SCHOOL VOUCHERS RULED CONSTITUTIONAL

     On June 27, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Cleveland's School Vouchers were constitutional, thereby allowing tax dollars to fund religious indoctrination, and paving the way for the massive funding of a wider array of faith-based social services proposed by the Bush administration.

     America has now embarked on  a grand experiment in which the national religion is "all religion."  Religious organizations will be competing for government money and this money will come with strings attached, such as the eventual external evaluation and control of the operating procedures of participating religious groups.  We need to raise public awareness of the fraud and abuse that has already occurred and will occur.  Along with many good, well-meaning individuals, religion has always attracted an over-abundance of people willing to exploit the religious-based trust of others for their own gain.

     Americans United for the Separation of Church and State have called upon folks to write their local and state legislatures urging them to oppose state vouchers.  For us in Wisconsin, this is too late.  The Milwaukee voucher program has been in effect longer than Cleveland's and can now be expected to expand.
~~~~~~~~~~~

AAI CO-PRESIDENCY COMING TO AN END

     Following the recent resignations of Vicky McCoy and Jack Massen, AAI co-president Marie Castle has announced her resignation from the presidency of the AAI and from the editorship of Secular Nation, effective September 1.  Marie will remain on the board as the representative of the newly formed  Atheists of Minnesota for Human Rights (AMHR).

     The cover of the current Secular Nation asks, "Can AAI recover?"  Marie says, "I have tried for years to instill a vision of a team-oriented, grassroots activist organization that knows what it's doing and where it's going and why."  Referring to the inclusion of individuals and groups who do not share her values, she wrote, " I am tired of wasting so much of my time on an organization that seems determined to blow an uncertain trumpet."

     Marie cites the "the efforts of August Berkshire and cohorts to get rid of me" as her main reason for leaving.  She feels that she alone has been holding the organization together and "instead of support and encouragement, I get only disdain and shabby treatment."   The lack of  volunteers needed to run AAI and the ineffectiveness of those who do volunteer was cited as the reason Marie took on so much work.

     In response to her resignation,  co-president Bobbie Kirkhart said, "We have leaned too heavily on strong individuals in the past.  One of the consequences is that we have not fully tapped new talent as it was available."  An example of this new talent is  Constance Edwards who took over the Freethought Directory, following the bitter resignation  of Vicky McCoy.

     Marie noted that most of the effective AAI volunteers came from Minnesota Atheists — the  group from which her AMHR group split earlier this year.

     AAI's problems are reflected in many of the individual groups, including AAW.  We too are a democratically-run organization in which a few members do all of the work.

     AAW has shown a similar pattern of loss and disaffiliation. For example, Jim Cox, who served as our president for many years, resigned in 1999 to "become more an indian than a chief" but quickly ended all active participation with AAW and AAI.  Richard Russell, admired by so many members of AAW and AAI, has provided unreliable support and guidance.   Other members such as Jim Mueller, Howard Glick, and Dave Danielson,  who desired to rally AAW around a Libertarian political agenda apparently became frustrated with the group and left.

     Recently, with the death of Jim Behling, no one has taken over the task of getting the Atheist Forum videos to WYOU, so this outreach has ended.   Finally, we are aware of Dennis Coyier's repeated attempts to get members politically involved in the Democratic Party -- where he has made great strides in advancing separation of government and religion.

     The future is not hopeless, but neither do I think it looks very promising.  As I take on the vocation of "over the road" trucker, it takes much more effort to meet the deadlines for REASONINGS and I have a harder time making meetings.  So far I've continued to do both.  As you might guess, similar pressures arise with my family and other endeavors.

     If AAI and/or AAW were to wither away from loss or lack of effort of existing members and from the continued failure to  attract and involve new, active members, I doubt it would overly affect the activism of individuals, such as Marie, Dennis, Richard, or myself.  We will do what we can with what we have and try to inspire people more by example than by charismatic leadership.  I've always said, "Atheists are a cult of one" and it seems a miracle when they get anything accomplished as a group.
~~~~~~~~

