Dear Representative Simpson,
Thank you for the reply. So as to help you better understand the 29% of your constituents who are non-religious, including those of us who are atheists, agnostics, freethinkers, humanists, and skeptics, I would like to continue this discussion a bit further. The rest of my reply will be in line in red with a > in front of it, just in case the color is lost during transmission.
Thanks,
Dustin Williams
www.dwnomad.com
I have heard from a number of Idahoans regarding their concern that the national motto has been pushed to the background, particularly when it comes to its display on public buildings, schools and other government buildings. That is why I signed on as a cosponsor of a resolution in the 111th Congress which reaffirms that “In God We Trust” is the national motto of the United States and encourages its display.
I’m sure by now that you have heard from a number of Idahoans who, like me, have a much different concern about the national motto, namely that it is divisive and does not represent us. Apply the Golden Rule to the situation and think about how a seeing “In God We Trust,” would make us feel about our government’s concern for us if that’s the first think that what we see when we enter a government building. Imagine how it makes us feel to have our representatives wasting valuable time trying on furthering this horrible motto. It marginalizes those of us who do not believe in God. If you were to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is that how you would want to be treated?
As our representative I urge you to consider our view points and remove your sponsorship of this bill that marginalizes 29% of of your constituents.
As the national motto, it deserves prominent display on our coins, currency, government buildings and national treasures, including the Capitol Visitor Center (CVC). Congress has fixed “In God We Trust” as a feature of our nation’s currency and coins for over 130 years and it is displayed throughout the Capitol Building. The motto first appeared on one- and two-cent coins during the Civil War as the result of an initiative by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of the Mint. In 1865, Congress granted the Secretary authority to inscribe other coins as well. In 1955, the inscription was extended to the currency and in 1956 the phrase was statutorily declared to be the national motto.
You are right that the current motto first began to appear during the Civil War and was codified during the hight of McCarthyism. I’m sure you are aware that the Lincoln administration also suspended the writ of habeas corpus, curtailed the freedom of the press, and began the end of states rights. While Abraham Lincoln did many good things, such as preserving the union and beginning the process of freeing the slaves, the actions of his administration should not be viewed as being good constitutional precedent. As far as McCarthyism goes, differences between the Soviet Union and the majority of Americans were over emphasized and any thing that distinguished someone from the norm would result in derision. The motto and the addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance are both examples of this.
The Founding Fathers of the United States of America were deeply religious men who believed Divine Providence would play a large part in the shaping of the new nation. As evidence of this, Thomas Jefferson, the original drafter of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, “When in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.” He followed in the second paragraph with, “WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”
Thomas Jefferson is also known to have said, “Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effects of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites.”
Benjamen Franklin said, “The way to see by faith, is to shut the eye of reason.” Do these sound like the words of “deeply religious men”?
Many of the Founding Fathers were deists. They believed in a creator who created the world and left it to run its course, this was the default skeptical view prior to the theory of Natural Selection. This is why Jefferson used Creator and Nature’s God in the Declaration of Independence. If he had been a deeply religious person, presumably Christian, his choice of words would have been more along the lines of “the separate and equal Station to which Christ’s sacrifice entitle them.”
George Washington attended church services with his wife during his tenure as President. However, he never spoke to the congregation, even though he was given an open invitation to do so, and never took communion. Washington was very private about his personal beliefs and anytime people would ask why he didn’t take communion or even if he was a Christian, he wouldn’t answer. The evidence suggests that he was a desist and certainly far from deeply religious.
Furthermore, Alexander Hamilton, author of the Federalist papers, a signatory of the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and close friend of George Washington, is known to have said, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
There were a few Christians among the Founding Fathers. Hamilton’s statement you quote is quite ambiguous as it does not mention any scripture or specify which divinity he was speaking of. A statement like that would fit better with a Christian of that day, but could almost as easily come from a deist. As far as the relationship between Washington and Hamilton, it was rocky at times, such as when Hamilton resigned his position on Washington’s staff and threatened to resign his commission if he wasn’t given a combat command.
