In this issue:
On June 26, a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion because of the phrase "under God".
Federal lawmakers rushed to support the Pledge of Allegiance with a resolution, which passed 99-0. Senators Byrd, Daschle, and Lott all were quoted condemning the decision, making ad hominem attacks on the judges:
"I hope the Senate will waste no time in throwing this back in the face of this stupid judge. Stupid, that's what he is."--Senator Byrd, D-West Virginia
"This decision is nuts." --Senator Daschle, D-South Dakota
"This is obviously an unbelievable decision, as far as I am concerned, and an incorrect ruling and a stupid ruling." --Senator Lott, R-Mississippi.
The following is from Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, who wrote the majority opinion for himself and Judge Stephen Reinhardt:
"The recitation that ours is a nation 'under God' is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase 'one nation under God' in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and -- since 1954 -- monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion."
The following is the dissenting opinion, written by Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez:
"[L]egal world abstractions and ruminations aside, when all is said and done, the danger that 'under God' in our Pledge of Allegiance will tend to bring about a theocracy or suppress somebody's beliefs is so minuscule as to be de minimis. The danger that phrase presents to our First Amendment freedoms is picayune at most ... upon Newdow's theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues today, we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America The Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the 'Star Spangled Banner' will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware! Judges can accept those results if they limit themselves to elements and tests, while failing to look at the good sense and principles that animated those tests in the first place."
Dr. Michael Newdow, an Atheist in San Francisco, sued on behalf of his daughter, who was required to recite the Pledge at school. He has been receiving death threats since the decision was made.
Dr. Newdow graduated from Brown University, the University of Michigan Law School and the University of California at Los Angeles medical school. He is at this time a practicing attorney, specializing in family law, and an attending physician in the emergency room at the UCLA Medical Center.
Top--commentary by Greg Reich
In the aftermath of the recent Federal Court of Appeals decision regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, an earlier decision regarding the Pledge Appears to be forgotten. In 1942, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court ruled a law mandating saluting the United States flag and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional on the grounds that it limited free speech by requiring citizens to say something with which they did not necessarily agree.
The same principle applies to the most recent decision regarding the Pledge. I am excited that the majority opinion was clearly based up the Establishment Clause; it is a clear victory for state/church separationists. However, it may be the Free Speech precedent set by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that the Supreme Court will use as precedent to uphold the ruling. Given their history on Establishment Clause rulings, it would fit the character of the Court to reduce controversy and shy away from state/church separation.
The outrageous reaction of Congress should ignite a fire under the rear of every Atheist, and we should all make our voices heard in any way we can. I intend to write not only the legislators for whom I am a constituent, but also these rude, out-of-control legislators who felt it necessary to make ad hominem attacks on the judges. We pay these people six-figure salaries to act professionally and take their jobs seriously; insulting federal judges is both unprofessional and ridiculous.
It would be very exciting to see the Supreme Court uphold this decision on the basis of the Establishment Clause. We should make our opinions known to the Justices, as well. I intend to write them directly if the case appears before them. For now, I'm expressing my full support for the two judges who had the courage to make a stand that they knew would be unpopular.
Something that gives me hope is the fact that public opinion appears to be evenly divided on the issue. We are finding support from theists who are also separationists. These people see the big picture, and understand that government entanglement with religion is inherently harmful. Please support and encourage this involvement.
One more thing: Dr. Michael Newdow has been receiving death threats. My full encouragement goes out to him and his family. Right now, supporters of Michael Newdow can sign an online petition at: http://www.atheists.org/action/newdowpetition.html (Copy this URL and paste it to your browser if the link does not work). There is something else you can do: if you hear someone supporting the idea of doing harm to Dr. Newdow, speak up. Do not let this intolerance go unanswered. If you hear the judges being called stupid, nuts, or anything else personal, speak up. Criticism of the decision is fine, but ad hominem attacks are simply an example of ignorance and intolerance, and are unacceptable. Get the dialogue going about the Pledge of Allegiance decision; you may actually change some minds.
TopRecently, the United States Supreme Court ruled that tax-supported school voucher programs are constitutional--as long as there are adequate secular and religious choices. This decision did not take into account the cost of secular choices versus religious ones, and, as a result, invited future lawsuits.
Secular private schools tend to cost much more than private religious schools by virtue of the fact that they have no outside subsidy, apart from alumni contributions. Religious schools tend to use church money to help subsidize their operations.
The more common issue will most likely be the fact that religious schools, especially Catholic, vastly outnumber private secular schools.
TopRecently, Atheist activist Lee Helms presented a poster depicting a foot with "In God We Trust" written on it stepping on the First Amendment to the Rochester Hills City Council. The following is their reply to Helms' proposal:
"Dear Mr. Helms:
This is in reply to your June 3, 2002 letter to Mayor Somerville and follow-up phone messages requesting that the City display a poster at City Hall stating the opinion that "In God We Trust" should not be kept as the national motto. Your letter is in reaction to the City's decision to display a poster with the national motto at City Hall.
The City of Rochester Hills, in respect for the State and U.S. Constitutions, and the multicultural society we live in, does not use or allow its governmental authority or facilities to be used to advance, promote or establish any particular political or religious beliefs.
"In God We Trust" is our country's national motto, and the State of Michigan enacted legislation, last year, expressly encouraging state agencies and local governments to post the national motto in public places. In view of these circumstances and as an expression of our commitment and pride in our country, the Mayor and City Council gratefully accepted and displayed the gift of a poster proclaiming our country's national motto.
As mentioned above, it is not the City's intention to promote a particular religious belief, nor is it the City's policy to allow City Hall to be used as a "public bulletin board"for the posting or distribution of materials advocating or endorsing a political point of view. Your proposed poster does advocate a particular viewpoint and, therefore, is contrary to the City's longstanding policy and would be inappropriate for display in City Hall. Your public consciousness and participation is commendable, but for the above reasons, we respectfully decline your offer to display your poster.
