Indivisibility Day

I have heard that Atheists United in Los Angeles will be promoting 'indivisibility day" on July 3rd and 4th.

They will be holding a rally at the government center in Ventura on July 3rd, and will be handing out pies on Santa Monica Pier on July 4th.

I am wondering if other organizations have events planned.

School Official Seeks to Punish "Lack of Respect" During Pledge

Another school official, this one in Norwich, Connecticut, wants to discipline children who do not show respect while the Pledge is being said.

(See School official: Disrupt pledge, face discipline)

Part of the article discusses children who actually engage in disruptive behavior during the Pledge of Allegiance. As far as disciplining children who disrupt school activities - there would be little objection to that. Yet, there is no reason to single out the Pledge as the only time when disruption is to be prohibited. Children should be disciplined any time they disrupt school activities - Pledge included.

However, Charles Jaskiewicz, wants to define 'diruption' when the Pledge is recited a bit more broadly.

“If they don’t want to say (the pledge), I don’t have a problem with that,” Jaskiewicz said. “My belief is they should at least be required to at minimal stand up and respect.”

The article quotes a parent on the issue - one who thinks that the value of showing respect for the country trumps the value of showing respect for different religions.

“I remember back in my day, we all had to say the Pledge of Allegiance,” Dixon said. “Now, we have to be more tolerant of other religions. But that doesn’t mean they can disrespect our country. In fact, students who are found to be disrespectful should write an essay for their atonement.”

Of course, I would love to write an essay on the issue. Of course, I also think thta Dixon should be required to read it. It would have to do with the moral inappropriateness of a government policy that links 'having the right religious belief' with 'being a patriotic American' by having a pledge that only those with the right religious beliefs can say.

And it would have to do with the moral inappropriateness of a national Pledge that lumps not having the right religious beliefs in with rebellion, tyranny, and injustice, as the four great evils that no good American will participate in.

And it will have to do with the moral wrong in having the government, each day, tell its students, "Now all stand and join me in insulting many of those who are currently fighting to protect your freedom by saying that, if they do not support 'one nation under God', we promise to think of them the same way we think of those who will not support liberty and justice for all.'

Agenda Item: Post 'In God We Trust'

Three Rancho Santa Margarita [California] City Council members said Wednesday they approve of displaying "In God We Trust" in Council Chambers and directed city staff to further study the issue.

(Orange County Register: Rancho considers displaying 'In God We Trust')

In saying this, the Council members gave as their reason that this is the national motto, and that is good enough. Apparently, they are not concerned at all with any protests one might make against the legitimacy of this action. So long as the Federal Government endorses the policy, they will to.

Like saying that, so long as the Federal Government endorses slavery, California should have also been a slave state. This whole thing about questioning something that the federal government might be involved in is, well, inappropriate.

Blais said that displaying the phrase is well within the city's rights and that he doesn't want to make this into a political issue. "I got about few $5 bills in my wallet," Blais said. "I got a few quarters in my car. They say 'In God We Trust' on them."

Thompson said he agreed with the mayor. "Again, it's the national motto," Thompson said "There's nothing wrong with displaying our national motto."

Of course, there is something wrong with the motto. There is, in fact, something wrong with displaying a sign that says, "If you do not trust in God then we do not consider you to be one of us." There is something wrong with putting it on the money.

They "urged city staff to research possible designs and locations for the phrase and place the issue on a future city council agenda."

This gives us some time to let the City Council know the problems that exist with posting such a sign.

Contact information for Rancho Santa Margarita

Zoning Board Member Yields to Pledge Pressure

Yet another American politician has been coerced into participating in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I have been following the story of Vietnam Navy veteran and Zoning Board of Adjustment member Robert Field, Jr., who refused to stand for the Pledge at zoning board meetings. He felt that the Board should give all who come before it a sense of neutrality and participating in the Pledge would give the individation that the Board is bias - particularly where non-citizens and others who have reason not to say the Pledge are concerned.

Well, yesterday, he was pressured into changing his position on the issue. He will now stand.

See: UnionLeader.com, Veteran says he'll stand for pledge at meetings

There is a comment section attached to this article. I have submitted my comment. We will see if they approve it.

Petitions, Signs, and Religious Morality

E Pluribus Unum Petition

The E Pluribus Unum petition is at 150 names.

I do not see this petition as something that will move Congress to act - at least not in the near future. That will require a lot of work to change public attitudes to the point that a legislator can vote on this issue without losing his or her job. However, signing the petition displays support for the effort of doing that work. It says that the goal is worthwhile.


Another California Town Considers "In God We Trust"

Another California town, Rancho Santa Margarita, is considering displaying the motto "In God We Trust" in city hall.

(See: Orange County Regiter, Rancho officials to discuss 'In God We Trust' motto)

I've posted my comment in the newspaper.

It is also possible to contact the City Council for the city of Rancho Santa Margarita through their Web Site.


Moral Argument Used Against Naval Academy

A story that has hit several large papers, such as the Washington Post and USA Today, concerns a letter from the ACLU to the Naval Academy calling for it to end its noontime prayer. The ACLU is grounding its letter on a 2003 Appeals Court ruling against the Virginia Military Institute that says that these types of exercises coerce individuals into participating in a religious service.

