Not worth it. Just not worth it.

So what do we do with the Hindus, Ms. Beckstrom? You do realize that Hindus are not monotheistic.

Look, the Atheist leadership is psychotic, but it’s good to have someone that far out there just as much as it’s good to let the Christian right do what they do.

Here’s an example for all the people who think prayer should be allowed in schools. Imagine that it is, that people are just allowed to pray for who they like. Now imagine that your child is one of three Christian kids in a class that is entirely Muslim otherwise. They all bow to the east and pray several times a day. What would your kid do? Of course, you’ll say “I’d hope that I instilled the Christian values into my child to know that they pray in their way and we pray in a different way.” The real answer is you’ve never considered that fact pattern to be a possibility. You have no comprehension of what it is like to be the parent of Jewish 6 year old and to explain to them why we don’t celebrate Christmas. It’s not a fun discussion.

Now, getting rid of “Under God” and “In God We Trust” in currency and the Pledge is just a waste of time. But I like having nutcases way on the left to make sure that the nutcases on the right don’t get their way.

Shocking facts were exposed by me (Rex Curry) during research for court litigation against the Pledge of Allegiance. Court litigation about the Pledge of Allegiance exposed frightening discoveries about the Pledge’s past. The new Pledge case (9/14/05) from Elk Grove, California, virtually guarantees the high court again will consider the constitutionality of the Pledge, and I will be there to tell the whole truth, (including the parts that are hidden by the courts and media). As a libertarian lawyer, I provide pro bono services in schools nationwide (and via this letter) to educate the public about the news:

1. The USA's first Pledge used a straight-arm salute and it was the origin of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers’ Party (Nazis). It was not an ancient Roman salute. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html

2. The Pledge began with a military salute that then stretched outward toward the flag. Historic photographs are at http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html and at http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html Due to the way that both gestures were used, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-pledge.html

3. The Pledge's creator was a self-proclaimed socialist in the nationalism movement in the USA and his dogma influenced socialists in Germany, and his Pledge was the origin of their salute. “Nazi” means “National Socialist German Workers’ Party.” A mnemonic device is the swastika (Hakenkreuz in German). Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes by German National Socialists to represent “S” letters for their “socialism.” Hitler altered his own signature to use the same stylized “S” letter for “socialist.” http://rexcurry.net/book1a1contents-swastika.html

The Pledge is part of the USA's growing police-state. The insane government in the U.S. could cause comatose persons to Pledge dis-allegiance, desecrate the flag, and recite a declaration of independence. Remove the Pledge from the flag, remove flags from schools, remove schools from government.

Yours in Liberty, Rex Curry Attorney At Law

Wait, let me get this straight. I’m an atheist, albeit one who is willing to fight, die, and pay taxes for this great United States of America, but when it comes to my religious expression, I should just shut up, since the original founders were mostly Christian. Thanks. And this whole time I thought that government shouldn’t be involved in religion. I hope you don’t mind having your church’s tax-exempt status revoked. I also hope you like having Satanism, Scientology and Wiccanism endorsed by the state too, unless you only favor the state endorsing YOUR religion.

What don’t you understand about the separation of church and state. This country was founded on the principal of not having religous persecution, as you stated, well how would our nation endorsing monotheism not represent the persecution of people who are polytheistic or atheists. There is also such a thing as free speech, and if I am not mistaken isn’t there something in Christianity about not judging people. The religous right needs to accept the fact that there are all sorts of people in the US and that the whole founding of the country was based on one group of people not being able to force their beliefs on another. The “activist” liberal judges don’t add regulations that force beliefs on other people, rather they enable people to practice their own beliefs; while the right tends to restrict what people can do, and in doing this essentially force their beliefs on others. Why does it matter to you if someone is an atheist and chooses to express it by saying they are a godless American, there are plenty of people who whole heartedly show that they are christian. That is what religous freedom means, people can believe as they choose.

History lesson for Darryn Beckstrom: the “Founding Fathers” didn’t build this nation alone. People did. The relationships and exchanges among the peoples that inhabited what is now the United States influenced the “founding” and building of this nation. And newsflash: not all were monotheists. The nation-state’s endorsement of monotheism then did the same thing that the Court’s endorsement of monotheism would do now - exclude many people who live here, who are citizens, who identify as American from whatever changes that would come from such an endorsement (i.e., “the presence of God in our nation's courtrooms, classrooms, and government buildings.”). It’s one thing to criticize the lawsuits about removing religious phrases from government buildings and US currency. But it is another thing to propose a policy that would marginalize many people who currently make up the US (just like the “Founding Fathers” did).

