We will host Michael Newdow after his program on Sat. Feb. 15th. at an exciting reception at Victoria's Restaurant at the Encina Lodge. This is conveniently located near his talk at the Schott Center. Since space is limited for this outstanding event, advance ticket sales are available to our members for only $8.00. ( The cost at the door the day of the event is $10.00.) This price includes wines, soft drinks and a variety of delicious hors d'oeuvres Please make checks payable to the HSSB. Mail to Treasurer, Russ Boggie, PO Box 41823, SB 93140. Reservation checks must be received by Feb. 12th. Don't miss out!!

After the Reception, those who wish may stay on for dinner at the same location.

Last month we tried 2 new venues for Dining Out and Sunday Brunch. Cody's had very good food, cheerfully given separate checks and reasonable prices. The seating arrangements are less than ideal, but we will work with them on that aspect. Crocodile was enjoyed by about 10 breakfasters. The separate checks issue was a problem so we are unsure of a repeat visit. However the food and ambience is very pleasant. Your suggestions for restaurants that you have tried are very welcome.

Thank you again for the cookie and drink donations. Parkie and Diane are graciously seeing that no one starves at the meetings! Please contact them if you have never donated goodies. Your time should come up about once every 3 years!!

Please note the lack of ANY coherent argument in favor of the excluding phrase "under God." All Rep. Israel was able to do was cite other forms of discriminatory practices against non-theists! To illustrate this better, imagine if all the examples given were meant to deny Jews or racial minorities the ability to truthfully and proudly recite the Pledge: What if "In Jesus We Trust" was on currency? What if oaths ended in "So help me Jesus?" What if prayers in legislative settings were directed to Jesus, or to a fundamentalist God of one sort or another? Would that be Constitutional? Would that be sensitive to religious minorities? Answer: No, and that is why it is not done (aside from Constitutional reasons). Sensitivity to the feelings of non-believers, who wish to be included in pledging allegiance, is still politically incorrect, however.

This vacuous kind of vote grubbing to the lowest common denominator only adds to the perception that there are few elected officials who have areal reverence for the freedoms we should all hold dear. We should no longer bb surprised by any of this anymore. It makes it more obvious that the fight to rid the Pledge of a religious test is all the more important.

Juan Ninguno, and old preacher-friend of mine from days past, sent me a letter not long ago. His letters are always fantastic (in the sense of the primary meaning of that word). I never know when I'll hear from Juan. He moves around a lot - mostly in almost forgotten places where I myself have journeyed. This letter was sent from Nevada. Allow me to share it with you.

Dear Roger,

First and foremost, I want to emphasize that I did not write this "letter" although I wish I had. I downloaded it from the web and changed a few names to make it seem more "real" in order to hook your attention. Numerous versions of it are all over the web. One site did claim copyright to it, but when I asked for permission to use it, they said their web site was in error and they had no idea where it came from.
I have used this "letter" as a way of beautifully illustrating the principle behind our February speaker's (Michael Newdow) position regarding "under god" in the Pledge. Nearly all theists disagree - some vehemently - with his position but only because the word "god" has become so generic in our religiously pluralistic society as to have lost nearly all meaning. If, instead of god, one substitutes Jesus, or Mohammed, or Visnu or Buddha or then you can bet your weight in Florida chad that the politics of religion would be totally different.

Roger

Michael Newdow, an attorney and ER physician, whose lawsuit to remove the words "under God" from the government mandated pledge of allegiance was upheld by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal, writes in the current Free Inquiry article Why I Did It:

"This is my country just as much as it is anyone else's, and I demand from my government the same respect for my views regarding religion that is given to those with alternative ideals. I'm not someone the majority tolerates. I don't thank the masses for allowing me to not worship as I please. I am not a second-class citizen who should be seen and not heard."

He will be seen and heard at the HSSB special February meeting, Saturday the 15th, at the Schott Center in Santa Barbara.

Some of the Supreme Court precedents recognized by the 9th Circuit judges were:

Wallace v. Jaffree, which specifically listed 'silent prayer', as a possible use for a moment of silence, as unconstitutional even though no students were forced to pray.

Lynch v. Donnelly: The Endorsement Test (formulated by Justice O'Conner). The pledge fails, in the majority opinion, as it definitely endorses religion and religious belief.

Lee v. Weisman: The Coercion Test. The pledge fails because it forces students to choose between participating in an exercise with religious content or protesting - which the government should not be permitted to do.

The court then applied the Lemon Test. To survive this test and be found constitutional, a law must: (I) have a secular purpose, (2) have a principal or primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and (3) not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. The court held that the pledge readily fails the first condition because the purpose of the words 'under God' was to advance religion.

The panel decision will be reviewed by the full Ninth Circuit Court which may lead to an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Michael Newdow successfully represented himself in this case.