Post by AuntieSocial on Mar 22, 2004 18:32:28 GMT -5
The U. S. pledge of allegiance ends "… with Liberty and Justice for all."[/b]
To view the original story, click Here
PRESS RELEASE: Atheist Law Center
MEDIA RELEASE: March 18, 2004
Doesn't that phrase represent a fundamental concept embodied in the U. S. Constitution and the republic for which it stands? Isn't that concept part of the American dream?
The U. S. Supreme Court is now considering the constitutionality of the U. S. pledge. The oath was challenged in the court system by Michael Newdow, an atheist, because of the words "under god," which, in effect, made the prior loyalty oath into a religious loyalty oath.
Most atheists legitimately find such acts of ceremonial deism offensive because we are citizens who live without any religion whatsoever. Beyond the fact that our children who attend public schools are forced to at least silently participate in the daily recitation of the religious loyalty oath, atheists have to use money bearing a religious slogan and we are very much aware that any number of Government functions begin with some sort of supplication to a make-believe being.
In 1943, Jehovah's Witnesses challenged compulsory flag salutes and recitation of the loyalty oath. Atheists today might be viewed similarly as dissidents to coercive practices by Government that interfere with freedom of thought, such as pledging blind loyalty to the Government.
And to those who would argue that standing silently during the recitation of the loyalty oath is how atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other adherents to freedom of thought should behave, the Court has spoken already. This passage appears in the 1992 case of Robert E. Lee v. Daniel Weisman:
A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means.
A common response offered by atheists to "under god" in the loyalty oath is that theists would find the oath offensive if it said, "one nation under no god." Either way, the loyalty oath would offend many millions of citizens. However, there is a more fundamental problem pertaining to the loyalty oath, with or without "under god."
Does rote recitation of words about a piece of cloth and abstract political concepts make Americans loyal? Will reciting the loyalty oath make disloyal Americans loyal? The basic assumption of Governments requiring such pledges of loyalty is that citizens, by default, are disloyal. Is such an assumption true to the American way of life?
The bottom line is that the loyalty oath goes to pledging blind loyalty to Government. The loyalty oath, with or without "under god," is contrary to the concept of Liberty, especially freedom of thought.
In the matter of Elk Grove v. Michael Newdow, the Atheist Law Center's arguments in its brief in support of Newdow are worded such that, if adopted, the U. S. Supreme Court could rule the loyalty oath unconstitutional altogether.
The Center contends that informed citizens, atheists and theists alike, should find the pledge of allegiance objectionable. In the simplest terms possible, the U. S. pledge of allegiance is a loyalty oath. The current version of the loyalty oath that is recited in public schools contains the words "under god." The version recited in schools prior to 1954 did not contain the words "under god."
The Center's position that the loyalty oath should be abolished altogether is not novel. The Supreme Court discussed this long before Congress inserted "under god" into the loyalty oath in the 1943 case of West Virginia State BOE v. Barnette. In Barnette, Alabama native Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Douglas, wrote:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.
Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose."
Furthering that reasoning, the Atheist Law Center's brief in support of Newdow reads:
"The insertion of the words "under God" into the Pledge more than a decade after Barnette can only render the compulsory affirmation more of a constitutional affront, and not only for Jehovah's Witnesses. It was not necessary to the decision in Barnette that the objections there were religiously based, as the Court explicitly stated: Nor does [the constitutionality of the compulsory flag salute and pledge] turn on one's possession of particular religious views or the sincerity with which they are held. While religion supplies [the Jehovah's Witness] appellees' motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual. It is not necessary to inquire whether nonconformist beliefs will exempt from the duty to salute unless we first find power to make the salute a legal duty.
The very essence of freedom of thought dictates that the loyalty oath be abolished altogether, and not merely restored to a godless version. Coercion is coercion with or without reference to a god. Rote recitation that instills blind loyalty to Government without a god is just as unconscionable as is rote recitation that instills blind loyalty to Government under god. Blind loyalty contradicts the liberty Americans enjoy or should enjoy in disagreeing with Government. If citizens are indoctrinated to believe the Government cannot err, then America is not a land of liberty and justice for all.
In conclusion, the Atheist Law Center contends that abolishing the loyalty oath altogether is the best course of action for the Supreme Court to take. Simply ruling on the constitutionality of the phrase "under god" will lead to more divisiveness in the U.S. along religious lines, without embracing a fundamental concept of Liberty, namely, freedom of thought. With or without "under god," the loyalty oath conflicts with the American ideal of "liberty and justice for all." For over 100 years the U. S. got along just fine without a loyalty oath. We still can.
To view the original story, click Here
PRESS RELEASE: Atheist Law Center
MEDIA RELEASE: March 18, 2004
Doesn't that phrase represent a fundamental concept embodied in the U. S. Constitution and the republic for which it stands? Isn't that concept part of the American dream?
The U. S. Supreme Court is now considering the constitutionality of the U. S. pledge. The oath was challenged in the court system by Michael Newdow, an atheist, because of the words "under god," which, in effect, made the prior loyalty oath into a religious loyalty oath.