(Note: There is an excellent chance that Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, would not agree that this counts as coercion, if the case were to go to the Supreme Court. Coercion requires threats of direct punishment, not merely social pressure.)

What pleases me about this article is that it mentions not only the standard legal arguments - the type that have gotten so many people angry at the law to the degree that the law is at risk of being changed.

I was, I must admit, pleased that the Navy Times was willing to cover one of the moral arguments that I could not find mentioned in the civilian press.

Pheneger said one of the Navy’s rationales for having noontime prayer — that it helps develop moral character — is wrong because it implies that those who are atheist or agnostic, or those who belong to minority religious faiths, have less capacity for moral growth.

“Where you develop your character is individual,” he said. “To say you can’t develop character traits outside of a religious context is ridiculous.”

(See: Navy Times, ACLU calls for USNA to end lunchtime prayer)

The statement is actually more than ridiculous. It is bigoted. It is one of the defining characteristics of prejudice that the bigot brands his victims as morally inferior. He asserts that his group (e.g., white people, people who accept the right religion) are inherently morally superior to the target group.

This rationale that links religion to morality - and the lack of religion to immorality - demonstrates bigotry against the non-religious. It represents the speaker's decision to prejudge religious people as morally superior to his target group. It does so by assuming that connection to religion is a part of morality - and it is something the atheist does not have.

(This is not to say that these people would assert that atheists can't be moral. They may assert that atheists can be moral, but only to the degree that they borrow their morality from Christians.

When, in fact, Christians borrow their money from secularists. Since there is no God - all of the morality that you find in the Bible is man-made morality that is assigned to God. Changes in secular ethics find themselves into religious ethics by theists twisting and distorting scripture to match their preconceived notions of right and wrong. There is as much good or evil in scripture as the reader wishes to find and read into it.

"E Pluribus Unum" poster

Sporkyy at Unscrewing the Inscrutable posted an endorsement of the E Pluribus Unim petition . The posting, 'Under God'/'In God We Trust' petition also contains a poster that demonstrates one of the moral problems with "In God We Trust" as the national motto. I would not mind seeing the poster in a few civic buildings and schoolhouse walls myself.

Insulting Charlie Fair

One of the things that needs to be done in fighting the Pledge is to get more veterans to realize how disgraceful their behavior is when they blindly endorse the Pledge as written.

About a dozen veterans showed up at the Zoning Board meeting in North Hampton to protest the fact that one of the members does not say the Pledge.

(See: Veterans fight for Pledge of Allegiance in North Hampton)

“Since Dec. 7, 1941, 524,000 Americans sacrificed their lives for that flag,” Fatello said during the meeting.

Mr. Fatello, one of those people who sacrificed their lives was Charlie Fair. He was a friend of my dad's - so close of a friend that my younger brother is named after him. He was an atheist. You have the gall to come here and demand that, in the name of patriotism, everybody in this council must stand and insult Charlie Fair by insisting that a person is not a patriot unless he fights for 'one nation under God'. You have the gall to come here and insist that people like Charlie Fair who do not support 'one nation under God' are just as bad - just as un-American - as somebody who does not support 'one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'.

In the name of honoring veterans, you insist that this body dishonor Charlie Fair.

Mr. Fatello, look at the veteran standing next to you for a moment. Now tell me, Mr. Fatello, what your reaction would be if your government told you that, in the name of patriotism, you must insult him. You must tell the world that this veteran, who has served his country honorably, must be insulted, and that the citizen who fails to insult him cannot be a true patriot. Would you then, in the name of patriotism, insult the veteran standing next to you? Or would you tell the person who insists that patriotism requires insulting a fellow veteran to go to hell?

If it is the latter, then why are you not telling the people who insist that you insult Charlie Fair to go to hell?

Not only are you NOT telling the person who tells you to insult a fellow veteran to go to hell. You are the one demanding that patriotism requires that they insult a fellow veteran - that the say that a fellow veteran who honorably served is, nonetheless, no better than one who supports tyranny and injustice for all.

So you, Mr. Fatello, are the one who deserves to be told to go to hell - until you learn that soldiers who fought to defend this country deserve their country' respect, not your insults.

Speaking On "In God We Trust":

There are a lot of government buildings in the country today where you can find a sign that says, “In God We Trust”.

As part of the Pledge Project, if you live in one of these areas, I would like to ask that you go before whatever body is responsible for that sign and say something like the following.

Thank you for letting me speak to you today.

I come here today to ask this body to pass a resolution that says the following:

We hereby condemn any statement that explicitly or implicitly denigrates the patriotism or moral character of any law-abiding person that does not trust in a God, or that implies that such a citizen is not entitled to equal consideration and respect as a member of this community. We condemn any statement that suggests that our community should be thought of as consisting of two classes of citizens – a class of ‘we’ citizens who trust in God, and a class of ‘they’ citizens who do not.

I have it on good authority that there are people in this community who believe that our community should be divided into two groups. They want you to think in term of a “we” group of first-class citizens – true and patriotic Americans – who trust in God. And they want you to think that there is a second class of citizens, those who do not trust in God.

