Atheist Ethicist Journal

Anti-Atheist Bigotry

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 14:51:00 +0000

vjack, over at Atheist Revolution, is talking more seriously in recent weeks about ending anti-atheist bigotry (or, at least, fighting it).

I recommend his most recent posting on the subject: Ending Anti-Atheist Bigotry.

As it turns out, of course, I hold that one of the biggest sources of anti-atheist bigotry is the government's own statement that those who are not "under God" are to be thought of as belonging in the sme family as those who do not support 'one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all'.

It is expressed by the government's own motto, "If you do not trust in God, then we do not think of you as being one of us."

Teach these messages to young children, and a great many of them will be anti-atheist bigots for life, more than eager to assert that atheists do not "share our values" and that, as "one nation under god" we certainly cannot allow atheists to be elected to public office or hold positions of public trust.

You certainly would not want your child to marry one.

Florida Appeals Court on the Pledge of Allegiance

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 14:49:00 +0000

A Florida appeals court declared today that a state law requiring parental permission to refuse to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance at school was constitutional, but the part of the law that required even those students who refused to say the Pledge (with parental permission) to stand was unconstitutional.

See: Jurist: Federal court rules part of Florida Pledge of Allegiance law unconstitutional.

Atheist Priorities

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:38:00 +0000

Vjack, over at Atheist Revolution, has a post that is concerned with picking one's battles.

Of course, I have picked mine already (and Vjack has acknowledged that and supported it). But there are a point that I wish to make on this topic.

It is utterly stupid for us to be spending so much time fighting each other over what battles to fight that we do not have any time or effort left to fight any battles.

I know that there are people who think that opposing 'under God' and 'In God We Trust' is a mistake because of the strength of the backlash that such a camapaign will generate. I believe that they are mistaken - that there can be no victory anywhere unless these tools for propagandizing children are removed. But I am not going to spend only a fraction of my time fighting such critics. I will spend the bulk of my time fighting the Pledge and the Motto themselves.

I recommend that others do the same. Whatever priority you think is most worth pursuing . . . pursue it. Don't spend your time telling everybody how good a plan it is. Show them.

A Message on Patriotism

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:14:00 +0000

Here is a message on patriotism that deserves some recognition.

The Meaning of Patriotism.

Patriotism is ACTION inspired by a profound sense of RESPONSIBILITY to one's country. American patriotism is a duty to act toward the creation of a more perfect union. Sometimes that duty means voting. Sometimes it means becoming a warrior or politician. Sometimes it means protesting and civil disobedience. Sometimes it means raising your voice and speaking strongly in advocacy for your position on an issue.

Atheist United Indivisible Day Speech

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:32:00 +0000

Stuart Bechman has posted his speech for the Indivisible Day rally in Ventura, California.

Promoting "One Nation Under God"

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 11:50:00 +0000

Just a couple of news articles that I wanted to bring your attention.

From the New York Sun, Daniel Johnson, Healthier than Europe Is."

America is the best proof that Tocqueville was right: religion is beneficial — indeed essential — for democracy to flourish.

Danville News, A Blessed Nation

The Fourth may have had its fireworks but Mount Calvary Church held its God & Country Day celebration Sunday.

The event honored veterans of wars with musical performances, recognition of the church’s military veterans, a patriotic video and a sermon emphasizing the United States’ Judeo-Christian roots. The gala also featured the posting of the colors by the Martinsville/Henry County Veterans Honor Guard.

“Our nation has survived because of these four words and the truths they represent – ‘One nation under God,’” said Gary Robertson, senior pastor at Mount Calvary Church, during his sermon.

Pledge as a Sign of Patriotism

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 03:16:00 +0000

Another set of data showing how the Pledge of Allegiance is used to denigrate atheists and to provide a barrier between atheists and public office.

USA Today had a poll in which they asked people what certain actions said about an individual's patriotism. (See: USA Today Flag Pins, Protests Both Patriotic)

According to the poll, 77 percent of Americans believe that saying the Pledge of Allegiance indicates that a person is patriotic by "a great deal" or "a moderate amount".

The poll did not ask what I think is the more interesting question. Does not saying the Pledge indicate that one is not patriotic?

Since the United States Government has decided to create a Pledge that a large group of Americans cannot say, then it is entirely unfair to hold that not saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a sign of poor patriotism (or that saying the Pledge of Allegiance is a sign of patriotism). Where patriotism is held in high esteem, this gives an unfair advantage to those who are capable of saying the Pledge and puts those who cannot say the Pledge at a disadvantage.

So, where the Pledge itself is discriminatory, the people are wrong to hold that it is a sign of patriotism or virtue. Where the Pledge is taken as a sign of patriotism or virture, it is wrong to have a pledge that is discriminatory. We can have a discriminatory pledge without patriotism, or a patriotic pledge with out discrimination, but no sense of justice can condone having a pledge that is both patriotic and discrimiatory.

Obama on Patriotism

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 12:11:00 +0000

Yesterday, in a speech on patriotism, Obama said, "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign."

The fact is, this is a lie. Obama questions the patriotism of others every time he says the Pledge of Allegiance, which he has repeatedly done since opponents began spreading the lie that does not say the Pledge of Allegiance.

The pledge itself calls those who do not support "one nation under God" unpatriotic. Just as it calls those who do not support union, liberty, and justice for all unpatriotic.

That the Pledge calls the patrotism of such people into question is the easiest thing on the planet to prove in the context of the Obama campaign. What did it mean to say that Obama did not say the Pledge of Allegiance? It meant that he was unpatriotic. If he had refused to say the Pledge because he did not believe in God, he would have still been branded unpatriotic. The Pledge questions the patriotism of any who do not believe in God. Q.E.D.

Technically, we might want to give him a friendly intepretation that he will not question the patriotism of other candidates in this campaign - whereas it remains open season on the patriotism of private Americans, such as those who do not support 'one nation under God'.

Certainly, it would be foolish for Obama to question the existence of spies and others who would sell out their country for cash by selling secrets to other governments. Clearly, it would be foolish to deny that there are people whose patriotism is questionable.

Certainly, Obama will continue to engage in the practice of putting those who do not support 'one nation under God' on that list.

Indivisibility Day

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 04:04:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:33:00 +0000

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'

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:14:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 03:55:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:13:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:03:00 +0000

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":

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:40:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 17:52:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 11:19:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 22:08:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 16:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:01:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 14:18:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:00:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 12:15:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Alonzo Fyfe) — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:43:00 +0000

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.