The notion of god as an overarching presence has no place in my house. I suspect the same is true of your house. Sadly, that godly notion has, in fact, established a central place in "our" House. I refer to our House of Representatives. This presence is manifest in the form of House Resolution 132. Here are the details.

HR132 was introduced in response to the decision of the full Ninth Circuit Court that that Court would not overrule the three judge panel that stated that the phrase "under God" is unconstitutional. HR132 asserts, "the sense of the House of Representatives that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the first amendment and should be overturned."

Forget, for a moment, the merits of the Resolution, itself, and focus on the principle of separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government. Nowhere in the constitution is there a provision for the legislative branch to tell the judicial branch how it "should" rule. On this vital principle alone, HR132 should not be passed.

The "Whereas" clauses of HR132:

• Disregard the history of the USA where it is asserted as fact that "the phrase 'one Nation, under God', as included in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, reflects the notion that the Nation's founding was largely motivated by and inspired by the Founding Fathers' religious beliefs" This is not factually correct. I remember the Boston Tea Party (taxation without representation) as being a key factor.. The "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" by James Madison in 1785 eloquently stated a case against state endorsed religious exercises. If our nation's founding was "motivated" by religion, it was motivated by fear, not by endorsement.



• Asserts that the Pledge is "..not a ... statement of religious faith." But records of the introduction and passage of the bill that inserted the phrase "under God" into the Pledge make it clear that it had a wholly religious intent. At the signing ceremony, President Eisenhower said, ""From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." This is a statement of religious faith and to pretend now, 50 years later, that this is not the case is just plain wrong.



• Assert (about the Pledge) that, "its recitation is not a religious exercise..." It is illogical to assert that the invocation of "God" does not invoke religion. I wonder how those representatives who voted for this Resolution would defend the notion that the invocation of "God" is not inherently religious.



• Complain that the Resolution will affect "... 9.6 million students ..." True. And the many Civil Rights legislative acts in the 1960's and 70's affected tens - or even hundreds - of millions. So what? We're not counting heads here, we're counting fundamental principles.



• Opine that, "...rather than promoting neutrality on the question of religious belief, this decision requires public school districts to adopt a preference against speech containing religious references." This may well be the most offensive "Whereas" in the whole Resolution. The decision makes no such requirement and I am outraged that the House would so assert. The Ninth simply prohibited coerced belief. Individual students can pray to their heart's content at school, in class, and over lunch. But such perfectly acceptable communication between a believer and his/her god should not be confused with "speech." Silently praying over your lunch is fine; forcing me to listen to your prattle is not. More to the point, forcing me to acknowledge aloud a devotion to some god as a part of my oath of patriotism is wrong, wrong, wrong.

As you might expect, the "be it resolved" portion of the act follows these (and other) clauses in close parallel. But the Resolution section goes beyond the "Whereas" clauses and ends with these two "resolved" clauses:

6. "the Attorney General should appeal the ruling in Newdow v. United States Congress, and the Supreme Court should review this ruling in order to correct this constitutionally infirm and historically incorrect holding."
   
   Here we find the legislative branch telling the administrative branch how to conduct their business and instructing the judicial branch how to rule on one certain case. I am dumbfounded at the hubris. Only religion could inspire such disregard for the basic tenets of the American system of governance which has "separation of powers" and "checks and balances" at its very core.



7. "the President should nominate and the Senate should confirm Federal circuit court judges who interpret the Constitution consistent with the Constitution's text."
   
   Given the whole of HR132 (I encourage you to read it in it's entirety) this final "resolved" clause can have only one interpretation. It establishes a religious test for public office in direct contravention to the letter and spirit of our Construction.

What happened to HR132? It passed 400 - 7, with 15 voting Present. Drawing from the other side (Matthew, Chapter 17), I am "sore afraid."

"The stakes have risen for the First Amendment in the wake of 9/11," says Ken Paulson, executive director of the First Amendment Center. The results of our survey suggest that many Americans view these fundamental freedoms as possible obstacles in the war on terrorism. This indicates that a significant percentage seems inclined to rewrite it. So much for Mr. James Madison's idealist 45 words in support of our basic freedoms!

April will see us at the Sandman Inn Restaurant on upper State after the monthly meeting. We have been promised small tables, good food and separate checks. Let's give it a try! Our speaker will be our guest, so we need a respectable turnout for him! Last month we had a delightful experience at the Empress Palace with 22 in attendance! This restaurant is definitely worth a return visit for its meeting location proximity, quality of food and service and separate checks with no hassle!

Last Sunday of the Month Brunch continues to be at Hola Amigos at 10 AM, This month on April 27th. Everyone welcome; just show up! We usually have a lively group of 12-18.

Our 2nd Thursday Biltmore Buffet Dinner will fall on April 10th at 6 PM. We plan on making this a monthly event. Reservations 1 week prior are a must. Please contact John Coppejans at: patjoma75@aol.com or telephone John at 967-0929. Hope to see you there.

Our Winter Solstice Party is in the planning stages and will fall on the 3rd SUNDAY (Sat is the SB Solstice Parade) which is on June 22nd at 1 PM at Goleta Beach. Thanks to Marian Shapiro, Bob Michael, Emilie Hight and Diane Freeman for their creative help. Details forthcoming regarding food and drink.

As always, your input, help and suggestions are welcome.

COME ON OUT AND PLAY!!

SUPPORT THE SOCIAL ACTIVITIES OF THE HSSB!!