Posted on 03/26/2004 8:28:01 AM PST by Schatze
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Marie Alena Castle, a Minneapolis atheist, contends that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a hate crime.
Not one to stand idly by in the face of perceived injustice, the 77-year-old former Catholic has written a long brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of California atheist Michael Newdow, who urged the justices Wednesday to drop "under God" from the pledge.
Castle's brief is one of more than 50 that have been submitted in the case, which tests the constitutional prohibition on the official establishment of religion.
But Castle's is the only one that sets forth the thesis that Congress put "under God" into the pledge out of hostility toward atheists.
Supporters of the current pledge -- backed by the Bush administration -- argue that it merely reflects the role that religion has played in the nation's history and that it is more of a civic ritual than a religious one.
A retired business and technical writer with no background in law, Castle rests her argument on congressional records dating to 1954, at the height of the Cold War, when Congress inserted "under God" into the pledge.
She cites a speech by Congressman Louis Rabaut, the Michigan Democrat who sponsored the addition of the two-word phrase. He said: "You may argue from dawn to dusk about differing political, economic and social systems, but the fundamental issue which is the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God . . ."
Given the level of hostility at the time, Castle said, "it is not an overstatement to call it a hate crime."
Castle's is the only atheist brief from Minnesota, the headquarters of a 300-member national group that she calls Atheists for Human Rights. She said the history of the pledge underscores how atheists have often been villified and attacked as "an unpopular group."
(Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...
For libs, anything they disagree with is a hate crime.
The bowels of Hell.
More like Atheists Against Free Speech
Given the level of hostility at the time, Castle said, "it is not an overstatement to call it a hate crime."
It is a hate crime to be against Communism. The amazing part is it was a Democrat who inserted the phrase and correctly pointed out the 'unbridgeable gap'. If a Democrat did that today, they would be tarred and feathered.
On March 24, when atheist Michael Newdow begins arguing his case before the U.S. Supreme Court against keeping "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, he will have among his supporters Atheists For Human Rights (AFHR), based in Minneapolis, MN. AFHR, assisted by attorney Jerrold M. Gorski, Anaheim, CA, has submitted an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in support of Newdow's challenge. Read and download the amicus curiae brief on this website in PDF format.
The brief argues that the sole purpose of inserting "under God" in the pledge was a desire to harm American citizens who were atheists. Marie Alena Castle, communications director for AFHR said, "We researched the congressional record for that time and found that hatred of atheists was the overriding motive for changing the pledge. Given the level of hostility, it is not an overstatement to call it a hate crime. For example, when Rep. Louis C. Rabaut introduced the bill in the House on Feb. 12, 1954, he said, '...You may argue from dawn to dusk about differing political, economic, and social systems, but the fundamental issue which is the unbridgeable gap between America and Communist Russia is a belief in Almighty God.' He then went on to charge atheism with being the root of 'the evil weed' of communism, materialism and political dictatorship. He said, 'An atheistic American, ...is a contradiction in terms' and affirmed that only 'under God' can there be 'liberty and justice for all.'"
The brief cites a number of such examples, including the Civil Rights Act of 1963. During debate on the Act, the following amendment was offered: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to refuse to hire and employ any person because of said person's atheistic practices and beliefs." The amendment was debated on February 8, 1964, in the House, where it passed 137 to 98, but it failed in the Senate.
The AFHR brief cites a precedence for removal of "under God" in the Lawrence v. Texas sodomy decision. In that case, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor based her ruling for reversal of Alabama's anti-sodomy statute in part on its enactment being a "a bare desire to harm an unpopular group." The AFHR brief points out that the same rationale can be applied to "under God" in the pledge.
"We think most Americans would be dismayed to know that 'under God' went into the pledge, not as a well-intentioned religious sentiment, but as a deliberate, mean-spirited attack on decent citizens who happened to be nonreligious," Castle said. "To leave that phrase in is an insult, not just to nonbelievers, but to every fair-minded believer as well. Neither religion nor democracy are well-served when God beliefs are used as a club to enforce conformity in matters of religious and political opinion."
Read and download the amicus curiae brief on this website in PDF format.
Catholic Ping - let me know if you want on/off this list
I think this is more likely where she is going than where she came from.
Before you go off on all us atheists, remember that you Christians have your wackos too.
It's .006 percent (six-tenths of 1 percent). America is truly suffering under the tyranny of the minority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.