Most atheists legitimately find such acts of ceremonial deism offensive because we are citizens who live without any religion whatsoever. Beyond the fact that our children who attend public schools are forced to at least silently participate in the daily recitation of the religious loyalty oath, atheists have to use money bearing a religious slogan and we are very much aware that any number of Government functions begin with some sort of supplication to a make-believe being.
In 1943, Jehovah's Witnesses challenged compulsory flag salutes and recitation of the loyalty oath. Atheists today might be viewed similarly as dissidents to coercive practices by Government that interfere with freedom of thought, such as pledging blind loyalty to the Government.
And to those who would argue that standing silently during the recitation of the loyalty oath is how atheists, Jehovah's Witnesses and other adherents to freedom of thought should behave, the Court has spoken already. This passage appears in the 1992 case of Robert E. Lee v. Daniel Weisman:
A reasonable dissenter of high school age could believe that standing or remaining silent signified her own participation in, or approval of, the group exercise, rather than her respect for it. And the State may not place the student dissenter in the dilemma of participating or protesting. Since adolescents are often susceptible to peer pressure, especially in matters of social convention, the State may no more use social pressure to enforce orthodoxy than it may use direct means.
A common response offered by atheists to "under god" in the loyalty oath is that theists would find the oath offensive if it said, "one nation under no god." Either way, the loyalty oath would offend many millions of citizens. However, there is a more fundamental problem pertaining to the loyalty oath, with or without "under god."
Does rote recitation of words about a piece of cloth and abstract political concepts make Americans loyal? Will reciting the loyalty oath make disloyal Americans loyal? The basic assumption of Governments requiring such pledges of loyalty is that citizens, by default, are disloyal. Is such an assumption true to the American way of life?
The bottom line is that the loyalty oath goes to pledging blind loyalty to Government. The loyalty oath, with or without "under god," is contrary to the concept of Liberty, especially freedom of thought.
In the matter of Elk Grove v. Michael Newdow, the Atheist Law Center's arguments in its brief in support of Newdow are worded such that, if adopted, the U. S. Supreme Court could rule the loyalty oath unconstitutional altogether.
The Center contends that informed citizens, atheists and theists alike, should find the pledge of allegiance objectionable. In the simplest terms possible, the U. S. pledge of allegiance is a loyalty oath. The current version of the loyalty oath that is recited in public schools contains the words "under god." The version recited in schools prior to 1954 did not contain the words "under god."
The Center's position that the loyalty oath should be abolished altogether is not novel. The Supreme Court discussed this long before Congress inserted "under god" into the loyalty oath in the 1943 case of West Virginia State BOE v. Barnette. In Barnette, Alabama native Justice Hugo Black, with Justice Douglas, wrote:
"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. These laws must, to be consistent with the First Amendment, permit the widest toleration of conflicting viewpoints consistent with a society of free men.
Neither our domestic tranquillity in peace nor our martial effort in war depend on compelling little children to participate in a ceremony which ends in nothing for them but a fear of spiritual condemnation. If, as we think, their fears are groundless, time and reason are the proper antidotes for their errors. The ceremonial, when enforced against conscientious objectors, more likely to defeat than to serve its high purpose, is a handy implement for disguised religious persecution. As such, it is inconsistent with our Constitution's plan and purpose."
Furthering that reasoning, the Atheist Law Center's brief in support of Newdow reads:
"The insertion of the words "under God" into the Pledge more than a decade after Barnette can only render the compulsory affirmation more of a constitutional affront, and not only for Jehovah's Witnesses. It was not necessary to the decision in Barnette that the objections there were religiously based, as the Court explicitly stated: Nor does [the constitutionality of the compulsory flag salute and pledge] turn on one's possession of particular religious views or the sincerity with which they are held. While religion supplies [the Jehovah's Witness] appellees' motive for enduring the discomforts of making the issue in this case, many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual. It is not necessary to inquire whether nonconformist beliefs will exempt from the duty to salute unless we first find power to make the salute a legal duty.
The very essence of freedom of thought dictates that the loyalty oath be abolished altogether, and not merely restored to a godless version. Coercion is coercion with or without reference to a god. Rote recitation that instills blind loyalty to Government without a god is just as unconscionable as is rote recitation that instills blind loyalty to Government under god. Blind loyalty contradicts the liberty Americans enjoy or should enjoy in disagreeing with Government. If citizens are indoctrinated to believe the Government cannot err, then America is not a land of liberty and justice for all.
In conclusion, the Atheist Law Center contends that abolishing the loyalty oath altogether is the best course of action for the Supreme Court to take. Simply ruling on the constitutionality of the phrase "under god" will lead to more divisiveness in the U.S. along religious lines, without embracing a fundamental concept of Liberty, namely, freedom of thought. With or without "under god," the loyalty oath conflicts with the American ideal of "liberty and justice for all." For over 100 years the U. S. got along just fine without a loyalty oath. We still can.
