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 ...
Try being a Catholic sometime.
And from tyranny of the minority as well.
If Newdow, or you or any atheist doesn't want to say the words "under God" or doesn't want to say the pledge at you, that is your right. And I would fight to the death for you to keep that right.
But I don't recall the right to frivilous lawsuits being guaranteed in the constitution. And that's all this is - a waste of everyone's time and money. Newdow is a nut who only wants to get back at the mother of his child.
As I said in post #1, anything the liberals disagree with is now deemed a "hate crime." Using that terminology is sure to get them attention from the media.
First, let's start with the way I view the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, which applies to this situation. It was set up to protect us from government, to be a restriction on government powers. So whenever I read the Constitution I keep that in mind, and whenever there's a possibility of multiple interpretation I see it the ways that are most restrictive to government.Because of that, I'm sure our 2nd Amendment views are perfectly in line with each other.
But let's get to the First "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." This can be taken as no laws about current establishments of religion (churches, etc.) or no laws trying to create (establish) a national religion and thereby belief system. It can mean protecting religion from government laws, or protecting government from religious-influenced laws.
As I said, I take it the most restrictive on government powers, so: NO LAW for any of those cases. The 1954 law adding "under God" was a law by the government respecting religion, so it is unconstitutional. Laws exempting churches from tax based on their status as religious bodies are unconstitutional (although most could easily go under the non-profit exemption).
But I don't actually have a problem with "under God." Until it actually affects me or my family in a clearly tangible way I won't think of doing anything about it.
488 of them are to be silenced on the whim of two
Not at all. Just don't put it into law and expect those two, if children in a captive audience, to recite allegiance to your god. But that's in general. I don't believe he has any standing since there is obviously no harm done to the Christian girl.
You are free to express yourself, but not free to use the government as your vehicle of expression. Besides, your religion's days are numbered if it can't survive without the help of the government's power. except that it reminded them of their emptyness
Had to get that in, didn't you? You don't want to keep this civil? I'm quite full the natural way, thank you.
And likely thereafter be ridiculed and shunned by the majority religious kids, possibly beat up as the "devil worshipper" or "immoral atheist" that the Christian parents taught their kids about. Maybe a teacher is fundamentalist Christian and will thereafter treat those kids more harshly and unfairly. All of these are very likely scenarios given the spectrum of atheist hatred by Christians just seen on FR.
This airhead is so blinded by her hate she can't see that the US Constitution specifically states that individual rights are "inalienable"......that means they can never, ever be removed b/c they come from God, not government.
People like her who "believe" in the government machine and place all their faith, hope and trust in the power of the state to limit individual behavior are the ones who are in conflict with the Constitution. Not the people who pledge to God.
None at all. I hear it every day, and work with mostly very religious people with no problem. I'm a big boy, so I can handle any backlash caused by my lack of beliefs. It's only the law + captive child audience I have a problem with.
More nonsense. This country was founded by and built by Christians.
... who realized the tyranny that can result from mixing religion and government, and therefore put safeguards into the Constitution to prevent it. This country was founded on freedom for all, living together with our vast differences with one connecting thread: being American. "Under God" is divisive because it singles out one group of preferred people over the others.
This is not happening ANYWHERE!
I'll bet it is. I have a story around from someone telling how it was to grow up a known atheist child, and it was pretty bad. Kids pick any difference in order to torment other kids. It's worse when their parents have told them that atheist kids are detestable devil worshippers.
But as I said I don't personally have a reason to do anything unless something actually happens to one of my daughters.
Yep...these zealots only inflame the passions of believers. If we think Gay Marriage is a hot-button issue, just wait 'til the courts remove "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance!!
FReegards...MUD
I've never seen Temptation, but Dogma left me with a pretty positive spin on Christianity.
They're still persecuting you guys? I thought that stopped in the 50s. At least the protestants aren't burning down your churches here anymore over whose Bible gets into school.
I think kids are more interested in recess than they are in taunting other kids about their religious beliefs. As for teachers, the vast majority are over-the-top liberals who have no belief in any religion. And if there were such a fundamentalist Christian teacher trying to force his or her views on the kids, that teacher would (and should) get the boot.
BTW, I have no hatred for atheists. But as I said, I sense a paranoia in them.
Definition time. "a" = without, "theism" = belief in a deity. That "atheism," not "antitheism."
I doubt kids are born Christian or Muslim. They must be indoctrinated early or convinced at a later time in life.
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.