They want you to post a sign in city hall that tells anybody who comes to stand before you, “If you do not trust in God, then we do not consider you to be one of us.”

Putting up a sign like that is as immoral as putting up a sign that says, “If you are not white, then we do not think of you as one of us.”

I come before you as a member of that group that does not trust in God, because I think that there is no God to trust. It is my right that you recognize me as the equal to any other citizen in this community. Given that there are those who insist that you declare that those who do not trust in God are not one of us, I would like to propose that you recognize the right of citizens of this community to come before you and be recognized as equals by condemning the message that they would have you endorse.

I propose that you pass a resolution condemning any statement that implicitly or explicitly denigrates the patriotism or moral character of citizens based solely on the fact that the citizen does not trust in God. I propose that you repudiate any attempt to send the town a message that says that we are to be divided between an included ‘we’ group who trusts in God, and an excluded ‘we’ group that does not trust in God. I propose that you acknowledge the fact that this type of statement is as morally bankrupt as posting a sign that says that we should divide the community between a group of “we” citizens who are white, and “they” citizens who are not white.

Thank you for your time.

American Legion to Pressure Zoning Board Member on Pledge

I have written a couple of times about Robert Field Jr.'s decision not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance at zoning board meetings. He argues that the Board sits in judgment of a number of people who, for various reasons, would not appropriately take the Pledge (e.g., foreign nationals) and does not want to give the impression of bias or exclusion at these hearings.

According to a story in SeacoastOnline.com, Legion members to attend ZBA meeting in response to Pledge protest American Legion Post 54 has sent out an email to American Legion members and others to show up en force to "show support for the colors".

The title itself is misleading, since Field is not protesting anything.

But the main message is clear - that you are in serious trouble if you are somebody who is in an elected or appointed position in the United States where the Pledge is recited, yet you are somebody who, for some reason, cannot (honestly) recite the Pledge of Allegiance.

Again, the Pledge is a gate to keep atheists out of public office.

Fayette Councilman Opposes Pledge

Fayette, Iowa city council has been asked by the Fayette American Legion to begin each session with the Pledge of Allegiance

(WCFCourrier.com: Fayette council delays decision on Pledge of Allegiance)

One councilman, Doug McReynolds, opposes the meaure, claiming that he took an oath to uphold the Constitution and does not need to renew it twice a month. He is coming up against a counter argument that says if children in school can say the Pledge daily, then the Council can say the pledge twice a month (when it meets).

Another, stronger argument that McReynold used was that the the Council represented all citizens. It is easy to start with that foundation and point out how the Pledge denigrates anybody who does not support 'one nation under God' in the same way it denigrates anybody who does not support 'liberty and justice for all'.

I view incidents like this as opportunities to inject some of the moral arguments that I have written about into the public debate. I think that Mr. McReynolds deserves a word or two of support.

Actions by Others

Atheist United is sending out an email warning its members of the upcoming decision and directing them to a couple of the Pledge Project posts (Table of Contents, Sound Bytes) in making responses.

Mattew Goldstein took the wording from my Letter to Candidates and turned it into an online petition: E Pluribus Unum petition.

Suggested Letter to Candidates

I have typically advised against sending letters to political candidates.

On the issue of 'under God' and 'In God We Trust', in particular, a candidate who takes whateve Political candidates are going to tell the people what the people want to hear, and the people do not want to hear that there is something objectionable in 'under God' in the Pledge and 'In God We Trust' in the motto.

However, we may be able to do something that will tone down the political reaction to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision when it comes out.

I have looked up my local county party web sites where there is a list of candidates for public office. I am then sending those candidates that I judge might be receptive to the arguments the following email:


Greetings:

In the next few days, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will release their decisions on whether 'under God' in the Pledge and 'In God We Trust' as the national motto violate the Constitution.

I would like to take a short piece of your time to give you some facts about these policies.

If you look at history, the reason 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance was to keep atheists out of public office and, in general, to promote public animosity towards atheists. This happened in 1954, during the McCarthy era. Their specific target was atheist communists, but they actually targeted all atheists.

You already know that 'under God' serves as a gate to keep certain 'undesirables' from winning a seat in government. You have seen it in the way that the LIE told about Obama's refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance is enough to threaten his campaign. You can imagine the effect it would have on any candidate's chances of winning an election if that candidate were to actually refuse to say the Pledge.

The American Sociological Association reports that Americans see atheists as the least trusted minority - the group that they see as least sharing their American values. This is not at all surprising when schools teach children that those American values include 'one nation under God'.

They learn these values starting on the first day of school, when a government teacher stands in front of them and tells them that there are four values that run opposite to what all good American support; atheism, rebellion, tyranny, and injustice for all.

Atheists (or at least those unwilling to lie about their beliefs) are now entirely blocked from public office. Over half of the population says that they would not vote for an atheist candidate.

Allowing students (and others) to sit out the Pledge at all does not mitigate the harm done. This is typically interpreted as, "Students have freedom of speech, and this means they are free to hold anti-American values if they want to. In opting out of the Pledge, they are certainly showing disrespect for everything good in this country, but one of those good things is freedom to treat this country with contempt."