While the Framers of the Constitution held strong religious convictions, they realized a state-sponsored religion was not appropriate for a country conceived in the ideals of individual freedoms. The Founding Fathers made sure to extend this expression to all faiths and not just the religion they chose to follow. Never, however, would our nation’s founders have believed that expressions of faith should be disallowed in public buildings, stricken from our nation’s currency, prohibited at high-school sporting events, or abolished as part of a modern-day Pledge of Allegiance.
Yet some how the Constitution was written with not one reference to God and with the only references to religion stating that there could be no religious test for public office, that congress could not restrict the free exercise of religion, or establish religion.
On June 7, 1797 the “Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary” was unanimously approved by the US Senate and President John Adams. Article 11 of this great treaty begins: “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”
Our nation was set up as the first ever secular state, with no religion. The establishment clause restricts state speech on matters of religion while ensuring the free speech of private citizens. Both the national motto and the 1956 addition to the Pledge of Allegiance invoke a divine being. Unless that divine being is identified, this invocation is meaningless. It is obvious that the being implied is the god of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Belief in this god is an inherently religious belief and thus should not be endorsed by our government as it places the religious belief of some citizens above the beliefs and non-beliefs of other citizens.
There is never a problem with private citizens expressing their religious belief anywhere. But when the government or its agents engage in expressing their faith in an official capacity in an official venue then that crosses the line as a government endorsement of religion.
Like many Idahoans, I am deeply concerned about the recent trend toward judicial attacks on our religious freedoms. The freedom of religion that America’s early immigrants sought—and which the Constitution recognizes as an essential element of liberty–has become a misguided judicial imperative to ensure freedom from religion. The need for a separation of church and state meant something very different and specific when the Constitution was drafted, during an age of monarchs who asserted heavenly authority. Recent attempts to undermine our freedom of worship in the name of “political correctness” are a direct attack on the values and liberties for which our forefathers fought and died.
How is protecting the rights of the non-believer any different from protecting the rights of believers? I am sure that a Muslim, Baptist, and an atheist would take equal offense to a distinctly Catholic prayer during a government function, just as a most Christians, Jews, and atheists would take equal offense to a distinctly Muslim prayer at the same event.
I am curious about these attempts to restrict the freedom of worship. I have not heard of anybody taking legal issue with church services on private property. What is it that you’re talking about?
The freedom of religion and freedom from religion is the same thing, it ensures that all people are free to exercise their own personal faith, but it also protects them from having religion forced on them by their government.
Because of my concern about these situations and the wider implications they have on U.S. policy, during my time in Congress I have cosponsored and supported legislation which ensures states have sole authority to determine whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed on or in public buildings, protects the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto of “In God We Trust,” and defends freedom of expression in our nation’s houses of worship. As these important issues are addressed in Congress, you can be confident that I will continue fighting to protect the right to religious freedom.
I am glad you are protecting the “freedom of expression in our nation’s houses of worship,” that is a worthy cause, I hope this includes groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, Islamic Mosques, and pagan groups. However, your support of attempts to force religion on the American people is clearly unconstitutional.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to contact me about this issue. As your representative in Congress, it is important to me to know your thoughts and opinions about issues affecting our nation today. I also encourage you to visit my website, www.house.gov/simpson, to sign up for my e-newsletter and to read more about my views on a variety of issues.
I would be interested in hearing your thoughts to both my original email and this reply.
Permalink
Dustin,
Nice reply. At this point Simpson either has to engage you in debate, demonstrate cognitive dissonance, or ignore you and hope you go away. If you don't let option three work for him this could be quite interesting.
BP
Permalink
Very good rebuttal, am looking forward to see what your next response will be like. Keep going!
Permalink
It took about 10 days to get the last response, since there won't be a form letter that he can send me again, I'll give him a little more time. If I haven't heard anything in two weeks, then Monday's will start the "Simpson Watch" with clips from the TV show, "The Simpsons." Around the same time I'll also start tweeting every few days.
If he does want to engage me in a debate, writing is always good, but I could also set it up on a podcast. I'm sure I could get Chariots of Iron to host it.
If anyone else wants to write their congressmen about this bill, I would be more than happy to post it here.