Rally for the All-American Pledge

On March 24, 2004, the day Dr. Michael Newdow presented his "Under God" case to the US Supreme Court, San Francisco Atheists hosted a rally for the All-American Pledge on the steps of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Sponsored by American Atheists and organized by American Atheists California State Director Dave Kong, many "godless Californian" groups helped to make the rally a big success. Read on for rally speeches and photos. (To see the full-size photos, click the thumbnail photo. Then go BACK to this page.)

RALLY SPEECHES

Dave Kong: Opening Speech

Good morning everyone. This is a fantastic turnout. Thank you all for coming. I'm Dave Kong, state director for the American Atheists, a national organization that defends the civil rights of nonbelievers and works for the total separation between religion and government.

The voice you just heard is Dr. Michael Newdow, the plaintiff in the lawsuit concerning the phrase "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Today, Dr. Newdow is in Washington, D.C. presenting his argument to the Supreme Court. American Atheists supports his position, and we have filed a supporting brief with the court. Since the founding of American Atheists in 1963, we have opposed this addition to the Pledge, which in 1954 divided Americans along religious lines and made America's Atheists second-class citizens, people who are less than ideal Americans.

We applaud the Ninth Circuit for its courageous ruling back in June of 2002, and for standing firm despite intense public and political pressure. Its decision is remarkably logical and well-reasoned. It states that, for Establishment Clause purposes, the phrase "under God" is the equivalent to the phrase "under Jesus" or "under Vishnu," and even "under no god," because none of these statements is neutral concerning religion. Then, using the Supreme Court's own established tests, it determines that it is unconstitutional for public school teachers to lead students in reciting this decidedly religious statement.

This decision is not radical, but merely a reaffirmation of a cornerstone of the American way-that the government must remain neutral in matters concerning religion. Nevertheless, when the decision was released, it caused an uproar throughout the country. Some people misinterpreted the ruling as declaring the entire Pledge to be illegal. Curiously, others argued that the decision was indeed correct, but that during a national crisis it was the wrong time to make such a decision. It is never a bad time to defend the principles embodied by the First Amendment, especially during a national crisis, because these are the very freedoms we are trying to protect.

While debate over the decision raged, lost was the idea of simply restoring the Pledge to its original phrasing as adopted by Congress in 1942-what we like to call the "all-American" Pledge. Dr. Newdow is not challenging the Pledge per se. He is objecting to the congressional act of adding the phrase "under God" in 1954, which was a deliberate attempt to combat what was then perceived as godless Communism by melding god and country into one patriotic package. Remove the phrase, and you remove the Establishment Clause objections to the Pledge.

Today, American Atheists is holding rallies in Washington, D.C., Birmingham, Alabama, and here at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals-the court that started it all-to show our support for Dr. Newdow and the Ninth Circuit decision, and to encourage restoration of the Pledge to its original, all-American form, to make us once again one nation, indivisible.

The Supreme Court has a marvelous opportunity to uphold the Ninth Circuit decision and reaffirm individual freedom of conscience for the nation. To celebrate this opportunity, a number of local and national Atheist, Humanist and First Amendment organizations have joined us today and stand with us in solidarity. Regardless of the outcome of Dr. Newdow's suit, it has brought us closer together and strengthened our resolve to work for an America that recognizes our night to be free from religion. I want to thank all of the groups for participating today. Together we ARE stronger and cannot be ignored.

Dave Kong: Bobbie Kirkhart Introduction

Many of the groups here today are based right here in the Bay Area, but others have come from far away. Our first speaker has come all the way from Los Angeles to be here with us. She is a former educator and a former Sunday school teacher. An accomplished author, she has been published in the journal Christianity Today and was a contributing author to the book "Fundamentals of Extremism." A long-time activist in the California Atheist movement, once president of Atheists United in LA, she is currently president of Atheist Alliance International. We are very pleased to have her with us today. Please give a warm welcome to Bobbie Kirkhart.