Besides, the message is still there for those who stay behind and who do say the Pledge. They learn the government's message that links patriotism to 'one nation under God' and links atheism with being unpatriotic. Denying this is as absurd as denying that the Pledge links support for liberty and justice to patriotism.

In fact, having atheists conspicuously sit out the Pledge reinforces the lesson that atheists cannot be good and patriotic Americans. Rather than mitigating the harm, their exclusion adds to the harm.

Setting up a Pledge of Allegiance to serve as a locked door to keep (honest) atheists out of public office is not at all consistent with American democratic values. Teaching bigotry to young children - teaching them that people who do not support 'one nation under God' are just as bad as those who do not support 'liberty and justice for all' - is not a proper school function.

You know how successful this campaign against atheists has been at promoting bigotry against atheists. You know it by what it would cost you politically to endorse the facts that I have written about. That is proof enough that what I write is true.

The question is: Are we going to continue to promote bigotry as a core American value? Are we going to continue to continue to teach children that the four most important American values are religous bigotry, union, and liberty and justice for all?

*Name*
*Contact Information*

Suggested Letter to Schools

I would like to recommend that you identify any schools in your area where students routinely say the Pledge of Allegiance and send the school a letter like the following:

Greetings:

I would like to bring to your attention that your school might be teaching a pernicious form of bigotry.

If you look at history, the reason 'under God' was added to the Pledge of Allegiance was to keep atheists out of public office and, in general, to promote public animosity towards atheists. This happened in 1954, during the McCarthy era. Their specific target was atheist communists, but they actually targeted all atheists.

The American Sociological Association reports that Americans see atheists as the least trusted minority - the group that they see as least sharing their American values. This is not at all surprising when schools teach children that those American values include 'one nation under God'.

Even a LIE told about Obama's refusal to say the Pledge of Allegiance is enough to threaten his campaign. You can imagine the effect it would have on any candidate's chances of winning an election if that candidate were to actually refuse to say the Pledge.

Atheists (or at least those unwilling to lie about their beliefs) are now entirely blocked from public office. Over half of the population says that they would not vote for an atheist candidate.

They learn these values starting on the first day of school, when a government teacher stands in front of them and tells them that there are four values that run opposite to what all good American support; atheism, rebellion, tyranny, and injustice for all.

By the way, I do not think that allowing students to sit out the Pledge at all mitigates the harm done. This is typically interpreted as, "Students have freedom of speech, and this means they are free to hold anti-American values if they want to. In opting out of the Pledge, they are certainly showing disrespect for everything good in this country, but one of those good things is freedom to treat this country with contempt."

In fact, it simply reinforces the lesson that atheists cannot be good and patriotic Americans to have atheists conspicuously excluded from the Pledge of Allegiance. Rather than mitigating the harm, their exclusion adds to the harm.

This is a lesson that we should not be teaching children in our public schools.

At least, to the degree you are allowed to do so consistent with the law, I would like to request that you find some productive way to mitigate against these harms.

*Name*
*Contact Information*

School Replaces Pledge with Constitution

I have been tracking for a while a story about a school in Oregon, Capitol Hill Elementary in Southwest Portland, that replaced the Pledge of Allegiance in graduation with singing the Preamble to the Constitution instead.

They have gotten international flak for this.

I have not reported it because the reason that the principal gave for his decision was, in my mind, rather stupid. It was because, he said, the principle contained the words 'under God' and he did not want to offend others, such as Muslims.

This got the Muslims upset because the principal was saying they did not believe in God. Which, as I said, sounded stupid and was not something I wanted to get into the middle of.

But, the school has received a number of emails on the issue, and have been attacked by Bill O'Reilly, according to a recent news article.

(The Oregonian, School catches flak for not reciting pledge.)

According to the article:

Shelby has answered each e-mail by saying that Wilson's explanation "was a quick one, not the full one," and that Capitol Hill has students with many beliefs who don't fully participate in the pledge.

"As the document this great country of ours is founded on, the preamble is a fitting text to recite as a show of respect and patriotism," Shelby's reply says. "The principal of Capitol Hill Elementary has not removed the Pledge from the school, nor has she altered its wording in any way. Students will continue to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at Capitol Hill Elementary School."

Given this explanation, I think they should have some support for this decision, and some comments that explain why they should reject the pledge the rest of the year.

School contact page:

http://www.capitolhill.pps.k12.or.us/.docs/pg/10923

South Carolina "I Believe" Licene Plate

Today is getting to be a busy day in the Pledge Project.

In South Carolina, a lawsuit has been announced against the legislature for approving a vanity plate that says, "I Believe."

I wrote in an earlier posting when Florida considered the same style of vanity plate that I have no moral objections against it. The person who buys the plate is making a personal statement (using the personal pronoun 'I'), so I see it as being permissible.

It is the case that the legislature would be wrong to allow one religion this type of plate and deny it to others. This would amount to giving one religion special powers denied to other religions. But it is the refusal to grant this opportunity to others that would be morally objectionable, not the decision to grant this opportunity to Christians.

