[Schatze]

... Castle said, "it is not an overstatement to call it a hate crime."

For libs, anything they disagree with is a hate crime.

[NCjim]

Where do these people come from?

[Calpernia]

[Lunatic Fringe]

What this woman seems to forget, is that philosophers such as Locke, Jefferson, and Aquinos all believed that the rights of individuals COME FROM GOD.

The Constitution limits the government from infringing on these rights- they are NOT granted by the government.

So her "right" she claims is being violated, as an atheist, comes from God.

Don't you love the irony?

[AppyPappy]

Atheists for Human Rights

More like Atheists Against Free Speech

[Always Right]

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."

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.

[NYer]

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.

News Advisory

MARCH 22, 2004
For Release Immediately
CONTACT: Marie Alena Castle, Communications Director

Atheists Call "Under God" in Pledge a "Hate Crime"

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

[man of Yosemite]

I suppose forcing your child into a controversy over a pledge that she is willing to say, and divorcing your wife who believes in God is an act of love. People willing to destroy their families over their own political agenda aren't people who we should respect.

[antiRepublicrat]

"it is not an overstatement to call it a hate crime."

Before you go off on all us atheists, remember that you Christians have your wackos too.

[mhking]

the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a hate crime

Oh, you've gotta be kidding!

Just damn.

If you want on the list, FReepmail me. This IS a high-volume PING list...

[spunkets]

What's local, the funny farm?

[wingnutx]

I'm agnostic. While I would not have supported inserting the phrase into the pledge in the first place, now that it is in there it does me no injury. It neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. Raising a stink about it, though, actually does do some harm to the public, imho.

This whole "freedom FROM religion" notion has gotten badly out of hand.

[judgeandjury]

Marie Alena Castle, a Minneapolis atheist, contends that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a hate crime.

Marie Alena Castle also contends that whistling, eating a peach, and defrosting a refrigerator are hate crimes.

[fella]

the 77-year-old is getting close to finding out if she's right or wrong.

[eyespysomething]

Once again, libs confusing interesting for compelling.

[MEGoody]

LOL I doubt this senile old biddy's rantings will help Newdow's cause. He's probably sitting there thinking, "Shut up, you old bat!"

[AmishDude]

I thank her for showing us the idiocy of the notion of a "hate crime."

[VOA]

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Marie Alena Castle, a Minneapolis atheist, contends that the
phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is a hate crime.

Yeah, and Michael Newdow is a victim of "date rape".
(Dr. Newdow made this contention in family law court proceedings over the
daughter he fathered...and now uses for his challenge to today's version of "The Pledge".
Nice to say that the family law judge laughed at Newdow's preposterous
date-rape scenario.)

IIRC, this was reported in USA Today around March 15th.

[OPS4]

Atheists are traitors, and should be jailed.
Ops4 God Bless America!

[Big Mack]

Tell her to "put some ice on it." There is nothing in the constitution, and I have read it, that gives the right not to be offended.

[Little Ray]

What's wrong with hate?
I am beginning to think there are LOTS of people who need hating (and a little action on said hate).

For example, anybody who believes in criminalizing thought (i.e. hate crimes) should be hated, despised, and, ummm, well we'll keep it off the forum.