Local atheist: Contested [pledge] phrase is a hate crime

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | March 25, 2004 | Kevin Diaz

[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."

[Schatze]

I'm guessing the majority of them don't say the Pledge, either. Which is their right.

I agree; I have no problem with anyone who doesn't want to say the Pledge or who chooses to skip the phrase "one nation, under God." As I said, what it comes down to is that these people just want to have their way, like two-year-olds.

[Dataman]

Then you wouldn't mind if I alerted the Treasury to your admission, would you?

[Dimensio]

Gee, that's profound.

I offered a sampling of things that I believe. I never claimed that they were profound. I don't have time to go into "profound" beliefs.

Then enlighten us.

Fine.

Prefix A = without. Theism = belief in a god or gods. Therefore, a+theism = without + belief in a god or gods. Atheism = without belief in a god or gods.

That's it. No explicit assertion that "Deity X does not exist!" Merely a nonacceptance of the claim "god X (or gods X, Y, Z, etc) exist(s)". This nonacceptance could be a stubborn refusal in the face of evidence, a holdout in the abscence of evidence or merely a lack of knowledge of the proposition in the first place.

[Dimensio]

Go right ahead. I'm sure that they'll be sending the Secret Service out to arrest me and make the streets safer.

[Dimensio]

I don't think atheists read the Bible.

What twisted crime of logic would merit such a sentence?

[Schatze]

No explicit assertion that "Deity X does not exist!" Merely a nonacceptance of the claim "god X (or gods X, Y, Z, etc) exist(s)".

That's nothing but doublespeak.

[smcmike]

I agree that the burden of proof lies with the more elaborate explanation, though the whole "new idea" thing doesnt work for me... i mean, people 100 years ago weren't any smarter than they are today... and, of course, i think that creation of a system of otherworldly deities and supernatural phenomenon is significantly more elaborate than the belief that what you see is what you get.

[Schatze]

What twisted crime of logic would merit such a sentence?

From their actions, it appears that atheists are threatened by any reference to "God." Reading the Bible would be excruciating for them.

[madison10]

I disagree. God is the default we are born with...atheism is the idea humans came up with when they decided they wanted to run their own universe.

[Ignatz]

I don't think atheists read the Bible.

I offer again my previous points:
1) This country was founded under the concept of a God. The phrase "Under God" merely acknowledges that.
2) You are not forced to say the Pledge, or include the phrase "Under God" if you do.

If you are being forced to say the Pledge as it is currently written, under force of violence from the Fedril Gubmint, you have a valid argument and I'll support you. Otherwise, you do not.

[Dimensio]

That's nothing but doublespeak.

I lack belief in space aliens. That is, I do not profess belief that life exists on planets other than Earth (apart from Mars, should any microbes have travelled with the various things that NASA has sent there).

I do not claim to know that life does not exist on other planets.

The statements "I do not belive that life exists on other planets" is not logically equivalant to "I believe that life does not exist on other planets". Similarly, "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I believe that gods do not exist" are not logically equivalent.

[Dimensio]

From their actions, it appears that atheists are threatened by any reference to "God." Reading the Bible would be excruciating for them.

There are quite a few theists here on FR, and they frequently make reference to a deity that they worship. Thus far, my eyes have not bled while viewing any discussions here (though I've had close calls when people post images of Helen Thomas)

[Dimensio]

God is the default we are born with

Out of the thousands proposed throughout human history, to which are you referring?

[ladyinred]

If a lefty says it is a hate crime, then it is a hate crime!!!

[Modernman]

The burden of proof is on the new idea or the more elaborate explanation. Atheism is the new idea and certainly the more elaborate explanation.

Atheism has been around longer than Christianity. Furthermore, how is the idea that something does not exist more elaborate than the idea that something does exist? If anything, Atheism does not propose or attempt to explain anything.

[antiRepublicrat]

I disagree. God is the default we are born with...

Then what decides whether a kid will be Christian, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist? If left on his own a kid will become none of the above. It must be indoctrinated.

[Modernman]

Time to exercise that 2nd Amendment right, already got my permit duckies all in a row

I keep meaning to get my CCW permit. I live in Arlington county, which is the only liberal county in VA, so it's tougher to get a permit here than anywhere else in the state.

[antiRepublicrat]

Atheism is not the default that you're born with. Atheism is a belief

No, atheism, by definition is a lack of belief. I do not think children are born with belief.

[antiRepublicrat]

I keep meaning to get my CCW permit.

I'll be doing that later. Getting a CCW permit is pretty straightforward in NC.

[Schatze]

The statements "I do not belive that life exists on other planets" is not logically equivalant to "I believe that life does not exist on other planets". Similarly, "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I believe that gods do not exist" are not logically equivalent.

Thanks, but I'll just stick to the dictionary definition of an atheist: one who believes that there is no deity.