Recently I read an editorial condemning people who want to keep religion and the state separate. I get it. You believe in God. But that doesn’t mean the rest of the nation must reject the principles upon which this country was built, including the Establishment Clause.

Normally, Darryn, your columns are full of shoddy reasoning and it’s fun to poke holes in them, but this is just bizarre. I take it you’ll endorse Deist Day becoming a national holiday, seeing as the “clockmaker” God was the most popular view of the Almighty among the Founders.

Are you here at UW genuinely interested in getting your Ph.D., or are you trying to fail your quals so you have a good story about the conservative girl oppressed by the evil liberal university?

And what about the Hindu? Should their government discriminate against them? The Founders were influenced by their faith but were smart enough not to “endorse” it.

Washington and Jefferson were deists, so it makes sense that they would use the term “God.” While your (and Scalia’s) contention that the Establishment clause permits monotheism may be a nice compromise, it doesn’t well meet the national traditions argument that Scalia relies upon. Scalia overlooks the question of whether the Pledge could have been changed to “under Christ.” Given the makeup of the nation at the founding, very few individuals were not Christian (few Jews, and certainly no Muslims); why not this change? Under Scalia’s rule, this change would be permissible. “Monotheism” is a convenient reading of our traditions, so that Scalia (and you) might make the decision more palatable. In fact, it demonstrates that reliance upon “tradition” is no less malleable a source than any other source of constitutional interpretation.

Oh Darryn… Where to begin. I thought the Thanksgiving holiday would prevent you from spewing forth your right wing talking points but, alas, you went forth anyways with your usual craziness. Let's check them off shall we?

1. The extreme hard-on righties get for Scallia: Check.

2. Advocating a governmental policy which deliberately excludes people who don't agree with your religious conventions: Check.

3. Calling anyone who isn't ultra conservative an activist judge (because anyone with a brain and a knowledge of recent times knows the most activist judges are right leaning ones, not to mention the Rehnquist court was the most activist EVER): Check.

4. Various instances of begging the question and making absurd comparisons: Check.

Darryn, as a poly sci DOCTURAL student you should know that this country was founded on a series of enlightenment principles which were derived from SECULAR humanistic theory. Over this last semester I have longed that you would change your right wing ideology considering you live in a blue state, but unfortunately you don't. Maybe your home is in one of those red states where they don't believe in evolution or something. If it is, please, stay there when you go home for Thanksgiving.

The standard conservative line is that government should stay away from helping the poor, increasing diversity, providing healthcare, assisting the elderly, etc. because society will bring about the changes we want naturally. For instance, there is no need for affirmative action because the free market system will provide a level playing field that will naturally even out opportunities for people of all races. Religion, apparently, is the one American ideal that is so week that it needs the government’s support to succeed. Is it really true that there are “activist judges who could potentially threaten the belief system this nation was built upon.”? Is our nation’s religious belief so weak that an activist judge ruling that our money not pronounce our trust in God would threaten our beliefs? My personal faith is strong enough that I don’t need my money, or even my government, to tell me that there really is a monotheistic God.

Ms. Beckstrom, are you really arguing that the Supreme Court should follow Scalia’s lead and establish monotheism as a national principle to quash judicial activism? A national religion through judicial fiat, that’s not activist at all.

I don’t think this country needs any laws to establish any particular brand of superstitious religious mumbo-jumbo.

What happens to followers of the Greek, Roman or Norse Gods?

Bah - a pox on all of you “god’s on my side” idiots!

The found fathers were deists, not Christians, Jews, or Muslims. Deists do not believe in revelation. In other words, God never told anyone anything and we are left to use reason to tell us what is right and wrong. Thus, to follow the originalist argument you would have to define the Bible, Koran, and Torah as mythology. The Ten Commandments are not the word of God, they are something a crazy guy carved in stone and carried down from a mountain. Of course, you have no interest in originalism. You just want to get your way.

How come everytime a liberal disagrees with a conservative view it is always labled “an attack on the country”? It’s not an attack on the country, it’s an attack on the far right lunatics who have hijacked our country.

Given that governments generally act by passing laws, can anyone explain to me how a state’s endorsement of monotheism would not be a “law respecting an establishment of religion”? Surely that strict constructionist Scalia would not advocate such a position. Oh wait, silly me, Scalia is only a strict constructionist when it produces the result he wants.

According to a recent Harris poll (which regarded god belief, not religious identification), 79% of Americans believe in god(s). That means 21% don’t. 62 million people, hardly “a diminutive group”. And all studies show that the atheist population is growing each year.