On the other hand, South Carolina allows people to buy a vanity plate with "In God We Trust". Given that this is a bigoted statement that says, "The government sees those who trust in God as being one of us, while those who do not trust in God are not to be considered one of us."

As such, "In God We Trust" is an immoral use of government power to promote religious bigotry within the state. That is not morally permissible.

Anyway, Tim Funk has asked for opinions on the matter, and I have sent him mine.

Atheists United Press Release on the Pledge Case

Stuart Bechman of Atheist United has a press release out announcing anticipation of a "favorable ruling" in the 'Under God' and 'In God We Trust' cases. (Atheists Expect Favorable Ruling in CA Pledge Case).

The press release makes use of arguments found in the Pledge Project - that the these practices are motivated and supported by a desire to block atheists from public office and from having a public voice.

Follow Up on Pledge Cases

The Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board voted to allow students to sit out the Pledge of Allegiance. (In-Forum: D-G-F Amends Pledge POlicy - Students Can Sit).

However, the article still expresses the debate in terms of those who think that students should stand and show respect for the flag and those who fought to defend their freedoms, versus those who think that students have a right to sit and show contempt for the flag and those who defend our freedoms.

Nowhere is there a hint of the fact that the Pledge itself shows disrespect for many of the people who have fought for our freedoms, or the fact that the Pledge links patriotism with belief in God (thus linking the lack of belief in God with a lack of patriotism).

The article literally screams that a patriot would stand and say the Pledge, and that no patriot could object to this practice.

Which, as I have been arguing, is exactly wrong.

Meanwhile, the North Hampton Zoning Board will have its next meeting on Tuesday, June 24th. As the article announcing the meeting reports (Seacoastonline: Around the Town)

This is the ZBA's first meeting since controversy followed a board member's decision not to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance nor to recite the pledge. Robert Field Jr. said he did so because he doesn't feel reciting the pledge is appropriate for the ZBA, which sits in judgment of other people's business, as in a courtroom.

The mere fact that this is considered news shows that there is coercion in this society to say the Pledge of Allegiance - and that a large number of people use the pledge to make judgements of others.

Note of Appreciation

I would like to thank Vjack over at Atheist Revolution gave the Pledge Project a very strong recommendation. (See Getting 'Under God' Out of the Pledge).

Oil: More Drilling?

President Bush is an idiot.

Oops, did I write that out loud?

While my other blog is being used for the Pledge Project, I still need to express some exhasperation at Bush's stupidity regarding his recent speech on energy policy. Bush said that we need to open offshore drilling and start drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge in order to "strengthen our national security."

This shows as much wisdom as telling a person who is facing a severe cutback in pay at work that he needs to drain his savings account as fast as he can - because what is most important when you are suffering a shortage in income is that you maintain your current standard of living. Adjusting to the fact that you will have less income is obviously not recommended, at least by this President.

The way that I protect my personal financial security is by saving money - by holding on to a reserve that I do not spend so that, if some disaster strikes that eliminates other sources of income, I still have income that I can use. As long as I maintain a large reserve of money, other people have less power over me.

And to the degree that the United States maintains a large reserve of oil that we can draw upon in a crisis, to that degree other countries have less power over us.

Bush's policy of using up our reserves deprives us of options and gives others power over us.

This is the opposite of protecting national security.

All of these criticisms of Bush's policy apply equally to McCain's call for drilling off shore as well. These are idiotic practices that will back America into an energy corner from which we will have few options for escape.

Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board and the Pledge

In Forum is continuing to cover the upcoming Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board meeting (see: Pledge policy may be on its last leg where the policy that requires students to stand during the Pledge of Allegiance is being reviewed.

The rule violates state and federal law, but there is a lot of public pressure to keep the rule anyway because children must be taught respect for the flag and for the people who fought for their freedoms.

Or so the argument goes.

Board member Jerry Anderson said he understands residents’ concerns about spending education dollars on litigation; but, as a veteran, he can’t bring himself to vote for an amendment he deems offensive to the country’s troops:

Against the issue of respect for troops, the article discusses two arguments for changing the policy. (1) Freedom of speech (students have a right to hate their country and show disrespect or the troops if they want to), and (2) fiscal responsibility (we do not have the financial resources to fight a lawsuit).

Note that the Pledge Project is about introducing a set of arguments into this debate that have so far been ignored - the moral arguments against having 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. News coverage of this school board meeting illustrate why we need to introduce those arguments.

Nothing is said here about the Pledge of Allegiance with the words 'under God' teaching the opposite of respect.

With the words 'under God', the Pledge says that there are four great evils in the world that no patriotic American would support - atheism, rebellion, tyranny, and injustice. This is quite the opposite of a message of respect for those who do not believe in God, some of whom are among those who fought for our freedoms.

Unfortunately, the Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board seems to shun email. I cannot find an email contact on their entire website.

I have, however, written to the paper.

Also, if you know anybody in the area:

- What: Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board meeting

- When: 5 p.m. Thursday

- Where: Administrative conference room, Dilworth Elementary School

- Info: (218) 287-2371

Beloit Councelor Retreats from Pledge Stance

One of the stories I had been watching regarding the use of Pledge of Allegiance to control access to elected office came to a close today. This story comes from Beloit, Wisconsin.

