[Home]
NYC ATHEISTS ARE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT’S TEXAS TEN COMMANDMENT DECISION
On June 27, 2005, The U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on two cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments in the public spaces.
In a split decision, the court found the displays of the Ten Commandments in the Kentucky courthouses unconstitutional (McCreary v. ACLU of Kentucky) but upheld the display of the Ten Commandments on the Texas Capitol grounds, (Van Orden vs. Perry).
The position of NYC Atheists is that the legal case against the displays is straightforward. The Ten Commandments are religious scripture taken directly from the Bible. Thus, the display in any form of the Ten Commandments on government property is an endorsement of religion. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens stated that "the Ten
Commandments endorses the divine code of the 'Judeo-Christian' God."
1. All versions of the Ten Commandments contain specific religious requirements such as: Acknowledgment of the existence of a single god and no other God, not taking the name of the Lord in vain and remembering the Sabbath. Since the Ten Commandments clearly endorse and supportTheism, government must not and should not allow their display in any format or context on/in public property.
2. There are several different versions of the Ten Commandments. (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc. In selecting one version of the Ten Commandments over the others, the government is favoring one denomination over another. For example, Texas has adopted a Lutheran version of the Ten Commandments as the official Ten Commandments of the state.
The public display of the Ten Commandments is offensive to non-believers and those who believe in the separation of church and state. Millions of other Americans of various faiths, or no faith at all, will now be faced with the prospect of their government imposing religious values on them. This is a threat to all Americans - religious and nonreligious and a further erosion of the separation of church and state.
NYC ATHEISTS DISAGREE WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE (UNDER GOD) DECISION
We are extremely disappointed with the United States Supreme Court’s Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow decision. “One nation under god” is clearly an unconstitutional endorsement of religion and specifically monotheism.This does not acknowledge the nearly 30 million American non—believers and the 10 million Buddhists, Hindus, and others who do not subscribe to monotheism.
The First Amendment to the Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This means that the government allows PEOPLE to freely exercise their beliefs if they so choose. However, it also means that the government cannot endorse one religion over another religion, nor can it endorse religion in general over non—religion.The Pledge of allegiance violates this standard, by declaring “one nation under god”
Having “under god” and “indivisible” in the same oath is contradictory. Rather than uniting the people, the Pledge discriminates between religious Americans and the non—religious. The “under god” portion of the current pledge implies second—class citizenship (or less) of U.S. citizens holding a particular outlook on religion.
The very fabric of our government was woven protecting the rights and interests of minorities. In 1964, the 88th Congress passed sweeping civil rights legislation, there were approximately 20 million African Americans in the United States.Today there are over 40 million Americans to whom an official governmental endorsement of monotheism does not apply.
Just as the rights and interests of 20 million Americans were protected by the 88th Congress, so should this Congress respect the rights and interests of the 40 million Americans who do not profess to be believers and or monotheists. They, too, are honorable, patriotic Americans who deserve to be recognized and treated as such.
Coercion to give false statements of sectarian belief places one in the intimidating position of either refusing to recite the Pledge or being forced to pledge to something you do not believe. It is not right for nearly 40 million American citizens who are non—believers or monotheists to be made to say the words “one nation under god” in order to feel like fully participating citizens. Americans come from all walks of life and backgrounds. What unites us should be a civic bond, not a religious belief. Although no one is required to recite the pledge, there is no alternative wording for patriotic Americans who want to express allegiance to their country without involving a deity.
From 1892 until 1954, America did not require a prayer in its Pledge. Let us return to:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Government must remain neutral on religious questions, leaving decisions about god, faith and house of worship attendance in the hands of its citizens. The Newdow Case was an unsuccessful, but we are confident that America in its wisdom will correct this unjust decision and maintain a total separation of church and state.
NYC Atheists members participated in the demonstration on the steps of the United States Supreme Court on Wednesday, March 24, 2004, in support of Michael Newdow, who was personally pleading his case before the court to remove “under god” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Newdow has dedicated more than six years of his life in arguing his case though the court system.
[Home]