Action Alert

Yesterday the Supreme Court used a technicality to dodge the controversy surrounding the constitutionality of the recitation of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance by children in public schools. The Supreme Court only ruled that Michael Newdow does not have standing to bring the case.

Our position is that regardless of the legal technicality, the Pledge remains an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The presence of "under God" and "indivisible" creates a contradictory oath. Rather than uniting the American people, the Pledge discriminates between monotheistic religious Americans and nonreligious or polytheistic Americans. The inclusion of "under God" in the Pledge confers second-class citizenship upon those who hold a particular outlook on religion.

ACTION

We urge you to send letters and/or opinion editorials to your local paper protesting this decision. We cannot let our rights be trampled under majority rule -- our voices must be heard!

Included below for reference is an example letter submitted to the Washington Post today by executive director Tony Hileman in response to an editorial, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41979-2004Jun14.html

To find contact information for your newspaper editorial staff check their website or go to: http://www.congress.org/stickers/?dir=congressorg&media=1

Please copy us on your letters and e-mails, and don't forget to include your full contact information.

Letter to the editor

Yesterday’s editorial, “Never Mind the Pledge” claims there is “no guarantee that the court would have spoken coherently and constructively about a genuinely gray area of law had it tried.” That’s off on two counts: The inclusion of “under God” is in no way a gray area, and the lack of coherence in addressing thorny social issues has never served to restrain the court.

The 1954 addition of the phrase “under God” to the government-established Pledge of Allegiance was an unqualified and unconstitutional endorsement of religion. This pairing of faith and patriotism is offensive to millions of Americans who do not share the majority stance on monotheism. And one need only review some of the court’s less reasoned decisions in other civil and human rights cases to confirm that they have often been fearless in the face of incoherence.

More disturbing are the political implications (and seeming considerations) at play in ducking this “hot button” issue. The Court conspicuously chose, in the midst of a presidential campaign, to announce its decision on the fiftieth anniversary of the inclusion of this exclusionary phrase in the Pledge. Was that coincidence?

Tony Hileman
Executive Director
American Humanist Association

See Pledge talking points at http://www.americanhumanist.org/pledge.html for background information and watch for an AHA alert announcing the decision.

For more on the Plege of Allegiance, please click on Pledge of Allegiance Case

To subscribe send an e-mail to alerts@americanhumanist.org with "subscribe" in the subject line. To unsubscribe send an e-mail to SubMbrEmail@americanhumanist.org with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Press Room
Action Alerts
Coalition Statements