Councelor Sheila De Forest originally declined to say the Pledge of Allegiance at city council meetings because, in her view, she owes her allegiance to a set of principles, not to a piece of fabric.

However, the outrage over her refusal was so strong that she decided to surrender to those who valued reverence to symbols over reverence to the things symbolized.

De Forest Decides to Recite Pledge

"I realize that the choice I made a long time ago not to say the pledge is serving as a distraction from the important work that my colleagues and I have before us," De Forest said in her statement.

I would have considered it a virtue for somebody who holds public office to less interested in symbols compared to that which was symbolized. I would applaud her commitment (and watch to see if she stands true to those principles).

In fact, this is yet another story that points to an unpleasant fact - that 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is a tool used to reserve elected office only for those who can pledge allegiance to God, and to deny elected office to all others.

As long as 'under God' remains in the Pledge it will be used as a religious test for public office - an object whose chief value to those who support it is to serve as a nearly impenetrable barrier between those who do not believe in God and public office.

Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton School Board Meeting

I would like to give a reminder that on the evening of June 19th (Thursday) the Dilworth-Glyndon-Felton school board will vote on a change in the school policy.

Currently, the policy requires students to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, and four students were suspended recently for failure to do so. The policy change would permit the students the option not to stand.

The arguments so far have been legal arguments and legal threats. "Allow students to sit or face a lawsuit that their right to free speech is being violated - a lawsuit on an issue that the Supreme Court has already decided in our favor."

In this context, the claim is easily interpreted as saying, "Children have the right to show contempt for the country and the people who sacrificed for their freedoms if they want to. You cannot show them to respect either." The assumption being that to remain seated and not saying the Pledge is an expression of disrespect.

The moral arguments against the Pledge are not being presented.

The wrongness of a government telling its citizens, "In our eyes, a person who does not support 'one nation under God' cannot be a patriot, in the same way that a person who does not support 'liberty and justice for all' cannot be a patriot," is not mentioned.

Today, a guest editorial appeared on In-Forum, a local news service, stating, Reciting teh Pledge at D-G-F Schools Should Not Be Optional.

The real issue here is about loyalty and respect – respect for the people who fought to give these little snot-nosed kids all the rights they do have.

This, of course, is false. The Pledge (with the words 'under God') shows the opposite of respect for some of those who fought for those freedoms. It teaches disrespect for all who do not support 'one nation under God'. If any should deny this, then ask them, "What does the Pledge say about people who do not support liberty and justice for all? Does it say that they are worthy of respect or that they deserve their nation's contempt? Whatever the Pledge says about these people, it says the same thing about people who do not support 'one nation under God'."

Weekend Activities

Rats. I accidentally posted this entry on my regular board, rather than here.

I you were to open up Google News and do a search for "pledge of allegiance" you would discover page after page of reports of events where, "Person P lead the pledge of allegiance."

I had one commenter state that he had never encountered the Pledge of Allegiance after junior high school. The most likely reason for this is that the reader simply did not attend civic events - graduations, government meetings, celebrations honoring fallen soldiers, cub scout or boy scout events, and the like.

Either that, or he lives in an unusual part of the country.

Over the past several years, there has been a push to include the Pledge of Allegiance into more and more events (particularly events involving young children), just as there is a push to put the national motto "In God We Trust" in more and more buildings. These are all parts of a movement to brand America as a "Christian" (or at least a "religious") nation - at least in the sense that if you are not Christian, these people want to make sure that the government tells you that you do not fit in here. That you are not wanted.

One of the projects that fits into the Pledge Project is to get the Pledge removed from these ceremonies. Here, the argument would be, "It is simply wrong to begin a ceremony by insulting many of the people who would attend. The Pledge states that a person who does not support 'one nation under God' is as bad as a person who does not support 'liberty and justice for all'. This type of insult cast at peaceful and law-abiding citizens is a poor way to start a ceremony."

If the claim is brought up that this is our way of honoring the flag, the answer could be given, "This ritual has the same moral qualities of a ritual that takes a group of people from the audience, ties them to stakes, and has the audience throw rotten fruit or spit at them. That this is said to be a ceremony in which Americans show their respect for others is bizarre at best. In fact, it is a lie added to an insult. This ritual is not ment to show respect at all. It is meant to show and to foster contempt against a group of peaceful and law-abiding citizens based simply on their beliefs."

Of course, the defenders of 'under God' will complain about how atheists simply will not be happy unless all mention of God is removed from the public square. Against this, the answer is, "Opposition to 'under God' is anti-religious in the same way that opposition to segregation was anti-white. There are plenty of ways in which a person can mention God in the public square other than to insult others by comparing them to 'those who hate liberty and justice for all'. I would recommend that you choose one of them instead."

If they seek a recommendation, I have already given one. It would be a pledge that does not contain the words 'under God', but one in which the speaker is free to add 'so help me God' at the end. This allows mention of God in the public square in a way that does not say, 'no person who denies the existence of God shall be considered a patriot.'

Flag Day Observances

It's flag day, and news organizations are taking the opportunity to tell the country how great it is that America is "one nation under God" and that our motto shows our devotion to a creator.