Bobbie Kirkhart Speech

What I Believe

Even though Francis Bellamy wrote the pledge to affirm our nation’s unity in spite of the lingering bitterness of the Civil War, even though “one nation, indivisible,” was the most important phrase in that document,

Some folks are saying this case shouldn’t have come up, because now our children will be harassed more than ever.

I believe the American people are fairer than that. Most may like the pledge the way Congress changed it 50 years ago, but few would make our children suffer for their parents’ beliefs, and those who would have been doing so for years.

Some folks are saying this case shouldn’t have come up now, when the religious right is so strong, because if we win in the court there will be a Constitutional amendment to put God back over us.

I believe the American people are more thoughtful than that. They will not throw away more than two centuries of a secular constitution for one relatively recent distortion. They will, in the long run, keep the pledge that sent our youth to free the world of Hitler, back in the days when we were indeed indivisible.

Some folks are saying this case shouldn’t have come up in an election year, because it will help those politicians who oppose our freedoms.

I believe the American people are smarter than that. They know that politicians of either party who pander to personal prejudice are only trying to distract us from the serious problems this nation has, from their responsibility to govern for the people.

People often ask what I believe in, well, for one thing, I believe in the American people. I believe in their compassion and their courage, and I believe that we will someday become one nation, indivisible, again.

Dave Kong: David Fitzgerald Introduction

Our next speaker is one of the most active Atheists in the Bay Area. In addition to being a member of the Steering Committee of San Francisco Atheists, he helps produce the annual Darwin Day festival with the UC Berkeley group SANE and the National Center for Science Education. He in the creator of the popular game Blasphemy, and is a frequent lecturer on the topic "10,000 Christs and the Evaporating Jesus." Here on behalf of San Francisco Atheists, the co-sponsors of today's event, please give a big hand to David Fitzgerald.

David Fitzgerald Speech

“A Modest Proposal”

As I look out over everyone gathered here today, I am compelled to ask: Why are you making such a big deal out of this? Don’t we have anything better to do than worry about a couple of harmless, meaningless words in the Pledge of Allegiance? That’s for first graders to worry about! Come on, people! I think there are a few bigger issues out there…

To those harboring these sentiments, I would reply: Yes, there are bigger issues. The War in Iraq, The environment, The economy. The right to marry. But this morning - right now - there is no bigger issue than the right of Americans to be free from governmental imposition of religion in their lives.

The civil rights of religious minorities is not a small issue. It is a basic constitutional principle founded in the Bill of Rights, created and fought for by the Founding Fathers. It’s part of the separation of church & state that protects the rights of everyone: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists - and Atheists like me.

I’m not going to speak to whether we even need a loyalty oath. The Founding Fathers certainly didn’t think so. But if we are have one, can it be one that reflects American plurality, not one that polarizes us when we so desperately need to come together?

To those who fail to respect equality for faiths and creeds other than their own;

To the ones who moan and gripe that their free exercise is somehow in peril from the fair and simple religious tolerance demanded by the Constitution;

To those who ask “Well, just what does it hurt you Atheists to say the Pledge?”

To all these let me offer a modest exercise to perhaps give those with a deep-rooted sense of Christian entitlement a sense of what we religious minorities experience. Now, this test – and it could work just as well using examples from Judaism or Buddhism, mind you -is what I like to call the Church of Satan test: Take any situation where establishment of religion might be in question, and ask this – how would a Christian feel if Satanists were given this same privileged position? Consider these hypothetical examples:

In public schools, children are led in classroom pledges that include the line “one nation, under Beelzebub, the Prince of Lies.” (of course students are not forced to recite, but may simply listen in respectful silence while the rest of the class hails Satan as the source of their rights and freedoms)
For Halloween, City Hall is painted with a giant pentagram and sponsors a festive holiday diorama for the whole city featuring a (tasteful) blood sacrifice to the Devil.
School boards are pressured by satanic parents to insure that history textbooks stress the importance of Benjamin Franklin’s private sexual immorality and his personal Satanic values (from his Buckinhamshire Hell-Fire Club days).
Before the big game, the local High Priest of Satan leads the crowd in an invocation of the Dark Lord Lucifer and dedicates the game to the glory of “his Satanic Majesty.”
Christians (and other minority religions) are told to accept that the Salem Witch Trials, 200+ years of immorality, Ozzy Osbourne’s popularity, Harry Potter sales figures and current Islamic “Great Satan” rhetoric all prove that “America is a Satanic Nation, based on Satanic principles for a Satanic people.”

