Mark Udall: “I support this resolution--not because I necessarily agree that the recent decisions it addresses is ``inconsistent with…”

“I support this resolution--not because I necessarily agree that the recent decisions it addresses is ``inconsistent with the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence'' as the resolution says, but because I do agree that ``the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should agree to rehear'' the matter. I am not a lawyer, and have not had a chance to carefully review the decision. So, I am not prepared to conclude that its author--a long-serving judge originally appointed by President Nixon--was clearly wrong as a matter of law. However, it is my understanding that another appeals court, in a similar case, has ruled differently. So, I definitely think the issue needs to be resolved, either through reconsideration or by the Supreme Court. I also strongly agree with the part of the resolution which states that ``the United States Congress recognizes the right of those who do not share the beliefs expressed in the Pledge to refrain from its recitation.'' I am proud to recite the Pledge of Allegiance because I personally agree that, as the resolution states, ``the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a religious practice'' and its recitation ``is not a religious exercise'' but instead ``the verbal expression of support for the United States of America.'' However, I think it is not a good idea for the Congress to attempt to define what constitutes a religious practice or a prayer. So, I am uncomfortable with the parts of the resolution dealing with those points.”