Upcoming Events AAW will meet at 10:00 am on Sunday, July 14th at the Social Justice Center, 1202 Williamson Street  Madison, WI The Business Meeting will be 10:00-10:30 A discussion of the history and future  of AAW and AAI will follow from 10:30 to noon Atheists and Agnostics of Wisconsin (AAW) P.O. Box 259257  Madison, WI  53725-9257 e-mail: aaw@atheistalliance.org or contact Jim at (608) 244-1948 Visit our website at www.atheistalliance.org/aaw/

INDIVISIBLE DAY

     On Thursday, July 04, 2002, the front pages of the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the St. Paul Pioneer Press carried the good news that Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura declared July 4th: 'INDIVISIBLE DAY.'  Ventura was the only governor to even consider this resolution.  The proclamation text, provided  to the governor by the Atheists of Minnesota for Human Rights, follows:

     WHEREAS: The unique feature of this nation at its founding was its establishment of a secular Constitution that separated government from religion — something never done before; and

     WHEREAS: Our secular Constitution has enabled people of all worldviews to coexist in harmony, undivided by sectarian strife; and

     WHEREAS: President James Madison made clear the importance of maintaining this harmony when he said, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the endless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries"; and

     WHEREAS: The diversity of our people requires mutual respect and equal protection for all our citizens, including minority groups, if we are to remain "One nation, indivisible"; and

     WHEREAS: It is the unfettered diversity of ideas and worldviews that have made our nation the strongest and most productive in the world; and

     WHEREAS: Eternal vigilance must be maintained to guard against those who seek to stifle ideas, establish a narrow orthodoxy, and divide our nation along arbitrary lines of race, ethnicity, and religious belief or nonbelief.

 NOW THEREFORE, I, JESSE VENTURA, Governor of Minnesota, do hereby proclaim that Thursday, July 4, 2002 shall be observed as: INDIVISIBLE DAY In the State of Minnesota.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"There is no way I can singlehandedly save the world or,  perhaps, even make a perceptible difference -- but how  ashamed I would be to let a day pass without making one  more effort. I have to make my life worthwhile -- to myself,  if to no one else."  - Isaac Asimov, The Relativity of Wrong

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLEDGE RITUAL RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL

     On June 26th, the U.S. 9th circuit Court of Appeals ruled to overturn a California law that required public schools to lead students in the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance -- which includes the phrase "one nation, under God."

     Michael Newdow, an atheist from Sacramento, opposed his second grade daughter's having to witness a ritual claiming the existence of a god.  The ruling opposed the compulsory,  state- sponsored nature of California's Pledge law.  However, some of the language in the ruling suggests that the Pledge itself, with the inclusion of "god," is unconstitutional.

     "A profession that we are a nation 'under God' is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation 'under Jesus,' a nation 'under Vishnu,' a nation 'under Zeus,' or a nation 'under no god,' because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion," wrote Judge Alfred T. Goodwin. The pledge is an attempt to "enforce a 'religious orthodoxy' of monotheism."

     The compulsory Pledge ritual was first challenged in 1943 — 11 years before "god" was inserted.  The 1943 ruling  said, "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox or force citizens to confess by word or deed or act their faith therein."  Thus, freedom of conscience is more important than freedom of speech.

     But, as happened with the Madison School Board, legislators and media quickly reacted and characterized this as "banning free speech" and an attempt to remove the belief in God from American school children.

     Congress unanimously ruled to oppose the ruling.  George Bush said it was "ridiculous" and later claimed that "Americans derive their rights from God."
~~~~~~~~~~~
 When Robin Williams was asked what he thought of the pledge flap, he said they should change "under God" to "under Canada".  (From Edd Doerr)
~~~~~~~~~~~

ONE NATION OVER GOD
By Steven Mikulan
Los Angeles Weekly Writer

     Finally, a court decision we can all live with. Last week's 2-1 ruling, by  members of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, reaffirmed the separation of  church and state by declaring the Pledge of Allegiance's phrase "under God"  to be unconstitutional. The panel's conclusion would appear to be a  no-brainer -- a simple cleaning up of some long overdue judicial business  begun when the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out school prayer in 1961.  Contrary to what all the hyperventilating pundits and politicians have been  saying since June 26, the judges didn't "outlaw" the pledge per se, but  merely deleted a bit of superstitious doggerel that Congress had inserted  during the Cold War.