Are these extreme examples? If they seem so, it only shows how outrageous the privileges of Christianity seem to those of other faiths and of no faith who are marginalized by them. Let’s make this truly a country where the freedom of conscience for all Americans is respected.

Dave Kong: Mark Thomas Introduction

An important step forward for the Atheists, Humanists and others in the nonbelieving community was the recent formation of the Godless Americans Political Action Committee. I am very proud to say that our next speaker is on the national advisory board of that committee. In addition, he has been an Atheist pioneer in the South Bay for several years. He has helped to organize many demonstrations, including protests against NDOP ceremonies and nativity scenes on public property. In 2001, he helped organize the first secular memorial in the nation to the victims of the September 11 tragedy, and in 2002, helped produce a symposium on the subject of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. A co-founder and current leader of Atheists of Silicon Valley, please welcome Mark Thomas.

Mark Thomas Speech

Freedom of Religion and the Pledge of Allegiance

Two hundred and fifteen years ago our Constitution took effect, creating a new kind of government. The United States of America was founded as the first country that derived its power from a purely secular, nonreligious basis. Nations before then had kings and queens who used their supposed "God-given divine right" to rule. Instead of this top-down power structure, our founders wisely created a government that derived its powers from the consent of the governed. They also realized the inherent dangers of religion, and specifically kept it out of our Constitution and government. While the deists' "Nature's God" is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, there is no reference to a god in the Constitution. In addition, the Treaty of Tripoli, written during the administration of President George Washington, signed by President John Adams and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797, stated, "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Six years later James Madison wrote, "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."

Our Constitution is also designed to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. References to God by our government officials imply that the 14% of Americans who don't believe in any god are lesser citizens. This is similar to when white men once discriminated against blacks, women and other minorities, often using the Bible as an endorsement. It wasn't right then. It isn't right now.

Almost two years ago, this U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled correctly on the inserted reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance, saying that it conflicts with the First Amendment. To those who disagree, I ask, “What part of the First Amendment is confusing?” “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”

Enshrined in the First Amendment is the idea that all Americans have a constitutional right to freedom of religion. This must include freedom from religion, because we can’t have true freedom unless we have the right to choose "none of the above." References to a god in the Pledge of Allegiance, our national motto, our national anthem, or on our money respect an establishment of religion, and thus are unconstitutional.

Freedom of religion is an ideal that is held by most Americans -- from the devoutly religious to the devoutly nonreligious. However, many religious fundamentalists are battling to insert their religion into our government, to turn the U.S. into a theocracy. This mixing of government and religion is a threat to the freedoms of us all. Make no mistake about this. A government cannot be based on the belief that all persons are created equal when it implies that a god prefers some.

We can show the world that we are significant. Most important though, is the fact that we can change ourselves. Each of us can resolve that we will continue to fight to maintain the ideals of freedom of religion, and from religion, that were so important to the founding of our nation.

As shown by the national uproar and debate, religion is still divisive. The Pledge of Allegiance is supposed to help unite Americans. Having "God" in it divides us, and attempts to link patriotism to public professions of religious belief. Let us return the Pledge to its previous, nonreligious and inclusive form -- so we can all once again say "one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Dave Kong: Ray Westergard Introduction

Our next guest comes from the East Bay. In addition to making a living as a community college math instructor, he has been active in various civil and religious rights organizations, including the ACLU and PFAW. For the past two years, he has served as president of the East Bay chapter of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. We are honored to have him here today. Let's hear it for Ray Westergard!