Darryn, I’m sorry you are so uncomfortable with reality that you feel the need to believe in an imaginary big daddy in the sky and that you feel the need to force your belief on others rather than enjoy it privately. Learn to respect others, girlfriend. And take some science courses.

If the author had any idea what the point of the Establishment Clause was meant to do she might have thought twice before writing this article. It’s true that the Constitution does not explicitly state that the federal government cannot endorse monotheism as opposed to a religion in its entirty, but if you think about it for a second you’ll realize that the Establishment Clause exists as a safe-guard against religious discrimination. Well, according to the CIA’s World Book, about 10% of Americans, myself included, are aethiests. Another 10% are listed as “other,” and any number of them could hold pluraltheistic beliefs. So, anywhere between 10 and 20% of Americans do not hold monotheistic beliefs, and would be disenfranchised should the federal government endorsed monotheism. Beckstrom seems quick to conclude that if a certain lawsuit goes through, then the university wil soon be facing a battle over its motto. Well, if you want to play it that way, if the federal government endorses monotheism, what’s next? Endorsing white people? Banning all non-English languages? At the end of her article, Beckstrom writes “I get it. You don't believe in God. But that doesn't mean the rest of the nation must reject the principles upon which this country was built.” Well, that’s fine, you’re free to worship god, as is your right under the First Amendment. However, that driver is also free under the First Amendment to NOT worship or belive in god, and not be discriminated against because the federal government says that he or she has to believe in a monotheistic entity. As a final note, America was not founded upon belief in God, it was founded upon belief in the republican form of government. Either way, isn’t it a little more important that we concentrate on what is good for the country NOW, as opposed to what was good for the country 200 years ago? The founders wrote the Constitution to suit their needs when it was written and what needs they could foresee. I think that to say that these men who died two centuries ago knew what was good for us better than we do might be a bit of a stretch. The framers of the constitution were brilliant men, but they were just human like the rest of us. They were imperfect. The Constitution was imperfect. That’s why they gave us the power to change it. Stop living in 1805 and get a clue. Religion is not neccesary for government, or for school, or for a legal system. You can have morals and standards without a god; you can lead a life of absolute depravity and filth with a cross around your neck. Religion is not needed in government.

“Historical evidence suggests the Founders were careful to avoid reference to Christianity in their writings; however, they relied heavily on their faith in God. George Washington was the first to include "so help me God" after taking the oath of office as president. Since his utterance of those words, every president has followed suit. Other examples of the Founders' reliance on God are abundant.”

Don’t you see that relying on God and founding a national religion by fiat are two COMPLETELY SEPARATE THINGS? One protects a person’s right to worship freely. The other destroys it. The Founders were free to rely on God precisely because they didn’t create a corrupt, tyrannical State church.

“The government should be allowed to endorse monotheism. But such an endorsement would not allow the government to endorse different monotheist religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam.”

There is nothing in your argument, or in Scalia’s dissent, that would require the line to be drawn here. “Monotheism” is just a convenient compromise based upon how to get the most people into your tent without pissing off important segments of an increasingly pluralistic nation. Official prayers that promoted the divinity of Jesus would not be askew with our “traditions” (particularly if you move beyond Presidents into local officials).

The whole debate shows, in my ind, that “tradition” is no less problemmatic a source of interpretation than text, philosophy, etc.

Dear God, I pray with fervent need to Thee, Let prelim’s not spare this travesty; For the poor girl does not know, How many images Thou doth throw. Amen

Why is this dim-wit allowed any column in any venue? Editors, wake up! Kook alert!

Read some history: gain some humanity!

America was founded as a nation intended as the pre-eminent pluralistic (i.e., secular) nation in the world, the most liberal of any previously known, a democratic constitutional republic dedicated to civil liberties with the specific mandate to protect and promote minority belief.

Historically, we were founded, not as a Judeo-Christian nation, but as a pluralistic one, which we are increasingly so. We were carefully created to be nation where diverse beliefs can flourish. To what benefit? Well, because of that, America is the most religiously diverse country in the world - with over 3,000 registered religions (which doesn’t even count the varieties of secular philosophies). The difference, you see, between the US and other countries where there are state religions (or even widespread religions) is that our country was founded in opposition to the idea that tradition rules the day, or that the majority is entitled to impose their beliefs on others, or that minority views may be steamrollered by the popular opinion of the day.

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, inserted the religious clause of the First Amendment as a response to the attempt of what he saw in his State of Virginia. By the time of the Revolution, the Anglican Church, formerly the established church of Virginia, had to share space with Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists and other smaller sects. It was in the interest of each group to have religious liberty for their own empowerment, especially that there be no religious tests for public office.

