It’s probably time to start thinking of a new name for our government for when it gets completely turned into a theocracy. Taliban has been taken.
House passes bill shielding ‘under God’ from court rulings
The House, citing the nation’s religious origins, voted Wednesday to protect the Pledge of Allegiance from federal judges who might try to stop schoolchildren and others from reciting it because of the phrase ”under God.”
The legislation, a priority of social conservatives, passed 260-167. It now goes to the Senate, where its future is uncertain.
”We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). ”It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God.”
Opponents said the legislation, which would bar federal courts from ruling on the constitutional validity of the pledge, would undercut judicial independence and would deny access to federal courts to religious minorities seeking to defend their rights.
”We are making an all-out assault on the Constitution of the United States which, thank God, will fail,” said Sen. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
The legislation grew out of a 2002 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.
Oh has effectively vetted Stiffler’s reactionary babble, but I want to second him or her.
As was noted above, the word “equality” was left out of the 1950s-era pledge precisely because of concern that might mean that America’s second-class citizens deserved better treatment. The Stifflers somehow manage to claim that American citizenship is nirvana while maintaining their desire to deny equality to much of population simultaneously. Who’s kidding who? Any educated person knows what ‘state’s rights’ and other Right Wing catch phrases came to mean. So, I don’t think an apology for using the word ‘facism is necessary. The Right does have a fascist perspective much of the time.
The steel toed boot fits, so let’em wear it.
The ‘protect the pledge’ sally is part of the same mentality that brought us creationism/intelligent design and the Terri Schiavo brouhaha. We need to start nipping these things in the bud when the Right first starts them. The way to do that is to erase the ignorance of history and science the Right relies on.
Damn Mr. Fusion….you beat me to it about Pelosi……lol
For all the wailing and knashing of teeth going on in this blog I don’t think any of you have seen the irony of your words. I am seeing a load of bull from all sides about our lack of patriotism, or refusing to say things like *under God* or how we are nothing more than some two bit banana republic with no freedoms and nothing to offer the world.
I think it was Podesta who felt that this country has never done anything for him, I ask, what have you done for this country? Since I don’t know you, it would be good to know what, other than being able to critizize this country, you have done.
The irony that I mentioned is this……your all expressing your opinions freely on a blog, without any worry that there will be repercussions from your doing so. Try doing that in India this week, or maybe China, or any of the Muslim nations or how about France. I wouldn’t suggest it in Russia or Pakistan or several other Asian nations either.
Be happy that your not gay in countries like Egyupt or Iran where it’s a death sentance or life in prison. Or in Russia where it’s still a 5 year sentance to be gay. Here your just asked to *don’t ask, don’t tell*, but no one in the goverment is going to hang you for your sexual persausion. Or for your political persausion, or for your religious or non-religious beliefs or non-beliefs.
No one in or out of goverment is going to take away your freedom of speech for calling the President a dickhead, or for saying it about any other politician(though some may wish they could get you).
That my friends is not a communist, or fascist nation. It’s a Republic, with laws and freedoms, that sometimes makes big mistakes but mostly tries to do good. Goverment is not an open affair all the time, no matter how hard it tries to be, sometimes it can’t be. It’s almost not possible with goverment, of any kind, but we have more openess than most. As a British political observer noted last week, that Britain is always ragging on the U.S for all kinds of things, but the U.S is a freer country than Britain because people can and do question their goverment without being afraid of being accused of hate speech, as they can and are in the U.K.
So saying a pledge, with the words *under God* isn’t going to bring on a religious purge (Roc Rizzo, alarmist, as usual) or make you lose all your freedoms. Being patriotic isn’t fascist, it’s loving your country, with all it’s warts (but understanding it has them). And doing what you can to make it better.
those who control the present control the past.
those who control the past control the future.
everyone is fighting for control, theist and atheist alike, likely because they are afraid of what the other will do when they get control. does that sound reasonable? people driven by fear, not Love.
Joshua,
We should be grateful that our government IS NOT as dictatorial as some of the ones you mentioned? Bull crap argument. We should be doing what we can to assist other citizens to gain freedom from oppressive overlords. Freedom from oppression is a universal right, not something we must bow and scrape our foreheads on the floor for.