For example, thespectrum.com (Utah) has an article, "One nation under God: Church leaders value diety reference in pledge.

There is a comment option for this article if you would like to leave a comment.

Middletown Journal (Ohio) has an article, Navy veteran speaks up about Old Glory for Flag Day"

Conrad said he sees a lot of disrespect for the flag. They've never had to live in a country that's not represented by that flag and what it stands for. . . . They don't know how blessed we are," he said. "Under God — one nation under God — and we are."

An article at BedfordTimesRegister.com, Veterans Beat: 'Pause for the pledge' on Flag Day is a patriotic plan tells of plans to make the Pledge an increasingly important part of Flag Day celebrations.

Since 1980, Americans all across the country have paused for a moment on June 14 at 7 p.m. (EDT) to say simultaneously the 31 words of the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. . . . President George Bush is considering an invitation to lead Americans everywhere in the National "pause for the pledge" over television and radio at 7 p.m. (EDT) on Flag Day. Joint Resolutions have been introduced in both Houses of Congress to make the "pause for the pledge" a regular part of Flag Day. Governors and mayors across the country have been invited to join in this national program. Incidentally, the Army usually invites area mayors to participate in the program by proclaiming "Flag Day" in their respective communities. The effect of this simple ceremony each year has been a stimulating experience at home and a sign of unity abroad.

The article contains the following opinion.

OPINION: A personal comment if I might. From time to time you hear about some off-base group that seeks to promote the abandonment of the voicing of the Pledge of Allegiance in our schools. These groups have made their similar condemnation of our flag, going to the extreme of putting a match to it or defiling it in other despicable ways. If it were not for the main stream media, the TV folks especially, attempts to attract attention to their unstable cause would go unnoticed. Hopefully, some of these television networks will come to understand that they are being used.

School Board Refuses to Consider "In God We Trust"

Okay, the Journal is open for business.

First order of business.

Yesterday, I wrote that the Fountain Valley CA was planning to discuss a measure to put "In God We Trust" behind the dias in 6" letters.

Well, the school board did not even put forth a motion to consider the proposal. John Broscoe showed up to pitch the proposal. However, the school board members responded by saying that this has nothing to do with promoting education, so they were not going to consider it.

(See: Orange County Register, Fountain Valley trustees decide not to pursue "In God WE Trust" display.)

Superintendent Marc Ecker commended the board at the end of the meeting for staying true to its mission of teaching and learning, and for "keeping at arm's distance what I feel is dangerous and distracting." It "doesn't further one child learning how to read, or kept safe, or have any part of the curriculum,'' he said about the motto display.

Which is a good enough reason for a school board to reject a proposal.

Pledge Videos

A commenter on the Atheist Ethicist blog made a suggestion that he later followed up with on his own blog.

Still, reading one of Alonzo's posts recently got me to thinking about the Blasphemy Challenge that drew a lot of interest last year. As you may recall, the Blasphemy Challenge involved people filming short videos of themselves "denying" the Holy Spirit and posting them on Youtube. Well, I figured, why not adopt the same idea for The Pledge Project? How about we make videos of ourselves and others saying the Pledge of Allegiance sans the words "under God"?

In it, he has taken the next step and produced a video of his kids saying the "Pledge of Allegiance" without the words "under God."

A lot of people come up with ideas. They give their ideas more merit when they act on them.

I think this idea has merit. One of the complaints about the current pledge is that it gives the impression that those who do not believe in God are not patriots - that they are not loyal Americans - in virtue of their unwillingness to pledge allegiance.

They conveniently ignore the fact that this is due to an unwillingness to lie - an unwillingness to say that America is now or ever has been under a being that does not exist.

In my book, A Perspective on the Pledge, I have the protagonist standing after the rest of the class gave a pledge of allegiance to give his own pledge - precisely to illustrate some of the problems with the existing pledge.

I have written to the Rational Response Squad and asked if they would like to take up this idea.

In the main idea, I would like to recommend that readers take up the challenge. Let me know what you do.

Now . . . I gotta go find somebody who can make me a video.

Marilyn Walton: The Pledge Respects All Who Sacrificed

For anybody who would like to practice writing arguments about the merits of 'under God' in the Pledge before the 9th Circuit Court delivers its opinion, here is another opportunity.

There is an editorial in The Oxford Press, Flag had meaning to POWs of World War II that says (about a person who refuses to stand for the pledge):

. . . someone might remind her in no uncertain terms that she is showing the greatest disrespect not just to her country but all those who sacrificed for her.

I wrote a letter telling how the pledge disrespects those who served without believing in God because it equates a person who does not support 'one nation under God' with somebody who does not support 'liberty and justice for all'.

Or, in other words, the government has said, "Unless you support one nation under God your allegiance means nothing to me."

I would like to encourage others to respond.

Fountain Valley CA debates "In God We Trust"

Here's a relevant news item.

The Fountain Valley School Board is going to debate tonight whether to put the words "In God We Trust" behind the dias "in words six inches tall or taller."

(See: OC Register, "Fountain Valley schools consider 'In God We Trust' tonight.")