Back in 1954, it was a concerted effort on the part of various overtly sectarian organizations, primarily the Knights of Columbus, to exploit Cold War paranoia and use McCarthyism to get “under God” inserted in the Pledge in order to further push the country in a theocratic direction. A threatened Congress jumped right on board. Ironically, if anyone had indeed been serious about emphasizing what has, from the time of our Founding, made America unique among nations, then Congress would have changed the Pledge to say, “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all - regardless of belief”.

Atheists have rarely been plaintiffs in religious domination suits. Nearly every judicial decision against public practice of prayer and religion has been the result of one religion complaining against another majority religion infringing or trying to proscribe their beliefs. If you had your way, many smaller sects in an instance, would most certainly find their beliefs marginalized, if not squashed altogether. Bigotry is a two-edged sword. Who wouldn’t be next on the list if the majority got to legally ride rough-shod over all who disagreed? The laws against sectarian religious practices continue to evolve for the protection of all.

Court Cases —

It may interest you to know that:

— The case in question, in Virginia, was brought by a pious Mennonite man who did not want government contaminating religion.

— Bible reading in school was outlawed as the result of a law suit by the Catholics against the majority Protestants because they believed that the Bible must not be taught without correct interpretation.

— The right not to participate in the Pledge of Allegiance was the result of a suit by 7th Day Adventists because their religion did not permit oaths to graven images such as flags. (Unlike yours.)

— Prayer at Athletic Events was outlawed as a result of Mormons and Catholics winning their lawsuit.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 2000 This case originated out of the Santa Fe School District near Galveston. Students, parents and alumni of the school who were Mormon or Catholic brought a suit challenging the school district’s policy regarding prayer at athletic events. Santa Fe had a policy of electing students to lead the prayers.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion in the case in which the vote was 6 to 3 with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the minority. The opinion is an excellent summary of Supreme Court rulings in school prayer cases.

Stevens began his opinion by reviewing the court’s decision in Lee v. Weisman: "There," the opinion said, "in concluding that a prayer delivered by a rabbi at a graduation ceremony violated the Establishment Clause, the Court held that, at a minimum, the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so."

After reviewing the policy of the Santa Fe School District, the opinion said:

“The Court rejects the District’s argument that its policy is distinguishable from the graduation prayer in Lee because it does not coerce students to participate in religious observances. “The second part of the District’s argument — that there is no coercion here because attendance at an extracurricular event, unlike a graduation ceremony, is voluntary — is unpersuasive. S The Constitution demands that schools not force on students the difficult choice between whether to attend these games or to risk facing a personally offensive religious ritual.

“Through its election scheme, the District has established a governmental mechanism that turns the school into a forum for religious debate and empowers the student body majority to subject students of minority views to constitutionally improper messages.”

The case was decided on June 19, 2000.

Interesting that, of all these cases you cite, it was with the Pledge that Congress did make a law. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” When Congress does exactly that, as it did in 1954 with the sectarian bill that added “under God” to the Pledge, it is nothing more than strict interpretation of the Constitution that says the courts must then declare it void. That is their job description. Nothing activist about it. No personal belief involved. On the contrary, if Congress paid more attention to the Constitution (as should the people who elect the members), judges wouldn’t have the nearly workload in rulings over unconstitutional laws and practices.

You seem not to be aware that in his actual suit, Michael Newdow is not asking to remove “under God” from the Pledge or remove the Pledge from school. Newdow’ s own website is www.restorethepledge.com. He would like more than anything to see the language rolled back to it’s original form so as to enable more patriotic American children to affirm our national unity, which is it’s intention. However, only Congress may change the official wording of the Pledge, not the schools or the courts. Therefore, the suit has no recourse but to ask that the entire practice of the Pledge at school be eliminated because it amounts to an indoctrination of young children in blatantly religious - not historical* - concepts, In other words, a government establishment of religion. In so doing, government usurps rights, solely held by parents, to direct their children’s religious instruction. Not a light matter.

It is no surprise that adding “under God” to the Pledge makes a joke of the word, “indivisible”, by explicitly dividing the country along lines of religious belief . And, let’s be clear, removing those two words does not impose atheist belief on anyone. The language would need to be changed to “one nation, that does not believe in a God” to do that. There is a HUGE difference there, sir. Restoring the Pledge by removing “under God” simply brings it back to being neutral - the whole point of the first Amendment and what the Founders, in full conscious spite of their personal religious feelings - intended so as to enable all viewpoints in America to flourish.

