Dear Justice O'Connor

It is with great distress that I read your concurring opinion in the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow. I am not a lawyer, but am an atheist, and though I freely concede I may have misunderstood your argument, it seemed its legal grounds would suggest that patriotic atheist Americans like myself do not have our patriotism impugned every day by the use of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In your opinion, you lay out cogent principles for determining whether a practice violates the Constitution's Establishment Clause. The first principle is a determination whether "government makes adherence to a religion relevant ... to a person's standing in the political community." Secondly, it must be evident that a "reasonable observer" would not conclude, in full knowledge of the principle's history and cultural role, that its purpose was to exclude proponents of any given faith from the political community.

I admire the wisdom and perspicacity of both these principles, but am profoundly shocked that they lead to the outcome of your ensuing consideration of the Pledge. In finding the Pledge to be nothing more than a harmless instance of "ceremonial deism" your analysis never once acknowledges the vast difference between a prayer and a pledge. The Pledge of Allegiance is NOT a "prayer." It is a "pledge." It is a solemn affirmative declaration of allegiance to this nation's emblematic symbol and to the country which it represents. I recited the Pledge of Allegiance nearly daily from the age of 5 until the age of 17. I continue to know it by heart, and continue to feel bound by the promise which it states (though I regret the divisiveness of the phrase "Under God"). If the honor of Americans stands for anything, then the content of our pledges - our "words of honor" - should not be taken so lightly. In fact, it is my understanding that your Court has made the statement of the Pledge purely voluntary precisely because it is such a powerful statement of allegiance.

Because the Pledge commits us, as Americans, to the defense of a nation, it is not insignificant what elements of the nation are defined as worthy of that loyalty. The qualifier "under God" is not some nebulous characterization of this nation's history, as you assert. It is a descriptor of the nation signified by our flag. This nation is a Republic, united, with liberty and justice for all. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, schoolchildren are asked to take a daily oath of allegiance which explicitly expels the large minority of this nation's inhabitants who do not recognize any being which might be called a "God" from the political community.

As Rehnquist discusses in his opinion, to which you concur in full, the phrase "Under God" was inserted in 1954. The stated intent of the provision's author, according to Rehnquist, "was to contrast this country's belief in God with the Soviet Union's embrace of atheism." Thus, it was at least envisioned as a statement of an attribute of this nation that distinguished us from a foreign power we then viewed as an enemy. The intent and effect of the insertion of the clause, "Under God" served to render a substantial portion of our population "indigenous aliens." If atheism was the defining trait of the Soviet Union (rather than, say, totalitarian Communism), which separated it from the United States of America, then those Americans who might happen to be atheists were, in effect, the political representatives of an anti-American political order. It was conceived as a statement of enmity towards a belligerent foreign power, and articulated in such a way as to carve out a portion of our own, honestly patriotic, population as adherents to the moral evils of that power.

Given the distinguished role that atheism has played in the founding of the liberal political philosophy that midwifed this nation, that hardly seems fair. The British liberal utilitarian philosopher, John Stewart Mill, in On Liberty (Ch 2, pg. 18) notes that in his day it was a commonplace to refuse the oath of self-avowed atheists. "A rule thus self-convicted of absurdity so far as regards its professed purpose, can be kept in force only as a badge of hatred, a relic of persecution; a persecution, too, having the peculiarity, that the qualification for undergoing it, is the being clearly proved not to deserve it." The Pledge, as it presently stands, accomplishes a like effect. And though Rehnquist notes extensively the role of avowedly religious men in this nation's history, it is important to remember Mill's caveat, true for American society as well as English, that historically "our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion." The open avowal of atheism has never been an entirely safe practice, and a large number of active intellectuals have felt constrained in the public profession of their disbelief by the opinions of their fellow men. This history of persecution and intolerance has submerged whatever role atheism may have played in the foundation of this nation. I don't see how you can argue that the Pledge is not a similar statement of social and political exclusion directed at atheists, when exactly such exclusion was central to its intent, and is obviously part of its effect. Religious though our forefathers may have been, they still saw fit to include the caveat that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." It seems perverse, then, to use the voluntary religious expressions of our nation's officers to justify inserting a subtle "religious Test" into the oath of allegiance to our nation itself.

I have never in my life believed that I had any standing on a legal basis to object to the phraseology of the Pledge of Allegiance. But I have long objected to the clause "under God" on a moral basis. It certainly bothers me to know that America's schoolchildren declare on a daily basis that I am not one of the individuals united to our Nation. It distresses me even more to hear a sitting Supreme Court Justice declare that this statement is merely "ceremonial deism" and does not "send a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community."

In your opinion you write, "I find it telling that so little ire has been directed at the Pledge." I would argue that it is telling of the political inefficacy of atheists (who, by our definition, tend not to have churches which keep us politically organized). According to an ABC News Poll, 11% of Americans felt that "Under God" did not belong in the Pledge. Though the majority of opinion expressed by the remaining 89% is astounding, that minority is far from insignificant. And when you consider the Pew Report's finding that 66% of Americans report a negative view of atheists, the political neutrality of statements impugning the political role of those Americans should seem highly suspect.

It is a shame that our youth is exposed to a definition of "patriotism" which rejects the claim to national pride of America's atheists. I am disappointed that your opinion did not even acknowledge the very real pain that such a declaration causes. To be an atheist in America requires constant reiteration that one's beliefs have not led one to the rejection of all morality or to the rejection of love of one's country and the ideals for which it stands. As an atheist, I find it obvious that the Pledge reflects skepticism of my patriotism, even if it does not motivate such doubts.

Whether the Court should remove the clause from the Pledge or not, I couldn't fairly state. I tend to believe such changes are most rightly made through the democratic process. But if you are to defend the Pledge as a practice, I would hope to see a more accurate assessment of its impact upon atheists and its power as a statement of political exclusivity. To treat it as a innocuous articulation of ceremonial deism is a denial of its very real purpose as a pledge of loyalty to our nation and its ideals and is thus an affront to the patriotism of American atheists.