     Of course, no one seriously believes the country will legally remain above  God for very long. Like many dubious causes these days, the call to restore  the G-word to the pledge is being wrapped in the colors of 9/11 -- saying  you agree with the 9th Circuit is like snatching a plate of apple pie away  from a New York fireman. Cooler heads are forecast to prevail anywhere  between the circuit's full 11-member complement and the Supreme Court,  which, by legalizing school vouchers, itself was busy last week handing  over our public-education system to the tender mercies of the nation's  priests and preachers.

     Until the pledge ruling's reversal, however, we can fleetingly savor the  mad-cow panic that has seized both aisles of Congress. I especially marvel  at how normally asthmatic liberals have suddenly filled their lungs with  hot air to proclaim their loyalty to God, the Pledge, apple pie, firemen,  Dalmatians . . . The vote on Senate Bill 2690 to "reaffirm the reference to  one Nation under God in the Pledge of Allegiance," was 99-0; the House's  similar action (House Resolution 459) passed with 416 votes. It should be  pointed out, though, that after the "debate" on this mighty issue, three  Democrats did vote against the resolution (including the Bay Area's Pete  Stark and San Jose's Mike Honda), with 11 Dems courageously voting "Present."

     A look at congressional resolutions shows that, while the rest of the world  wastes its time grappling with global warming , hunger and AIDS, our own  107th Congress has so far found it necessary to float no fewer than 18  extremely important resolutions or bills concerning God. These tend to be  harmless, folkloric proposals to make "God Bless America" the national  hymn, or to allow God-fearing groups "equal access" to tax-supported  facilities, but some, like House Resolution 239, introduced by Walter Jones  (R-North Carolina), proposed that school children be given time to pray.  Jones' was one of many annual attempts to usher God into classrooms through  the back door and was typically concealed by a lot of mumbo jumbo about  9/11 and "the forces of international terrorism." This non-binding  resolution passed, 297 to 125, and made its freshman sponsor an instant  hero to the religious right.

     Now don't get me wrong, I support everyone's right to believe what they  want. I don't care if Tom DeLay believes the Earth's core is made of molten  chocolate or if Tom Daschle thinks Wilma Flintstone is the Virgin Mary's  twin sister -- just keep it out of the schools. I humbly offer the  following suggestions toward bridging the gap between believers and  atheists on the Pledge of Allegiance and related issues:

     Remove the pledge's reference to a deity and replace it with something  secular but equally bogus, like "One Nation, whose favorite color is blue"  or "One Nation, whose citizens all eat pork chops."  Allow corporate sponsors to substitute their logos, names or ad-campaign  slogans on currency in place of "In God We Trust" -- a motto, after all,  that replaced the suspiciously collectivist "E Pluribus Unum" on our  folding money in 1955. Perhaps "Just Do It" could appear on coins, with "In  Microsoft We Trust" rising above the eye over the dollar's pyramid -- or  even something local, like "Lou Ehlers Cadillac." Not only would corporate  sponsorship save tax dollars, it would realize the Republican Party dream  of getting government out of government by privatizing Treasury  Department  mints.

     Change the name of the country to "God." Besides pulling the constitutional  rug out from under atheistic malcontents and ACLU lawyers, it will once and  for all simplify the name of our homeland. No more will we inadvertently  insult folks south of the border by claiming we are "America." No more will  we worry about sounding too grandiose by saying "United States of America"  to foreign visitors and no longer will British customs inspectors think  that we're not completing our sentences when, to their queries, we reply  that we're from "the States." From now on, "God" is where we come from and  "Godlike" is how we wish to be described.

