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 ...
A phrase like this could have a long and destructive life as a hinge on which to hang society's door.
No. But as long as there has been religion, I guaranty that there were people who didn't believe.
Because the profession that something does not exist removes the explanation that explains everything that does exist.
No. All it does is state that the atheist does not believe the dogma placed before him.
Do you really think that there are no logical implications in believing that everything happened by accident?
It is perfectly logical to say that you don't believe in God and that you don't know how everything started. Disbelieving in the existence of God does not require you to come up with an alternate theory.
You have that exactly backward. It's the DemonRats who seek to divide this country: by race, class and religion.
Well, there are the similarities to the Genesis creation story and Babylonian creation myths.
You just stuck you foot in a bear trap, but go on... how does that prove that Judaism was created? Bear in mind I won't hold you to the same standards you demand in proof for the existence of God. Just try to make a reasoned argument backed up with scholarship. All atheist and skeptic websites will be ignored since they have an irrational disposition when it comes to these things.
How can it be a hate crime when an athiest doesn't even believe there is a God?
Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed togetherMadison believed that religion and government were mutually corrupting and needed to be separated. He didn't believe religion itself was bad, or that the people expressing their religions was bad, but he believed that it shouldn't be mixed with state matters, lest both institutions be damaged.
Another useless opinion.
It affects your morality, your understanding of man, and your understanding of yourself. It affects your thinking since to you it becomes a first principle. To claim it is not a world view is to claim theism is not a world view. That's just absurd. Why can't you guys just be honest about your belief system? You spend too much time denying that you believe exactly what you do indeed believe since it is, quite frankly, intellectually embarrassing.
No disagreement with that. He's a certified jerk.
I think a capacity for wonder and a desire to have questions answered is natural, which is why religion is so popular (easy answers), but no child is born "knowing" except in science fiction.
Even an atheist has a belief system.
Define belief system please.
Sorry. I thought you might be a lurker from DU.
Because liberals deem anything they disagree with "a hate crime." That way it garners lots of media attention.
Good luck! Looks like we can add two more to the ranks of CCW in the coming months. Take THAT you leftist, whining, chicken-little "gun control" pansies.
BTW, my state gives out free gun locks. No, the home defense gun won't be locked, but good to have for the others.
Which certainly explains why Madison proposed and passed a law in the state of Virginia imposing penalties for breaking the Fourth Commandment.
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.