Hey, wait a minute, isn’t that what the the Declaration of Independence stated? Do you remember, one of those pieces of paper that declares our freedoms? Or how about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Ya, the one EVERY member of the United Nations agreed to when they joined.
http://tinyurl.com/229gx
http://tinyurl.com/284uo
AND we should also be ensuring that our freedoms are not being slowly eroded as is happening under Shrub and the neo-con agenda.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, …
#21
> but as long as the God is wholly unspecified
Ah, but it is specified. Using the singular form as a proper noun is without question referring to the Judeo-Christian deity.
#31
> long as you don’t have a monarch, you are a republic.
Not even close. There are other forms of government which are not republics nor monarchies not the least of which is a democracy.
#32
> educated person knows what ’state’s rights’ and other Right
> Wing catch phrases came to mean. So, I don’t think an
> apology for using the word ‘facism is necessary.
What else does it mean other than the State governments should wield the power? The concept of State’s rights goes back to before the Constitution. It is the very basis on which the country was founded. The very name of the country is indicative of this.
> The Right does have a fascist perspective much of the time.
I suppose you would also agree that, “The Left does have a communist perspective much of the time”? Both statements are nonsense.
> Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one
> national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an
> insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong
> demagogic approach.Merriam-Webster
So I guess Jefferson and Franklin were Fascists along with most of the Founding Fathers? The Founding Fathers *despised* democracies *and* obedience to a single powerful leader.
The “Under God” phrase just does not belong in a Pledge to your country. I have no problem with the concept of the Pledge itself but it should not require some sort of specious tribute to the deity of one set of religions.
#36, my dictionary makes no such distinction for the capitalized form of the word “God.” Specifically, it defines “God” as…
1. RELIGION supreme being: the being believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the universe, worshiped as the only god.
You’ll note that this monotheistic definition doesn’t apply to the lowercase version of the word, as in the Greek gods. But if the definition for the capitalized version is ever changed to mean specifically Yahweh, the Hebrew God, then it becomes especially inappropriate to continue including it in our national loyalty oath.
The Universal Declaration of Human RIghts is a joke:
Article 20. (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association. (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Well, there go many of your anti-discrimination laws, since they require a compelled asscoiation for those groups who wish to discriminate.
Article 23. (2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
Since this is a universal declaration, does that mean a worker in India has a right to the same pay as a worker doing the same job in Germany? Article 2 seems to impy this: “Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.” How could this even be enforcible with different currencies and strengths of national economies?
Article 26. (2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
So public education is supposed to serve as a UN promotion and indocrination camp? It all makes sense to me now. Of course, part three still says that parents have the right to choose how their children are educated… tell that to growing ranks of the elite who claim the state has the right to overrule them.
Article 29. (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
This is my favorite… looks like none of these previously mentioned rights mean anything if they do not fall in line with the current aims and objectives of the UN. Oops.
#37
> my dictionary makes no such distinction for the
> capitalized form of the word “God.” Specifically, it
> defines “God” as…
The difference is that one is a proper pronoun whereas the other is simply a noun. The lowercase version of “god” denotes any supernatural being or a person of superior qualities. The uppercase version is referring specifically to a particular deity depending on the context of the statement.
To say “That guy is God” is a very different statement than “That guy is a god” or even “That guy is a God”. The first denotes equivalence between the person and the singular object of given monotheistic religion’s faith. The second simply denotes that the person has some superior qualities to them. The last implies that the person is one of a group of deities.
As if all that wasn’t enough, the crafters of the law that inserted “Under God” into the Pledge unquestionably felt that the US was a “Christian nation” and intended “God” to imply the Judeo-Christian-Muslim deity.
No matter how you slice it, including “Under God” will exclude some group of people be it polytheists or atheists.
May as well get a small bit of flaming out of the way before the weekend.
Mike — is it that you never read any history, don’t comprehend the process or would just rather return the world to the 19th Century and all the delights of bigotry that were perfectly acceptable in the Good Old Days?
The Universal Declaration, after all, was accepted by the UN in 1948. Although the United States was one of the 8 nations participating in its construction — we still had legal segregation, discrimination against women and non-whites in employment was perfectly legal — a pretty good laundry list existed of wrongs needing to be righted.
The Universal Declaration was a pretty good start at dealing with the delight of colonial empires in Africa, Asia and Latin America — witness the footdragging of our allies in France and England at the time.
The UN was one of the nice-guy foundations for the anti-colonialism battles that followed.
Or you just don’t give a damn about anyone outside your own skin?