No matter the eventual outcome of Newdow’s suit, what amazes me is how many so-called patriots, like yourself can be so strongly in favor of something that is at least questionably Constitutional. We can only assume that for some it is because the Pledge plainly reinforces their faith (which is just weak that you would need that). More troublesome is that, for many Americans, including the yourself, their religions seem to be more important than their patriotism. This, even though it is the Constitution which, in protecting religions from government intrusion in the first place, continues to enable the practice of all faiths. There should be no question in any American’s mind which must come first.

That any American can believe that the majority is entitled to ride rough shod over the rights of the minority shows the failure of our educational system to teach constitutional government and to teach the history of civil rights in this country. The Founders Fathers contempt for “mobocracy” along with their considerable experience with religion interwined with government previous to 1787 led them to mistrust and to separate the two. At least, to the extent that you cannot expose children in public school to a declaration of a preferred faith - which as it is also excludes Hindus, Buddhists, pagans and native Americans, who are not mono-theists, along with those who have no religion.

Yet, that any American can claim to be a friend of religion and not loudly rally behind every every effort to defend the liberal, pluralistic principles upon which our republic was founded is unimaginable.

• The legislative history of the 1954 act stated that the hope was to “acknowledge the dependence of our people and our Government upon … the Creator … [and] deny the atheistic and materialistic concept of communism.” In signing the bill on June 14, 1954, Flag Day, Eisenhower delighted in the fact that from then on, “millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town … the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.” That the nation, constitutionally speaking, was in fact dedicated to the opposite proposition seemed to escape the president.” Slate Magazine The Pledge of Allegiance - Why we’re not one nation “under God.” By David Greenberg June 28, 2002

“You don't believe in God. But that doesn't mean the rest of the nation must reject the principles upon which this country was built.”

Let me run through some other principles on which this country was built: black men are only worth 3/5 of a white man; women are not people at all, they are an appendage to their husband; only those who own property (and are white and male) can vote. This country was built using the most vicious form of slavery this world has ever seen. It also took the near extermination of the indigenous population. Slavery, genocide, discrimination. Your principle does not have very good company.

It’s convienient to be able to pick and choose from the principles that founded our nation, but those of us who actually care about facts know the truth.

So yes, let’s bring back slavery and take away universal sufferage, and go back to the prinicples “upon which our country was built.”

—Laura Nelson [email protected]

Where do you come up with this stuff? You’re trying to superimpose your religion on everyone else and using some hollow rhetoric appealing to aristocratic, white men to justify your stance. Well, Darryn, it seems as though the Herald does not set the bar very high as far good journalism goes. Yet, I still find it insulting towards our student body that the purposterous notions you offer are taken seriously, let alone published.

Terry Schmidt [email protected]

Aligning ourselves with the monotheistic doctrine would be for the country to sanction a certain way of life, which is against the establishment cause and American values!!

This young lady is the reason “mankind” is doomed!

God is just pretend.

Darryn, if this nation did not allow “a diminutive group of obviously disgruntled people” to have their way, than conservatives wouldn’t have won a single political battle in the last 75 years.

“I knew it was coming. I just didn't know when.”

I did, this crazy crap always gets printed on Tuesdays.

To whom it may concern:

              What has happened to this Country? You can't say or use God's name anywhere or have it printed. If you're an Atheist things get changed because of what they believe in. I'm one person among many and so is the Atheist and this concerns me. I've been reading and hearing about this  Atheist wanting " In God we Trust" taken off our currency. If he doesn't like that on his money then I think he shouldn't put his hands on my God's money. This country has taken a downward back-slidden fall. The once Bible Belt of this Country has become an Elastic Rubber Band Belt, changing the Word  to fit the circumstances at any given time.

The so called Christians today don't have the Backbone that this Country and our Forefathers once had. They say they're Christians but they look and act like the rest of the world. We need to get down on our knees and instead of being a Minority become the Majority,. using the mouths God gave us to speak out and stand up for what we know is right.

If an Atheist can say what they feel then a God fearing Christian should also. We have taken God out of our Courthouses, Schools, This Country, and in some cases our Churches. With God out of all these there are no more morals or respect with our young people today. God has and needs to be put into and taught to our children.

These so called Atheist people need to open their eyes and hearts. I believe in God because I was taught and not only that, can and have seen what my God can do. God had at one time made this the Greatest Country because of our forefathers' prayers and faith. They believed in God and what Religion stood for. We all were put on this Earth for a reason, Christians and Atheist alike. If one Atheist will and can make a difference look at what one God fearing, knee bending, soul searching Christian could do. A doubled minded man is unstable in all his ways (James 1:8). Today's Christians are the same. We (and I also) say one thing and live another. God will not Bless this Country as long as we don't abide by his Commandments (which are 10). I Love this Country and my God., The Pledge of Allegiance was bestowed in my heart. I'm glad we are " One Nation under God".