Very truly yours,
John Dalton
City Council President
City of Rochester Hills"
Lee Helms replied:
"Dear Mr. Dalton,Top
Thank you for your reply to my letter of June 3, but I must disagree with your arguments and conclusion. Since the nation's motto is selected by the U.S. Congress, there is a political aspect to any national motto. The current one is particularly controversial, and has been challenged in court at least twice (Arnow v. United States, 1970, and Madalyn Murray O'Hair et. al. v. Michael Bhmenthal, Secretary of the Treasury, 1978).
The current motto, adopted in 1956, was a product of the same anti-communist hysteria that resulted in "under god" being added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. As you are no doubt aware, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that adding "under god" to the Pledge of Allegiance put the Pledge in violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. According to the Oakland Press, this ruling cited President Eisenhower's statement at the time, "Millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." Even though Judge Goodwin put his ruling on hold today (Early reports are that Judge Goodwin and plaintiff Michael Newdow received a number of death threats. So much for belief in the rule of law!), that does nothing to change the fact that official use of "under god" and "In God We Trust" was specifically intended to promote religious belief as a way of influencing the nation away from "godless communism." In light of President Eisenhower's words, italicized above, assurances that "In God We Trust" does not or is not intended to promote religion ring hollow.
To display the "In God We Trust" poster is to endorse that phrase as the national motto, and implicitly state the political opinion that it should remain the national motto. City Hall is already being used as a "public bulletin board," contrary to the "City's long standing policy" you cite, and the "In God We Trust" poster is no less "inappropriate for display in City Hall" than my First Amendment poster. I must insist on equal treatment for my point of view, that repeal of "In God We Trust" as the national motto would be respectful of and is required by the First Amendment. Take down the "In God We Trust" poster or display my First Amendment poster along side it. Either is acceptable.
Thank you,
Lee Helms"
--from American Atheists
American Atheists today charged that plans to include a Christian Cross made out of steel beams from the World Trade Center as a permanent memorial on city property would violate the separation of church and state, be insensitive to those victims who had no religious beliefs and would incredibly pay homage to religion -- the prime motivating factor in the faith-based attack of Sept. 11. According to recent news reports, the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation is being asked to include a "cross" made of debris discovered by a construction worker at the WTC site in the redevelopment plans for the area. The group has received over $2 billion in funds from the government to rebuilt the site of the former WTC.
"This is an inappropriate use of taxpayer money," said Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists. "You can't take government funds to promote religion, especially sectarian religion in the form of a 'cross' or any other religious symbol."
Johnson added that any memorial to the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks "should bring Americans together, not divide them on the basis or religion or anything else."
"Nearly 14% of Americans reject religion," said Johnson. "Atheists and other people-of-no-faith died in the faith-based twin towers attack. They also worked to clear debris, they donate money, blood, food and other assistance. Thus a sectarian monument is an insult to them, and indeed anyone else who isn't a Christian."
Ron Barrier, National Spokesman for American Atheists, said that Muslims, Hindus and other non-Christian believers were killed in the attacks as well.
"What about them? Are we going to turn the site of the WTC into a religious shrine with competing religious slogans, symbols and displays? "Any monument to the victims, and those who helped in the aftermath of September 11, 2001 should be tasteful, as well as a unifying statement about America and humanity," said Barrier. "Christian symbols are as inappropriate as a Muslim crescent or some other religious label."
Ellen Johnson said that her group would go to court if necessary to challenge the use of government money for the placement of any religious symbol at the WTC site.
For further information on this story, visit http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/islam19.htm.
TopWe will be meeting at the China Star Restaurant on September 15, as usual. Please mark your calendar and plan to attend this event. Reservations are appreciated, so please RSVP to miatheistnews@aol.com. More details will follow soon.
TopOn November 16, 2002, Michigan Atheists will be meeting at the Holiday Inn Livonia West for our annual State Convention. The hotel is located at 17123 Laurel Park Drive North, Livonia, MI 48152, at the I-275 and Six Mile Road exit. The event will be held from 9:00am until 5:00pm. The following is our lineup of speakers:
There will be a table reserved for the press. Members of the press are cordially invited to attend.
Registration is $30. Early registration (before Nov 8) is $25. To register, send your name, address, phone, and email address, and a check for $25/person to:
Michigan State Director
Arlene-Marie
PO Box 0025
Allen Park MI 48101
Note: Make checks payable to Arlene-Marie. Do not send checks made out to Michigan Atheists or American Atheists.
TopThirty-two organizations encompassing godless Americans in all their forms are currently supporting the Godless March on Washington, an event announced by Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, at the 28th National Convention of American Atheists. Godless Americans of all backgrounds and labels, including Atheists, Agnostics, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists, and Rationalists will join in Washington to deliver a set of demands for a secular America. For details on this historic event, please visit http://www.godlessamericans.org/.
TopThe Michigan Atheists Newsletter is an electronic publication containing news about separation of state and church, the events of Michigan Atheists, and the civil rights of Michigan's godless citizens. All content of the newsletter is the intellectual property of Greg Reich and Michigan Atheists, unless otherwise credited.
If you would like to subscribe to the newsletter, please send e-mail to michiganatheistsnewsletter@comcast.net with "Subscribe" in the subject line.
If you have received this newsletter in error, please send e-mail to michiganatheistsnewsletter@comcast.net with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line.
If you have any news ideas, opinions, or articles to submit, please send them to michiganatheistsnewsletter@comcast.net. Please remember that all content must be relevant to separation of state and church issues or the civil rights of Atheists and other godless citizens in Michigan.
Top