#39 Well, Thomas, I don’t know where you got the notion that “God” is a proper pronoun, but I’ll let that one slide on the possibility that it was a typo (the correct word is “noun”). Instead, I’ll focus on your idea that “God” refers to a particular deity depending on the context of the statement. Indeed that is often true, as religious people nearly always use that word in a way that’s even more specific than the dictionary definition of the capitalized “God” suggests. When in church, people usually use the word “God” rather than his proper name, and no one in that setting doubts to whom they refer.
So the question is, did the Christians who added this phrase “under God” to the pledge in 1954 really intend to force believers of other religions to acknowledge the Christian God? Unfortunately, my experience with Christians is that they probably did. As a matter of fact, I’d bet on it! That’s why I’m more convinced than ever that this phrase is unconstitutional, and should be expunged from the Pledge of Allegiance. No reference, implied or otherwise, to any specific religion or God should be recited by school children who don’t share that faith. And children shouldn’t be forced to assert their different beliefs by refusing to recite the pledge as their schoolmates say it.
RE: proper pronoun
Yes, that was a typo. Proper *noun* is, as you mentioned, correct. Thanks for catching it.
geez Fusion…..you can’t have it both ways. If you want to fight for others in the world to have their *human rights*, you have to do more than make indignent blog comments.
You might actually have to fight a war, or pay for others to do it for themselves.
You make my arguement with your response……WE have those rights and WE can make our voices heard. The fact that you can complain, organise opposition to and vote out of office those you feel threaten your rights under the Consitution is the essence of fredom. You even have the right to bring revolution to this country if you and enough others feel it’s needed to make changes to how things are done.
I’ll say it again……..you and I and anyone else that lives in this country have more freedoms, more rights and the ability to make change, than any nation on the planet. Thats not grovelling on the floor, it’s a fact.
If you feel you are losing your rights then vote the bastards out of office, if that dosen’t work, then thats what the second amendment is for.
Moss, since we all have a right to a nationality (see Article 15), I’ll just go ahead and say I care a bit more about my nation than I do about any others. Treaties (such as this ones inspired by this) are entered into by nations because they serve their own self interests, and like all treaties, they are only enforcible as long as the participants are willing to cooperate within their terms.
That’s why I called it a joke, not only because it means nothing if governments don’t promote and enforce it, but because it is also contradicts itself in many places. As I pointed out, a right to free association naturally means that there will be some level of discrimination because of it.
Also, under our current system of government, no treaty that the United States would ratify is valid if the terms of it violates the Consitution of the United States. For example, if the United Nations decided to push for a ban on private ownership of handguns, the United States could not ratify the necessary teaties because they clearly violate the Constitution (which is the supreme law of the United States). I’m willing to bet that similar situations apply in all the member countries of the UN, which decreases it’s strength even more.
36. “Not even close. There are other forms of government which are not republics nor monarchies not the least of which is a democracy.”
sorry. a democracy (if one existed outside of ancient Athens, etc), is in fact a republic. the United States is a representative democratic republic. The United Kingdom is a representative democratic monarchy.
sorry. a democracy (if one existed outside of ancient Athens, etc), is in fact a republic. the United States is a representative democratic republic. The United Kingdom is a representative democratic monarchy.
I agree with Thomas. I think you are confusing the political system used with the idea of a democracy.
The United States uses the Republican form of government. That usually includes an elected President who is equal to an elected legislature and an independent judiciary. Most Republican forms of government fail due to the power becoming unequal and the Presidency turning into a dictatorship.
The British use the Parliamentary form of government. Most Parliamentary forms have a hereditary monarch as the ultimate authority with most of the power actually vested in a Prime Minister controlling an elected Parliament with an independent judiciary. Even though the Prime Minister has an disproportionate amount of power, the Parliamentary system has a better track record then the Republican system.
Then there are many versions of hybrids. The current French system with a Parliament and Prime Minister and an elected President having equal power.
The representative part of your comment is actually misleading. A Democracy almost always (I don’t know of any that don’t) involve some form of free elections. Years ago, countries like the USSR had Deputies in the Parliament representing their constituents. They were usually appointed then elected through a sham system.
Please note that this is a very brief summary of a much larger discussion.
#48 No I am not confused.
Any non-monarchy is a Republic. The UK is a representative democracy but it is not a republic. France is a republic. Iraq was a republic under Sadaam Hussein and is a republic today. Iran was a monarchy under the Shah, but is a republic today. Napoleonic France was a republic under the consulate, but a monarchy under the Empire. The same people were in charge, only the form of government changed. Whether a state is a republic has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it is democratic or not.