Ray Westergard Speech

(Ray's speech is forthcoming)

Dave Kong: Endorsing Groups

We are proud to have so many organizations represented here today. However, they are just a portion of the groups and individuals we now call the "godless Californians." Others groups that could not attend but endorse today's rally include:

The Agnostic & Atheist Student Assoc. at UC Davis
Atheists of North Coastal San Diego County
Atheists United of Los Angeles
The Center for Inquiry - West (Orange County)
The Humanist Association of the Greater Sacramento Area
The Humanist Society of Santa Barbara
Students Advocating a Non-Religious Ethos (SANE) at UC Berkeley

Dave Kong: Adrienne Mowery Introduction

One group that could not be here is the Secular Humanists of the East Bay. However, they have provided a statement they would like us to share with you. Here to present SHEB's statement, written by Bernie Rosen, is the treasurer of San Francisco Atheists and one of the new faces in the local Atheist movement, Adrienne Mowery.

Adrienne Mowery Speech

Secular Humanists of the East Bay
Statement by Bernie Rosen

Many think that a suit objecting to including 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance is either silly or a complaint from out-of-the-mainstream kooks. The present administration thinks that we need more faith-based education, and proposes ways to funnel public funds to religious schools and to religious charities. We have seen what can happen if those who have no doubt of the correctness of their religious views run the schools in the Middle East. The implications for the Rights of women and minorities are ominous indeed. An early place is the best place to stop this kind of creeping official religion of the country view. Let Antonin Scalia, George W Bush and John Ashcroft adopt the religious view of their choice, as long as they don't impose that choice on others.

This is a rally to support freedom of religion, which all Americans, not just atheists and humanists, profess to hold dear. Looked at in this way, we are in the majority. Don't you forget that! Don't let anyone forget that!

Dave Kong: Merilyn Brunner Introduction

Last Sunday, the Sacramento Bee published an editorial reversing its position on the Pledge controversy. In 2002, when the Ninth Circuit decision was released, it had originally supported the "under God" phrase as a form of ceremonial deism. However, after considering the issue, they reversed their position and extend it to its logical conclusion. Here to share the Bee's thoughtful editorial is San Francisco Atheists' Merilyn Brunner.

Merilyn Brunner Speech

Editorial: Affirm religious liberty
Restore 1892-1954 Pledge of Allegiance

Seeing a local case before the Supreme Court has a way of moving principle to the foreground as other concerns fade into background.
That is certainly the situation as the Elk Grove Unified School District and Michael Newdow prepare to enter the history books this week. That is when the Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether to remove "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

Given the range of truly critical legal and social issues facing the court and the nation, it's tempting to take the easy way out, to ignore the questions of principle that are inherent in this case.

It's tempting, in other words, to say that the words "under God" - added to the pledge at the height of the Red Scare and Cold War in the 1950s as a counterpoise to the official policy of atheism in the then-Soviet Union - have no particular religious meaning today.

That was the view Supreme Court Justice William Brennan offered in a dissenting opinion in the 1984 Lynch v. Donnelly decision. He acknowledged that he remained "uncertain about these questions," but suggested that 1950s changes to the national motto and Pledge of Allegiance should be understood as a form of "ceremonial deism" that over time have lost any significant religious content through rote repetition.

That also was the view we expressed in a March 7 editorial.

But the swirling public controversy over the issue make it clear that this tempting line of thought is ultimately not viable. These words do have religious meaning to a lot of people.

The addition of "under God" certainly had religious meaning to those who campaigned to change the 62-year-old pledge in 1954. To Buddhists, Muslims, atheists and others who aren't part of that "ceremonial deism," having their children pledging a belief that the nation was founded under God has a clear religious meaning today. It has such meaning, too, to those who are fighting to keep that 1950s change.

For schoolchildren, this is what educators call a "teachable moment." It is an opportunity to get beyond the rote repetition of the pledge and teach students about the American tradition of religious liberty.

That tradition is reflected in this fact: God is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. The only mentions of religion are in Article VI and in the First Amendment.

The reference in Article VI reflects the founders' clear view that officeholders and others who hold a public trust would make a pledge to uphold the U.S. Constitution but that religious oaths would be forbidden. U.S. Senators and representatives, state legislators and all executive officers and judges "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The First Amendment makes it clear that government will neither impose religion nor hinder the free exercise of religion.

