherently and constructively about a
> > genuinely gray area of law had it tried." That's off on two counts: The
> > inclusion of "under God" is in no way a gray area, and the lack of
> coherence
> > in addressing thorny social issues has never served to restrain the
court.
> >
> > The 1954 addition of the phrase "under God" to the
government-established
> > Pledge of Allegiance was an unqualified and unconstitutional endorsement
> of
> > religion. This paring of faith and patriotism is offensive to millions
of
> > Americans who do not share the majority stance on monotheism. And one
need
> > only review some of the court's less reasoned decisions in other civil
and
> > human rights cases to confirm that they have often been fearless in the
> face
> > of incoherence.
> >
> > More disturbing are the political implications (and seeming
> considerations)
> > at play in ducking this "hot button" issue. The Court conspicuously
chose,
> > in the midst of a presidential campaign, to announce its decision on the
> > fiftieth anniversary of the inclusion of this exclusionary phrase in the
> > Pledge. Was that coincidence?
> >
> > Tony Hileman
> > Executive Director
> > American Humanist Association
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> >      aha at npogroups.org
> > To be removed from the list, send any message to:
> >      aha-unsubscribe at npogroups.org
> >
> > For all list information and functions, including changing
> > your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
> >      http://npogroups.org/lists/info/aha
>