I would rather have God above me than under me. I love being under God because I know he's looking down on me. Our History of this Country was and is taught in our schools that our Forefathers left England for a Free Country, the Freedom of Religion, and the Freedom of Speech. If I can't trust God who can I trust? With God we have freedom.


                                                                                                                       Thank You,
                                                                                                                        Tim Trapp

Your editorial isn’t worth the bandwidth it is wasting.

Perhaps you’ve missed out on the text of the First Amendment to our Constitution:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free expression thereof.”

Or Article VI, which specifically outlaws religious tests?

While never mentioning God once in the Constitution* — which, unlike the Declaration of Independence, is the legal basis of our nation — the Framers warn against mixing religion and government not once, but twice. If you read their published letters, while many of them were religious men, they state clearly that the reason that they established America as a *secular nation (yes, they said those exact words) was the example of Europe, where faith-based governments had soaked the soil with blood for thousands of years.

Despite the reconstructionist lies of people like you, Ms. Beckstrom, the United States was formed as a secular nation, where people were free to endorse whatever religion (or lack thereof) they choose. This is why we have to be very careful to avoid rewriting the Constitution. The document is very clear: NEUTRALITY. For a poli sci major, you seem very unclear on our founding legal documents.

(**with the possible exception of signing it “in the year of our Lord…”, which is about as religious as saying something happened in 1500BC…)

The author has given no reason for why monotheism should prevail over non-theism, atheism, or for that matter, polytheism.

Simply citing historical precedent - i.e., what the Founders intended - does not prove the rightness of such an endeavor.

For example, I can present evidence that there is historical precedent for genocide, slavery, and torture. However, no one would argue that such behaviors should be condoned in our country.

-Leslie A. Zukor

[email protected]

It’s funny she mentions the university motto. Long ago our Founding Fathers bestowed our country with the motto E Pluribus Unum, out of many, one. Then some godbots back in the 50’s changed that to In God We Trust.

Pleas about “what the Founding Fathers established” didn’t work in that case, why should they now?

Based upon the content of her column I must seriously question whether Ms. Beckstrom has ever actually READ the Constitution of the United States or does she just take her pastor’s interpretation of American History as true.

The earliest successful colonists did, indeed, flee religious persecution in England. However, they had not learned their lesson and quickly established a theocratic government that sought to suppress any religious practice that differed from their own. This led first to the banishment of Roger Williams for teaching “dangerous doctrines” like freedom of religious belief. It culminated in the Salem Witch Trials and the hanging of Quakers and the scourging and pillorying of Baptists.

The Articles of Confederation included “recognition” of the Christian God as the author of Providence. It also permitted the establishment of a particular church to be supported by taxes by each state. In fact, the Articles were so fatally flawed by excessive concern for “State’s Rights” that the nation was unable to function effective in the international sphere and the foundational document of the United States had to be replaced by the Constitution.

The Constitution has exactly three references to religion in it, only one if you exclude the Bill of Rights. That one reference is the prohibition against religious oaths as a qualification for political office. Within the Constitution and its Amendments, and excluding Article Six, the only mentions of religion in “the Supreme Law of the Land” are prohibitions against establishment and against meddling in practice (See, Amendment I).

The best known, and presumed most influential, of the Founding Fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Adams) were hardly what one would call devout Christians and would, most likely have been staunchly opposed to the change Ms. Beckstrom advocates. In their opinion, as stated by Thomas Jefferson, “[t]he legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-82 (capitalization as in original). Other commentators since then have noted that their purpose for separating church from state was both to protect the government from meddling preachers and to protect the church from the profane influence of politics.

“In God We Trust” was made a national motto during the dark days of the McCarthy era and the early Cold War in order to differentiate between “good, godly Americans” and “evil, godless Communists.” This was the same period in which the Pledge of Alegiance was modified by Congress to add the phrase “under God” to it. Both measures are, on their faces, blatantly unconstitutional and there is evidence in the Congressional Record that the members of Congress knew they were inconstitutional when they enacted them.

Allowing the government to “recognize” or “acknowledge” monotheism as the “good religion” would continue this sorry pattern of jingoistic “Gott mit Uns” religiosity at a time when religious diversity in this country is expanding.

The measure Ms. Beckworth advocates would encourage religious discrimination against recent immigrants to the United States from India (Hindhus worship multiple gods and goddesses) and other parts of Asia (many Taoists, Confucianists and Buddhists have non-theistic religious beliefs) and could, ultimately, be interpreted as racist in nature.