HELP SCOUTING FOR ALL

      I am seeking persons interested in doing outreach on behalf of Scouting For All, an organization that defends the rights of lesbian gay, bi- and trans-sexual, and nonreligious citizens.  As SFA's new Assistant Midwest Director, under David Perry, I've volunteered to spread the word and be a spokesperson for the group. This year there are three opportunities for outreach:

     Saturday, July 20, is the Pride Picnic at Demetral Park near Oscar Meyer's on Madison's east side.  I have reserved a table space where I plan to solicit signatures on Steven Cozza's infamous petition and distribute brochures. The picnic is scheduled to run 1-7 PM.  I expect to be on site by 11 AM to set up, but need someone to host the table from noon to  2:30.

     Sunday July 21 at 1:30 is the Pride Parade and March -- from the Capitol down State St. to a rally on the Library Mall.  Volunteers can carry SFA banners, collect signatures, pass out literature, and march carrying homemade signs.  It might be interesting to march in some kind of organized manner, carrying the flag or with scout-type kerchiefs or matching caps.

     Saturday October 12 is the SFA National Annual Rally commemorating the US Supreme Court's James Dale vs BSA decision.  We will rally at the State St. corner of the Capitol at noon, invite whomever to make statements over a bullhorn, then parade with banners, signs and slogans down State St. to the UW campus and back.  A fun time indeed!

CONTACT: Dennis Coyier at: dcoy@execpc.com or phone (608) 839-5452
Also visit Scouting for All at: http://www.scoutingforall.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Attacks on Pledge Ruling Bolster Its Logic

     In the immediate aftermath of an appeals court ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, nearly all the commentary in the country's leading newspapers criticized the decision.  But some of the more alarmist arguments used to defend the phrase "under God" actually tended to support the judges' finding that including it in the Pledge is an impermissible government establishment of religion.

     Of the 10 largest-circulation dailies in the country, six had run editorials on the ruling as of June 28; all six attacked the decision. Editorialists called it "a fundamentally silly ruling" (L.A. Times (6/27/02) or an "addled opinion" (Wall Street Journal, 6/27/02). The New York Times (6/27/02) said it "lacks common sense," while the Washington Post (6/27/02) compared it to a "parody."  The appeals court "went way overboard," in the opinion of Long Island Newsday; for the New York Daily News (6/27/02), "the sooner this decision is overturned, the better."

     Signed columns in the top papers had little more balance.  Jeffrey Rosen in the New York Times (6/28/02) criticized the ruling's "polarizing vision." In the Washington Post (6/27/02), Marc Fisher criticized "a court steeped in the arrogance of political correctness."

     A column by the Chicago Tribune's John Kass (6/27/02) ran under the headline, "Ruling on Pledge Is a Slap in Face to All Americans." Marc Howard Wilson (Chicago Tribune, 6/28/02) called it "typical San Francisco lunacy" and "misguided grandstanding."

     In a twist, the L.A. Times (6/28/02) ran a feature by staff writer Martin Miller, who described himself as an atheist but attacked the non-believer whose lawsuit prompted the decision as "sullen, cantankerous and litigious...intolerant, pushy and self-righteous."

     Compared to these harsh attacks on the ruling, supporters were muted. The Washington Post's E.J. Dionne (6/28/02) mustered half a cheer for the decision in an op-ed headlined "Wrong for the Right Reasons."  The Chicago Tribune's Eric Zorn (6/27/02) noted that he had criticized mandatory recitations of the Pledge in the past, and invited readers to view those columns on his website.

     Susan Jacoby in Newsday (6/28/02) narrowly endorsed the opinion as "entirely correct in constitutional terms," although she wished that the Pledge were "a more substantive issue." Libertarian conservative James Pinkerton (L.A. Times, 6/28/02) produced the most robust defense of the appeals court justices, praising their "historical wisdom" (although calling their ruling "poorly thought out").

     Though support for the court ruling was limited in the leading U.S. papers, the criticisms of the decision in some ways backed up the court's reasoning. Several critics adopted the position of the appeals court's dissenter, saying that "under God" is not an establishment of religion because it is a "rote civic exercise" (New York Times, 6/27/02), a "harmless civic recitation" (Newsday, 6/28/02) with "such a minimal religious effect" (New York Times, 6/28/02). "God's name is just a frill, a space-filler in the unthinking torrent of much daily conversation," claimed Fisher in the Washington Post (6/27/02).