In short, the founders understood that the best way to avoid religious controversies was to make religion a matter of private conscience and choice, not part of the nation's shared civic life. That understanding is as valuable today as it was 200 years ago.

That's why the proper course is to return to the founders' "E Pluribus Unum" tradition - acknowledging that to create one nation, we have to accept that people of many backgrounds have differing beliefs. And that means resisting the temptation to impose religious oaths - by rote repetition or not - on the nation's schoolchildren.

Here is the original text of the Pledge of Allegiance: "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."

That is how the Pledge read from 1892 until 1954. It served the nation well in those six decades, a period in which the nation grew stronger despite two world wars, two other major conflicts and the Great Depression.

It is a profoundly American sentiment, entirely in keeping with the traditional values and principles reflected in the Constitution. The Supreme Court should help the nation return to those principles by returning the Pledge to its original form.

Dave Kong: Mynga Futrell Introduction

Next we will hear from one of the groups that has traveled a long distance to be here. They have represented Atheism in the Sacramento area for many years. Here to speak to you, representing Sacramento Atheists and Other Freethinkers, is Mynga Futrell.

Mynga Futrell Speech

Few youngsters are present today as Michael Newdow argues his case before the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, countless children will find their fate wrapped up in its outcome.

Keeping “under God” in the pledge will go on causing distress and conflict for many. Take as an example Maryland parent Christine Miller and her child. She says:

I am a patriot. My eight-year-old son is a patriot. Unfortunately, the Pledge of Allegiance excludes my son and me…when the Pledge (is) recited, my son and I must face a sad moment of shared realization that most of those who surround us are thought to be more a part of this nation than are we. He bears the stigma alone during the daily recitation at school.

As response to the Pledge controversy has shown, Americans take “under God” very earnestly. Although much in the minority, numerous upstanding Americans take the phrasing as an article of monotheistic religious belief, and they do not share that belief. They are thus “forced to weigh carefully” how they respond whenever the Pledge is conducted in the classroom or public setting.

Sacramento’s Atheists and Other Freethinkers organization has submitted an amicus curiae brief [hold up] in the Newdow case. AOF’s brief substantiates its three arguments by offering glimpses of much like that of Christine and her son’s. Twenty-five people tell their own stories through our excerpts from their sworn affidavits.

Let me read for you just a brief sample of the statements that, I hope, will vividly illustrate for the Justices the harm that has befallen American citizens since Congress’s action in 1954 to introduce the monotheistic wording.

In their own words, these persons describe how the “under God” aspect of the Pledge has had real consequences for them:

Cary Pincus of California: She said...I should leave the classroom and stand outside in the hallway during the pledge. This I did for the remainder of third grade... I felt the teacher had made her opinion of me clear; that is, I did not belong.

Stuart Tanquist of Minnesota: I felt extremely uncomfortable as I violated my own integrity… I quietly slipped out of the room…I was literally hiding to avoid being perceived as unpatriotic...I felt like an outsider in my own country.

Baily Wood of Kansas (age 10): I don’t have the nerve to sit down and not say the Pledge at all. I used to be silent just during this part, but now I say “under the government” instead. Still, this has made me feel different and allowed the other kids in my class to find out that I am an atheist without me telling them.

Joslyn Polzien of Nebraska: I then had to decide, every single morning, whether I would choose conformity and comfort, or choose to respect myself, my family, and our beliefs. Some days I said the words, but softly. Many days I just mouthed them. On braver days I kept my mouth closed and hoped that none of my classmates would notice that I hadn’t spoken during that heartbeat.

So much of the media attention to the Newdow Pledge case has concentrated on personal particulars about atheist physician Newdow and on the broad sweep of public reaction. The Justices need to hear a variety of human voices and actual situations. This case has implications for real people!”

Most of what we chose for our brief centered on the classroom situation, where youngsters are placed in an untenable situations. We wanted the Justices to hear from them in their own words. Hear from Karl Black of Michigan about what happened with his daughter …

Ms. S. suddenly decided she had had enough. She stormed over to Megan’s desk, grabbed her by the upper arm, yanked her to her feet, and yelled at her “You will stand!