While she is pursuing her doctorate in political science I recommend that Ms. Beckstrom take some time to become very familiar with TRUE American History. It is not for nothing that a Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

Anyone can view the recent discussion between Ray Soller & Phil Chase of Univ. of Va. concerning the accuracy of the much repeated claim that “George Washington was the first to include ‘so help me God’ after taking the oath of office as president. Since his utterance of those words, every president has followed suit.” See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/message/4048

Attention Moron: I get it. You DO believe in God. But that doesn't mean the rest of the nation must reject the principles upon which this country was built—one of which was freedom FROM religion.

I’ve just made a decision after seeing this article, the comments, and South Park about a week and a half ago. We should have a state religion. It should be Scientology. And they should decide that I am the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard so I can make 3 million dollars!

Who’s with me? I’ll make booze free. I promise.

Darryn asks: Given these lawsuits, an important question must be asked. Why has this nation allowed a diminutive group of obviously disgruntled people to create legal turmoil by challenging the fundamental principles of our nation's credo?

First, there are approximately 50 to 60 Million of us. That is hardly a diminutive group. Second, you would be just as disgruntled if our pledge said “one nation under no god” and our money said “in no god we trust”. You tell us we are second class citizens in our own country and then criticize us for being unhappy about that? How hypocritical and Orwellian.

“Create legal turmoil”? Our legal system exists to give minorities and even single individuals the right to ask for redress for grievances. Are you saying it is wrong to allow this to happen? That only the majority should have rights? Perhaps you would prefer to live in a country that does not respect the rights and freedoms of the individual. If so, then please pack your bags and leave.

“Fundamental principles of our nation's credo”? This phrasing of yours indicates clearly that you have already assumed your conclusion: That your religion is a national religion, adopted in all but name. This is circular reasoning at its worst, but since most religious thought is based on circular reasoning, I am not surprised. Like most religious people, you do not or cannot think logically. I suggest that you go to Wikipedia.com and look up logical fallacies. There you will find a list of fallacies, most of which have probably been used and are still being used by you every day, including circular reasoning.

If you think that excluding a monotheistic belief from being our national religion was not the intent of those who wrote and approved our Constitution, then your ignorance of that document and its history is profound—nearly total. I doubt I can cure such ignorance in so short a space, but here are some tidbits. The Consitution does not mention god, but it does say explicitly that no religious test can ever be adopted as a qualification for officeholding in our government. It also says that the very thing your proposing, adoption of a state religion, IS STRICTLY FORBIDDEN IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS. In fact, our government is forbidden to even come close to what you are suggesting. That is the obvious meaning of “RESPECTING an establishment of religion”. “Respecting” means “relating to”. Thus, the Constitution forbids any attempt to adopt a religion AND any law that even relates to such an adoption.

Furthermore, several of the colonies did have established religions. Thus, the framers of the Constitution knew perfectly well how to do this and specifically rejected it.

Many of the same men were also in the first Congress, which as its first act adopted an oath of office. During that legislative process, they considered and specifically rejected versions of the oath that referred to god.

James Madison, the father of our Constitution vetoed a “faith based initiative” when he was President, because he thought it was clearly unconstitutional.

Do you really believe that your religion is threatened by the possibility that “under god” and “in god we trust” will be removed from their current places? This assertion is so idiotic that I can scarce believe you would have the shamelessness to print it. Your religion survived and thrived for centuries without these “in your face” displays. Why would you think that it will suddenly die out if they are removed? Are you personally going to stop believing if they are removed? Do you know anyone who would stop believing simply because they are removed? Of course not. This assertion of yours is simply a lie designed to hide your true intent: Forcing your religion on the rest of us.

Finally, we are not asking anyone to reject the priniciples upon which this nation was built. Quite the contrary. We are asking you to embrace them. This nation was built on principles of religious freedom and that is the principle we are asking you to embrace. This freedom has been rejected ever more vociferously by the religious right in recent decades, and your proposal is the absolute goal of that movement.

The interesting thing is that almost all of Darryn’s pieces generate so many comments. Whether good or bad, it’s cool to see some actual debate going on instead of one liners being thrown back and forth like usually happens nowadays

“And they should decide that I am the reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard so I can make 3 million dollars!”

Hell no! I am the real reincarnation of L. Ron Hubbard!

Wow, what an interesting and misguided take on history and reality. Thank goodness we still have a few strong unafraid people like Mr. Newdow who are willing to risk everything to stand up for fact and for equality and justice for all citizens. Clearly Ms. Beckworth is encouraging religious discrimination, as there are many religions that are not monothestic that are widely practiced in the US. Religion has no place at all in a modern societies governing body. None. Absolutely none.