     But at the same time, many opponents of the decision warned that it could provoke a powerful, emotional response from believers. The New York Times (6/27/02) warned that it was "inviting a political backlash," whose effects Rosen spelled out in the paper the next day: "That ruling will almost certainly galvanize Republicans to push for the appointment of conservative judges who will seek to place religion in the center of public life."  The Washington Post (6/27/02) noted that the ruling " can only serve to generate unnecessary political battles and create a fund raising bonanza for the many groups who will rush to its defense."

     Those are fairly serious consequences for the cessation of a "rote civic exercise." Indeed, the vitriolic attacks against the decision, and the warnings of what Christians and other monotheists might do if the Pledge were not maintained as is, bolstered the appeals court's finding that including "under God" was "not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity" or "merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the republic," but rather "an impermissible government endorsement of religion" that "sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

     Granted, some of the defenders stood up for the Pledge because of, rather than despite, its religious content. "The sentiment that this is a land blessed has been accepted since Pilgrim days," asserted the Daily News (6/27/02).  The Tribune's Kass (6/27/02) wondered whether his children will be "jailed for having any dangerous and heretical beliefs, like a belief in God."

     The most disingenuous assertions in support of the Pledge status quo related to the purpose of adding "under God" -- an important constitutional question, since church/state separation questions typically hinge on the secular intent of governmental action.

     "The pledge, taken as a whole, was not intended to be a coercive prayer, but was designed to promote patriotism, and as such is consistent with the neutrality principle," wrote Rosen (New York Times, 6/28/02). Editorialized the Daily News (6/17/02): "The two words, viewed in the context of the entire pledge, have nothing whatsoever to do with avowing fealty to God."

     Yet if one can believe President Dwight Eisenhower, who signed the bill that added "under God" to the Pledge, that is precisely what altering the oath was meant to accomplish. "In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future," Eisenhower announced at the time (Columbus Dispatch, 6/28/02). "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and every rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty."

- Article from Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting.  (FAIR)
Subscribe to their newsletter  at: http://www.fair.org/
~~~~~~~~~

GOVERNMENT MUST STAY NEUTRAL ON RELIGION

      In his March 30th Easter address to the nation, President Bush said, "...many good people practice no faith at all."  Then at the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast in mid-May he said, "We know that men and women can be good without faith. We know that."  And in his June 11th address to the Southern Baptist Convention, he said, "We all know that men and women can be good without faith."

      Some have called the September 11th terrorists "atheists," suggesting they lack faith.  They may have been following a "false religion" or a perversion of the "true religion," but they certainly were not atheists.  The terrorists believed that they would be rewarded in the afterlife for their actions.  Their "manuals" and their personal writings clearly show their extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

      We live in a country that allows many religions to co-exist.   And we live in a country in which government gets its power from the people.  No American should ever have a religion forced upon him or her.  Religious beliefs must arise from one's own convictions.  So our civil right to "freedom of religion" is founded on the "freedom from (other) religions" being imposed on us.  That our government is neutral toward religion is important for everyone -- including the Americans to whom Bush has referred -- the 14% of our population who lack religious faith.

By Jim Dew (published in the Wisconsin State Journal, July 7)
~~~~~~~~~

2002 WISCONSIN STATE FAIR BOOTH NEEDS VOLUNTEERS

      A coalition of Wisconsin Freethought groups is again  hosting a booth at the Wisconsin State Fair.  The Fair, and our table,  run from Thursday, August 1st  to Sunday, August 11th, from 8:30 am to 10 pm.

      You can volunteer to staff the table for any amount of time during the fair.  We will be there to reach out to the 14% of non-religious persons.

      AAW will be providing an informational pamphlet and "GET OUT OF HELL --- FREE!" cards to the public.

      For more information, contact Eric Hildeman via e-mail at CarlSaganJr@aol.com or phone him at: (414) 217-2876
~~~~~~~~~