Note the controversy in Australia about whether they should establish a Republic or keep the monarch of Britain as their head of state. Either way, Australia is a representative democracy.
Joshua, We aren’t that far apart on our thinking.
I’ll say it again……..you and I and anyone else that lives in this country have more freedoms, more rights and the ability to make change, than any nation on the planet. Thats not grovelling on the floor, it’s a fact.
My point is this is very true. We do not, however, owe a sense of gratitude for that. Everything we mentioned is a RIGHT, not a privilege. I disagree with you about being somehow thankful that we have something that is ours anyway.
Every time I see a policeman I am not going to thank him for not shooting me on the spot because I might somehow resemble someone with an outstanding parking ticket. It is my right NOT to be shot by a policeman without cause.
Now, as an aside, I do appreciate and am thankful to those that have come before me and went to war to defend our country and freedoms from those that would take them. Those foreign cemeteries are filled with men that died so that we don’t need to be beholden for our rights.
#49
> #48 No I am not confused.
>
> Any non-monarchy is a Republic.
Who knows whether you are confused but you are definitely wrong. On what exactly are you basing your statement about non-monarchies being republics? It certainly isn’t any political science that I have ever read. How exactly are you defining a Republic form of government?
> Note the controversy in Australia about whether they should
> establish a Republic or keep the monarch of Britain as
> their head of state. Either way, Australia is a
> representative democracy.
Let’s see, looking up Australia on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia) we get under the section for Politics:
“The Commonwealth of Australia is a constitutional monarchy and has a parliamentary system of government…”
“It’s not what you know that gets you in trouble. It’s what you know that aint so.”
#50…Mr. Henryetta (god I love that one) Fusion….sorry if I gave the impression, and I did after I reread the post more than twice, that we should be thankful to the country (goverment) for our freedoms. I meant that we should (to use my late grandmothers favorite saying) thank our lucky stars that we were born into this country as opposed to so many others. No offense meant to those that chose to come here to live either.
51. a pithy quote at the end, but what I know is, in fact, so and I ain’t in trouble.
while we are wikipedia-ing, from the definition of ‘republic’
“Often republics and monarchies are described as mutually exclusive.[1] Defining a republic as a non-monarchy, the most common short definition,[2] is based on this idea. ”
there are other definitions of a republic, as the article notes, but this is mine. It is highly relevant today, for example – those Commonwealth and ex-Commonwealth countries which do not have the Queen of England as their head of State call themselves ‘Republics’ ala South Africa and India. If Australia declared itself a republic, it would be ousting the Queen as head of state.
That a republic is mutually exclusive to a monarchy does not imply that all non-monarchies are republics. That an apple is mutually exclusive to an orange does not mean that all fruit that is not an apple is an orange. The reason your logic fails is that republics and monarchies do not represent all possible types of government. In addition, it is nonsensical to define something as being not something else.
Black Adder: “How would you define a dog?”
Baldrick: “Not a cat”
#53
Let me add that you clearly did not read the entire wikipedia entry:
“The often assumed “mutual exclusiveness” of monarchies and republics as forms of government[1] is thus not to be taken too literally, and largely depends on circumstances..”
“For this reason, in political science the several definitions of “republic”, which in such a context invariably indicate an “ideal” form of government, do not always exclude monarchy…”
#55. you assume a lot, don’t you?
and I can only assume that you did not read my posting in which I said “there are other definitions of a republic” never did I claim that mine was the only one.
However, mine has a lot of utility. If you ask an Australian if he is in favor of turning his country into a republic, he will know exactly what you are talking about – a non-monarchy. A British subject will know that as well. An Iranian political theorist can tell you that the definition of a republic as a non-monarchy is very important, as Islamic Republicanism is very anti-monarchical.
> you assume a lot, don’t you?
Based on your responses, we can logically deduce that which you did and did not absorb from that wikipedia post.
AFAICS, your entire argument is based on your own little universe’s definition of republic and monarchy. For those of us in the real world however, there are forms of government other than republics and monarchies and republics and democracies are not one in the same.
> However, mine has a lot of utility. If you ask an Australian
> if he is in favor of turning his country into a republic
Yet, according to you I could rephrase the question by asking that Australian whether they’d be in favor of turning their country into something that is not a monarchy. So, I suppose that Australian would be cool with a direct democracy or communism?