Charles Wilkins has said it all - great comments. Except that the Political Science department here must be a joke…

Darryn is not indicative of us in the political science department. Making that statement is no more appropriate than saying UW-Madison students, or Wisconsinites are a joke. What Darryn chooses to do on her own time is unrelated to her work in our department.

“I've been reading and hearing about this Atheist wanting " In God we Trust" taken off our currency. If he doesn't like that on his money then I think he shouldn't put his hands on my God's money.”

Did you honestly just suggest that I, as an athiest who believes in the seperation of church and state, should screw myself over by not using money anymore, just because you need your faith reaffirmed by a motto on a quarter? If I were to do as you suggest and not “put my hands on your God’s money,” I would either be forced to resort to stealing food to survive, or I would simply die of starvation, cold, or disease.

Oh, and this I love: “With God out of all these there are no more morals or respect with our young people today.”

I am 19 years old, and I don’t believe in God. I never have, I seriously doubt that I ever will. Does that mean that I am completely immoral? No: I get ticked off when sitcoms rely too much on blatant sex-based humor, for crying out loud. Does it mean I have no respect? No: I just had a 40 minute conversation with my grandma on the phone the other day. I reiterate: religion is not neccesary for government, or for school, or for a legal system. You can have morals and standards without a god; you can lead a life of absolute depravity and filth with a cross around your neck. Religion is not a guaruntee of goodness, nor is abscence of religion a guarantee of evil.

I could go on for quite a while here, but I think I’ll wrap it up with this: “I love being under God because I know he's looking down on me.”

Well good for you, but I don’t care to live my life as the plaything of some giant beard in the sky who I donj’t even believe exists, and that is what this is all about. You are free to be God’s toy, but I and plenty of other people in this country don’t want to live our lives that way, and we should have the freedom to make that choice. THAT, is what this country is all about: the choice of how to live your life without someone else being able to make you do it their way. Freedom is choice. Stop trying to take mine away.

My question is: how could she be a doctoral student? Although her assertions are bold, they are nevertheless unfounded and left unsupported. This piece is not cohesive, logical, or even believable. Essentially, she succeeds in one thing: proving her position is untenable.

It seems Ms Beckstrom cannot make judgements about a whole heap of things without her god’s presence. Theocratoc government, by definition of human characteristics, becomes oppressive and intolerant of dissension. This was recognised by the authors of the US Constitution and nearly every other democratic nations’ constitutions around the world. Why do christians feel threatened by government that does not want to legislate on religious issues? I note also Ms Beckstrom fears for the “fundamental principles of our nation’s credo” and I’m prompted to as what “credo” is she referring to? Regaling public places with religious signs and slogans ensures that they will no longer be “Public Places” in a short time.

The founders were deists, a kind of agnostic, and the U.S. was unique in that it had no official religion. So you are ignorant and an obvious hack for the right. If you’ve time to open that mind, read these quotes on “spiritual tyranny” from Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and George Washington:

JEFFERSON: “Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person’s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” — Thomas Jefferson, to the Virginia Baptists (1808). This is his second use of the term “wall of separation,” here quoting his own use in the Danbury Baptist letter. This wording was several times upheld by the Supreme Court as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause: Reynolds (98 U.S. at 164, 1879); Everson (330 U.S. at 59, 1947); McCollum (333 U.S. at 232, 1948)”

ADAMS: “The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles? — John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 20, 1815

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses. — John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church”

“Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind. — John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed., The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, “Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church”

“We should begin by setting conscience free. When all men of all religions … shall enjoy equal liberty, property, and an equal chance for honors and power … we may expect that improvements will be made in the human character and the state of society. — John Adams, letter to Dr. Price, April 8, 1785, quoted from Albert Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom (1991)

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed? — John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, December 27, 1816

FRANKLIN: “I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.” — Benjamin Franklin, quoted from Victor J. Stenger, Has Science Found God? (2001)

“Many a long dispute among divines may be thus abridged: It is so; It is not so. It is so; it is not so.” — Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard’s Almanack, 1743

“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here and in New England.” — Benjamin Franklin, An Essay on Toleration

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.” — Benjamin Franklin

WASHINGTON: “If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. — George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience. — George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789, in Anson Phelps Stokes, Church and State in the United States, Vol 1. p. 495, quoted from Albert J. Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom

I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country. — George Washington, responding to a group of clergymen who complained that the Constitution lacked mention of Jesus Christ, in 1789, Papers, Presidential Series, 4:274, the “Magna-Charta” here refers to the proposed United States Constitution