…and hear from Peggy Hanks of Washington, relating years later her experience in 1954, in the week following the modification of wording …

“The teacher put the new pledge up on the board and announced that we would be saying it that way from then on… Finally, the teacher told me she believed I was simply being obstinate and that I needed to practice the pledge by writing it correctly 25 times…She gave me one more chance to get up in front of the class and recite the pledge correctly or she would send me down to the principal’s office for a spanking.

Our brief’s testimony recounts personal situations that bear witness to the deleterious effects on children and adults. These Americans poignantly share their feelings of conflict and second-class citizenship. Their examples of adverse consequences experienced attest to the real harm that the contemporary Pledge of Allegiance has engendered and continues to cause in classrooms across our nation.

With the 1954 insertion of the two new words, suddenly youngsters and adults were caught in a situation where the standard patriotic ritual unjustly pitted their deepest ultimate beliefs against heartfelt love of country. The action clearly undermined the professed “nation indivisible” ideal.”

We need to restore the Pledge to its pre-1954 all-inclusive wording. We need to confirm a “nation indivisible” and invite all our citizens, young and old, to full participation in this patriotic declaration.

Dave Kong: More Thanks

Before I introduce the final two speakers, I'd like to take a moment to thank everyone who helped make today's event a success. I'd like to thank Larry Hicok for suggesting this West Coast event. Thank you to Jim Heldberg for publicity, transportation, and invaluable advice as always. Thank you to Dave Fitzgerald for creating the event flyers, and to Katie Harrar for publicity and acting as liaison with the Humanist community. Thanks to Dan Dugan for technical advice, and to Mark Thomas for acting as sound engineer. Thanks to our monitors: Larry Hicok, Ski Grabowski, and Dave Fitzgerald. Finally, thanks to all the people who could not be here today but helped publicize the event. Let's give them all a big hand!

Dave Kong: Larry Hicok Introduction

Our next speaker represents both East Bay Atheists and its related group, the San Leandro Atheists. He has been an Atheist and a materialist for 40 years. He currently authors a regular column on materialism called "Material Matters" for the Atheist Law Center. Please welcome Larry Hicok.

Larry Hicok Speech

The Pledge, even without under god, is a blind loyalty oath that has no place in a country founded on the principles of Jefferson, Madison and Franklin. The oath was created in 1892 by a Christian minister, not by our founding fathers.

Our Constitution, which flowed from the Enlightenment, formed a nation based on reason, not on the divine right of kings. In contrast to monarchies and tribal chiefs, which demanded the blind loyalty of citizens to the state, our nation demanded the loyalty of the government to the good of its citizens. Again, the loyalty of the government to the good of its citizens. That completely turns things around, and that is the point. Government depended upon the support of the thinking citizen to stay in power. Such a skeptical citizen is the opposite of the one presented by the Pledge, who blindly worships the state, as though it is a religious institution.

My critics will counter that the secular Pledge includes the qualifying phrase, with liberty and justice for all. That is correct, and after thirty years of repeating that phrase, women were actually given the right to vote. It took another forty years for blacks, especially in the South, to be treated like citizens. It is only recently that gays and atheists have dared to come out of the closet. Like most rituals, the Pledge numbs the mind, and substitutes a phrase for the real thing. Liberty and justice for all requires that citizens stand up for their rights, and that the majority respects those rights. Forcing our children to pledge blind loyalty to the state every day is hardly the answer. Instead they need to be taught the opposite: critical thinking, and an understanding of our country's founding principles.

In the 1943 Barnette case, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, with Douglas, wrote:

"Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self-interest. Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws..."

Another problem with the loyalty oath is that it basically says that citizens should support their government, even when it commits injustice against others. I have no problem with wishing for the best for our citizens, but I am not willing to sacrifice other nations for our alleged benefit. I support justice for all nations of the world, and that requires seeing your country's actions with eyes that are not blinded by the unconditional loyalty of the Pledge.

