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."

[antiRepublicrat]

I already showed you examples of the devolution of religion

"Devolution of religion" implies you believe in evolution of religion too. If not, it's like saying you believe in "heads" in a coin toss, but not "tails."

[man of Yosemite]

The saddest words ever spoken, "I was Christian."

[antiRepublicrat]

The saddest words ever spoken, "I was Christian."

On a personal level, happy words. Trust me. However, Christians might not be happy that the expansion of thier religion slowed just a bit.

[Dataman]

"Devolution of religion" implies you believe in evolution of religion too.

A little slow on the draw, aren't you? If one posits a position, he must also believe its opposite? Get that elevator fixed.

[antiRepublicrat]

If one posits a position, he must also believe its opposite?

Do you believe in good and not evil? Do you believe in up and not down? Or do you believe that religions only go from monotheistic to polytheistic and beyond ("devolve")? That's a definitely stupid idea given there's no evidence that I know of for monotheistic primitive societies.

[Dataman]

Don't continue to be so shallow. Try real hard to think about it:

Evolution of religion is meaningless if it supposes religion can evolve and devolve at will.

For example, you use the concept to support the vacuous idea that the Israelites evolved from polytheists to theists. If EOR can devolve, then it really doesn't support your vacuous claim, does it?

Repeat after me:

You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't have it both ways.

Do you get it yet?

[Veil Destroyer]

As an atheist and a conservative, I am disgusted by liberal attention-starved atheist activists, who don't have a life or a clue. And this 77 year old blue hair is being taken seriously by the Supreme Court?

I became an atheist around age 5, around the same time I discovered Santa was really my mom. But I have no need to push it on anyone, and I think all religious artifacts in the US from previous generations should be left in tact, as they are part of our heritage.

I find it funny that these so-called radical atheists are afraid to go after Islam, which is by far the most oppressive religion on the planet. They know the Christians won't car bomb them like the towelheads will.