Subject:
|
Re: One nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 27 Jun 2002 15:07:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1388 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledgeofallegiance.ap/index.html
>
> Wow. For the life of me I can't imagine why this never happened before, but
> I'm delighted by it.
Here are a few other gems from
http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/26/pledge.allegiance/index.html
Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, was one of many lawmakers
who immediately reacted in anger and shock to the ruling.
"Our Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.
This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok,"
Bond said. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help
me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"
I love that the article says Bond "immediately reacted in anger" like a
responsible member of Congress should. I mean, why bother with a rational,
well-reasoned response when you can react with righteous bluster?
And far be it from me to call Rep. Bond ill-informed, but the actual text of
the oath, according to The Constitution, reads:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my
ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
States."
Custom has led many Presidents to add "so help me God," but it's not a
formal part of the oath, and it is disingenuous of Bond to imply otherwise.
[Ari Fleischer said] I think this decision will not sit well with the
American people. Certainly, it does not sit well with the president
of the United States."
Frankly I don't care how W feels about it, and I actually take offense at
Fleischer's smugness in presuming to speak for "the American people" For
which "American people" does Fleischer think he speaks? The majority? That
would be hysterical, since the majority wasn't allowed to speak for itself
in November 2000. A separate issue? Perhaps. But the Bush Administration
can't cling to the letter of the Constitution when convenient and then
discard it at its whim.
The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower
signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward,
the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every
city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication
of our Nation and our people to the Almighty."
Good ol' Dwight. "Under God" was and is an explicit endorsement of God, and
is therefore State endorsement of a religion.
I don't mean to seem farcically hopped up about this, but it's really a
fundamental issue to me. In my pre-college years I wasn't sure of my
religious beliefs, but I new darn well that I didn't believe in a personal
God, and the daily recititation of The Pledge was a daily moment of palpable
discomfort for me. I will not be ordered to worship.
I've heard talk of a Constitutional Amendment to canonize The Pledge with
"under God" intact. I find that a disgusting thought and, again, an
explicit State endorsement of religion. It's also a bread-and-circuses
campaign point on par with the oft-attempted "flag burning" Amendment. That
is, both would be serious infringements upon the 1st Amendment, but they
allow lawmakers to pretend that they care about important issues.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