In conclusion I want to address a dangerous concept that has become popular with the Religious Right and Fox News (as if that is not redundant): The Tyranny of the Minority. It claims that minorities like us are inflicting a tyranny on the majority by demanding our rights. I will simply quote a famous subversive:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

That subversive was Benjamin Franklin.

Dave Kong: Jim Heldberg Introduction

Our final speaker has done so many things to help the Atheist movement. He created the American Atheist national affiliation program and since then has helped to create local Atheist groups throughout California and across the country. He has participated and organized many demonstrations throughout California. As one of the founders and coordinator of San Francisco Atheists, he produces the local SFA monthly newsletter. He also writes an occasional column for the American Atheist website under the moniker "Gentleman Jim." He has been a key figure in bringing the godless Californians together. An atheist veteran, and the 2003 recipient of the American Atheists California Distinguished Service Award, please welcome American Atheists' National Affiliation Director, Jim Heldberg.

Jim Heldberg Speech

I started a war.

I did not do it alone, but I did it. I was a young deck officer on board USS BEXAR, an amphibious attack transport ship. We landed the first US troops on Vietnam soil at the Chu Lai landing in 1964. It was dirty, difficult, dangerous, and exciting.

I was a young man doing my duty, like young Americans are doing today around the world. I was proud to carry the American flag high atop my ship, day and night, half a world away. To me, that flag meant my home, my family and my country. I felt I was protecting America abroad, and that people like you were supporting me by protecting America at home.

When I returned home, I learned that not everyone thought I had done the right thing. Vietnam War protestors were going strong. They were performing one of America’s highest traditions: criticizing the government. They should have carried the American flag proudly, but they didn’t; they rejected the flag with the war. Rejecting the flag was a major mistake. It was a tactical error that confused the public and distracted attention from anti-war efforts. It caused potential supporters to reject the protestors, not the war.

I don’t want America’s Atheists to make that same mistake. Religionists want to highjack our American flag. Let’s not let them have it. We’re the real Americans, standing for freedom and justice for all. We can carry our American flag proudly into the fight against restrictive religion.

California arrived 75 years late to America. It didn’t take us long to become freedom’s leaders, though. We used our freedom to experiment in all areas of life: fashion, food, entertainment, sports, science, technology, transportation, communication, law-making, and personal relationships. Now, California’s freedom brings America’s progress.

Today, a Californian is standing courageously for American freedom, against those who would pollute the pledge with religion. Mike Newdow is trying to correct a half-century old mistake.

California and America cannot thrive “under god.” What part of “under” don’t they understand? “Under” is a restrictive word. No one wants to be “under”, not under the weather, under a doctor’s care, under duress, under court supervision, under attack or under the lawn.

Americans don’t want to be under the control of other people. We fought wars so we wouldn’t be under the control of a king, a fuehrer, an emperor, and others.

Millions of us also choose not to be under the control of imaginary characters, like God the Gracious, Jesus the Christ, Allah the Merciful, Moses the Mover, angels, ghosts, fairies, leprechauns, or any other fanciful folk.

“Under god” is not just a trivial phrase, as religionists often contend. We know that with every imaginary god comes a real religion, ready to restrict somebody’s freedom. Religion wants to restrict our creativity. Religion has tried to impose restrictions on our fashion, food, entertainment, sports, science, technology, transportation, communication, law-making, and personal relationships.

Religion in churches is fairly harmless. It’s silly, but it’s fairly harmless. However, when religion tries to influence real life, it becomes dangerous. If religion can highjack the world’s superpower, it will become super-dangerous to the whole world. Why can’t we learn that lesson, after the religious violence of September 11?

America needs Atheists to lead the way to security and freedom for all Americans. So we fight for freedom from religion, on noisy street corners, in quiet voting booths, on dangerous battlefields and in passionate courtrooms.

Our flag has 2 sides. I don’t mean front and back; I mean freedom and responsibility. We enjoy our freedom only as long as we take responsibility for its safe survival. Let us continue to pledge ourselves to America’s high goals of freedom and responsibility.

As we close this rally, I invite you to stand with me for American freedom, and join me in the “All-American, godless” Pledge of Allegiance.

Recite together:

“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.”