Saturday, September 23, 2006
Pledge of Allegiance -- Bush doesn't care about history. Guess Anne doesn't either.
Another issue that Anne makes about Yarmuth is that he supports removal of "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.
First, it's out of context. Yarmuth essentially says that he doesn't have a problem with the phrase "under God" being in the pledge, but that he sees in the context of the Constitution (surely the Republican's remember that document, it's the one they keep on a roll in the bathroom), the phrase has no place in a pledge recited in public schools, especially when it is being taught and students are required to say it.
Some history of the Pledge of Allegiance courtesy of Wikipedia. A socialist(!) Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy created the pledge as an advertising campaign for a kids magazine in order to sell flags. As Yarmuth points out, the phrase "under God" was nowhere to be found in the original pledge. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28 , 1945. The words "under God" were not added until 1954.
The issue at hand that Yarmuth was discussing is detailed in the following excerpt from wikipedia:
In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism. The majority of Americans opposed this ruling, and it was denounced almost unanimously the following day by both houses of Congress. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard an appeal of the ruling and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on whether the phrase was constitutional (see Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).
Given Anne's unflagging support for President Bush's misguided war on Iraq, and the reasons being given (this week, anyway) for going there, you would think Anne would also support this Supreme Court decision. After all, stepping on religious freedoms (including freedom from it) is something evil doers like Saddam Hussein do on a daily basis. Maybe she just didn't take the time to read the whole article. After all, she's busy doing something. Maybe if she ever gets around to printing her own record, we'll find out.
First, it's out of context. Yarmuth essentially says that he doesn't have a problem with the phrase "under God" being in the pledge, but that he sees in the context of the Constitution (surely the Republican's remember that document, it's the one they keep on a roll in the bathroom), the phrase has no place in a pledge recited in public schools, especially when it is being taught and students are required to say it.
Some history of the Pledge of Allegiance courtesy of Wikipedia. A socialist(!) Baptist minister named Francis Bellamy created the pledge as an advertising campaign for a kids magazine in order to sell flags. As Yarmuth points out, the phrase "under God" was nowhere to be found in the original pledge. The United States Congress officially recognized the Pledge as the official national pledge on December 28 , 1945. The words "under God" were not added until 1954.
The issue at hand that Yarmuth was discussing is detailed in the following excerpt from wikipedia:
In a 2002 case brought by atheist Michael Newdow, whose daughter was being taught the pledge in school, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase "under God" an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism. The majority of Americans opposed this ruling, and it was denounced almost unanimously the following day by both houses of Congress. In 2004, the Supreme Court heard an appeal of the ruling and rejected Newdow's claim on the grounds that he was not the custodial parent, and therefore lacked standing, thus avoiding ruling on whether the phrase was constitutional (see Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow).
Given Anne's unflagging support for President Bush's misguided war on Iraq, and the reasons being given (this week, anyway) for going there, you would think Anne would also support this Supreme Court decision. After all, stepping on religious freedoms (including freedom from it) is something evil doers like Saddam Hussein do on a daily basis. Maybe she just didn't take the time to read the whole article. After all, she's busy doing something. Maybe if she ever gets around to printing her own record, we'll find out.
