Log in

No account? Create an account

"I have never heard a single comment from anyone objecting to that"

« previous entry | next entry »
Jun. 27th, 2002 | 10:52 am

Does this anger any of you as much as me?

From: Feinsteinpress <feinsteinpress@feinstein.senate.gov>
Subject: General: Feinstein on the Pledge of Allegiance
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 10:16:23 -0400
Reply-To: Feinsteinpress <feinsteinpress@feinstein.senate.gov>

The following news release from Senator Feinstein is being sent to you based on
your request for electronic information updates. If you wish to respond to this
message, please go to http://feinstein.senate.gov/contact.html and follow the
directions. Please do not respond directly as it is part of a semi-automatic
system. Thank you for your interest in Senator Feinstein. To unsubscribe,
please go to http://feinstein.senate.gov/issue.html and select "leave list."

Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein on the
9th Circuit Court Ruling on the Pledge of Allegiance

"I find the 9th Circuit Court's opinion embarrassing at best, and I hope
that this decision is promptly overturned by the United States Supreme Court.

This nation from its foundation has had a belief in God, and has a long
tradition of expressing that belief.

The Congress on April 22, 1864 first placed 'In God We Trust' on a coin, and
it has been on various coins of United States issue for a century and a half.
The words "Under God" were added to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, and I have
never heard a single comment from anyone in a half century objecting to that.

I see no reason to reverse what has been over a century of American
tradition, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of S. Res. 292, 'The Pledge of the
Allegiance Resolution.'"

Link | Leave a comment |

Comments {5}

(Deleted comment)

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jun. 27th, 2002 11:57 am (UTC)

I guess no one has read The Godless Constitution: the case against religious correctness.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: marnanel
date: Jun. 27th, 2002 11:29 am (UTC)


firinel and I've been having an interesting time putting this point across over on jesusfreaks. :(

Reply | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jun. 27th, 2002 12:04 pm (UTC)

The theists who support separation of church and state like to point out that if the state gets involved with supporting a religion, those who don't follow the state's espoused viewpoint get excluded. I'd also suspect that state religons tend to be rather non-descript and moderate.

Also if you have a state supported religion, I think people seem to eventually lose interest. At least that's the best explination I can come up with for the higher rates of atheism in european countries when compared to the US.

Reply | Parent | Thread

(no subject)

from: marnanel
date: Jun. 27th, 2002 12:28 pm (UTC)

Also if you have a state supported religion, I think people seem to eventually lose interest.

Well put :)

I think, though, that:

a. it's true of a religion becoming "respectable" at all, whether or not it's espoused by the state. Christianity, which is quite alarmingly controversial and turns much of what the world expects on its head, is nevertheless seen as conventional, conservative and dull in most of the West, in countries with and without state churches.

b. it all depends on the government. A government who can't even organise transport properly probably won't be very hot on persecuting people who don't agree with their religious viewpoints, but I think it's better to keep church out of public hands entirely because of the potential for abuse. (Compare absolute monarchy: when it works well, it's a very good system of government. It's still a terrible idea, though, because it can so easily be abused, and when it goes bad, it goes so bad.)

Reply | Parent | Thread

Diane Trout

(no subject)

from: alienghic
date: Jun. 27th, 2002 11:51 am (UTC)

Just wanted to post my email to Senator Feinstein.

I just wanted to say that I am glad that someone finally remembered Jefferson's wall between church and state by ruling the current pledge of allegiance unconstitutional.

The United States is a large multicultural land with filled Christians, Muslims,Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Neo-pagans, and even Atheists and Agnostics. Having the state support any particular concept of god, devalues the cultural traditions of those who do not believe, and disenfranchises them from participating in the broader American culture.

Additionally the country was originally founded by Deists and Agnostics, for instance in 1797, the treaty of tripoli between the US and the subjects of Tripoli of Barbary contains this language: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,--as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,--and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries?"

It passed the 1797 Senate without problem.

I think we should return to the pre-1954 pledge, and while were re-issuing our money could we also return to the original "In us we trust?" (Or even the more accurate, "In free markets we trust").

I hope this message counts as you finally hearing comments objecting to the "under god" placed in the pledge.

Diane Trout

Reply | Thread