According to the article:

The motto will "have people think about our country and our governance," Briscoe said. It "belongs up there. It reminds them the basis of governance is our creator."

Well, the proposition that the basis of our governance is our creator is false, since it puts the basis of our governance in that which has never existed. And that which has never existed cannot be the basis of that which does exist.

The article has a comment section, and in the comment section I wrote the argument that I would like to see join these traditional arguments.

You want to put a sign up in a government building that effectively says, "If you do not trust in God, then we do not consider you to be one of us."

It's about as sensible as putting up a sign that says, "If you do not believe in Jesus, we do not consider you one of us," or "If you are not white, we do not consider you one of us."

That's not the type of sign we should ever find on a government building (or on the government money for that matter).

What I would like to read tomorrow is that somebody actually went to the meeting and gave this argument to the Board itself.

"Just as you have no moral right to vote to put up a sign that says, 'We do not consider those who are not white to be one of us,' you have no right to vote for a sign that says, 'we do not consider those who do not trust in God to be one of us."

I'll be looking tomorrow to find out what was said.

Secularist Support

*turns on lights*

Okay, the first meeting of the Pledge Project volunteers will now come to order.

Roll call....

Alonzo Fyfe.

here

Okay, we have a quarum.

Our first order of business:

Atheist Ethicist received a comment on a blog entry concerning the activities of In God We Trust - America. This organization is attempting to get the national motto posted in all government buildings. The commenter in this case spoke up against one city's plan to post the national motto. As a result (or so it seems reasonable to believe) her house was vandalized.

I propose that we lobby an organization that fights in defense of separation of church and state to set up a way of providing support for people such as this who stand up for secular values. I propose sending a letter to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State encouraging them to adopt such a policy.

I nominate Alonzo Fyfe to draft the letter.

Letter drafted:

Greetings:

My name is Alonzo Fyfe. I run a blog called Atheist Ethicist (http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com) in which I am currently focusing on the issues of 'In God We Trust" as the National Motto and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

One of my postings concerned the activities of a group called In God We Trust - America, whose goal is to get the national motto displayed in every civic building in the country.

In response to my posting on this issue, I received a comment from a woman whose house was vandalized as a result to standing up against the posting of such a display.

See Los Angeles Daily News, Vandals hit home of Lancaster City Council Critic (http://www.dailynews.com/ci_9422418).

This is one of several stories that I have heard about people who have stood up for secularist principles suffering great costs. Some of them have faced vandalism. Others have been forced to move and are at risk of physical injury. I know that you are well aware of these risks.

I believe that these people deserve our support, and that we do not do ourselves any favors by forcing such a heavy load onto so few soldiers.

I looked through your web site to discover whether you provide some sort of assistance - other than legal assistance - for individuals standing up for secular values. I could not find mention of these types of services, so I thought I would recommend them.

Specifically, I would like to ask if you would consider setting up a victims' support fund to provide some sort of compensation for people who incur costs that can be reasonably attributed to their decision to stand up for secular values - people like the woman mentioned in this article.

Given your limited resources, I am not asking that you actually provide this help. Rather, I think it would be useful for your organization to serve as a conduit that reports on these moral crimes, collects contributions from those who would like to help the victims, and then passes that support on to the victims.

Sometimes the best help for somebody who takes a stand on this issue is simply to send them a note of appreciation. Unfortunately, posting their names and addresses on line only makes them more vulnerable to attack. An option that avoids this risk would be for an agency such as yours to collect the well-wishes for these people (which may well include money and other gifts) and to forward them to the intended recipient.

This site would serve two purposes.

First, it will provide assistance to those who have been made to suffer for the act of standing up for freedoms that we all share.

Second, it will serve to publish and make people aware of the types of violence that secualrists are subject to - something better than anecdotal evidence and rumors.

If you decide to set up such a project, please let me know. I would be honored to be one of the first contributors to such a project.

sincerely,

Alonzo Fyfe
Atheist Ethicist
http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com


All of those in favor of sending this letter say aye.

AYE

All those opposed . . .

*silence*

The ayes have it.

Motion carries.

Meeting ajourned.

we will convene again this evening.

*turns off lights*

Judge Heinhardt Hospitalized

An article that I found in the New York Sun reports that Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the judge who ruled against 'under God' in the Pledge in 2002 and who sat on Michael Newdow's follow-up case which is the focus of the new lawsuit, has been hospitalized.

I wish him well, and I wish for him the best care that medical science can provide.

The Pledge Project: Project Center

Let me turn the lights on here a bit. This place needs some dusting. Does the electricity still work? Can we get some lights on in here? LIGHTS!

Well, it seems that the equipment here still works. That's a good start.

Yes, this is the site I hope to use for the day-to-day operations of the Pledge Project once the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals releases its decision. Here, I hope to collect the news of who is saying what, when, where, and how to contact them.

My hope is to address some of the things people say with respect to 'under God' with the arguments things I have been saying in The Pledge Project.

This site hasn't been used in a while - in a couple of months really. But it shouldn't take much effort to get it cleaned up and set to serve those of us who want to participate in the Pledge Project.

So, let me get busy getting this site organized.

And . . . welcome.

I am glad you came.