Under God
Submitted by James Protzman on Wed, 07/19/2006 - 1:43pm
I can't wait to see how North Carolina's Republican Theocrats in Congress vote on this critical issue. I'm betting they bat 1000, with each of our smarmy hypocrites voting to chip away at the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution. At a time when the world is going to hell in a handbasket, the US House is fiddling in the fire.
The bill's sponsor, Rep. Todd Akin, R-Mo., said America was a nation of God-given inalienable rights and that's why the country is in a war against "radical Islamists." Democrats wouldn't want to "cut and run" in Iraq, he said, "if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God and that's why the pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial."
After much thought as to the veracity of his claim that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of god, I have one thing to say about Mr. Akin: I sure am glad that the supreme being he worships isn't as much of an idiot as he is.
Trackback URL for this post:
http://bluenc.com/trackback/3042
- James Protzman's blog
- Login or register to post comments
He makes Jesus cry
tears of shame.
Do you believe
that protecting the Pledge of Allegiance from evil activist judges is more important than making sure every child has a home?
Do you believe
reciting "with liberty and justice for all" every day will lull me into believing you fascist neo cons actually allow liberty and justice for all?
Doesn't he see
that doing this puts him...and us...in the same league with the "radical islamists"?
All he sees
is political posturing on an issue that, sadly, Red America considers reeeeeeallly important.
if I can just nerd out for a second:
Even if the Rep. is right that recognition of inalienable rights is impossible without recognizing God (and I don't think he is), he really isn't offering a reason to put it in the Pledge. If A makes B possible, it doesn't follow that A guarantees B. (Necessary but not sufficient.) Even if he's right, "under God" doesn't do anything to safeguard those inalienable rights, as we've seen throughout history in religious dictatorships.
Requiring "under God" is kind of like requiring that every contract to sell a car contains the words "including keys." You need the keys to start the car, but it's not like "including keys" guarantees you a car that runs.
Anyway, the premise is bunk. It's just a variation on "atheists can't possibly have any moral compass." It shouldn't be hard to find eloquent responses to that particular piece of ignorance. I'll just add that, if that's true, then shouldn't atheism be a complete insanity defense in states where it's enough to prove that the defendant didn't know right from wrong? I doubt we'll see the Representative arguing anything like that in the near future.
I love it when you nerd out.
And I can't wait until you get that danged bar over with so you can do it more often!
Now get back to work.
Towing Jehova
When Anglico put up that title, i was able to find some reviews on it and found the premise of the book facinating....Someone wrote in these reviews, and i believe it applies here...that for some, being Christian means that you are being watched over! Without God to watch over you, then you feel free to sin!
So who has the moral"ist" of morals here?
this is the end
For me my friends. With logical like this doing everything it can to rule this country, I'm waiting for the Secret Police to start checking National ID cards for religious affilation. And thus the end of my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness".
Why does God have to be in society so desperately when all these 200 years it's been around shit just keeps getting worse and further away from what the Founders intended?
Be just, and fear not.
under God
That's just how we roll in Missoura, Anglico. I guess we tend to see things differently, living so close to target-rich Indiana.
additional nerding
http://www.religioustolerance.org/nat_pled1.htm
"under god" wasn't in the pledge until the gay ol' McCarthy era. Hmmmmm....what's that thing about history repeating itself....oh, i get chills just thinking about it.
Hadn't thought through
that history repeating thingie, but you're right. Deja-friggin' vu all over again.