Video: Congresswoman omits “under God” on House floor while leading Pledge of Allegiance

posted at 1:15 pm on October 25, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Aaaaaand it’s not just any Congresswoman, but Minnesota’s own Betty McCollum, who’s defending the seat against a strong challenge from Republican Teresa Collett in the 4th CD this year.  Normally, I’d let this slide, but in this case McCollum wanted to lead the chamber in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. If she objects to the “under God” portion of the pledge, then why volunteer for the job? But this is from quite a while ago as well:

This took place on April 17, 2002, according to C-SPAN’s archives, which makes it fair game but not as trenchant as if it had occurred in this session of Congress. A voter in McCollum’s district dug up the incident, thanks again to C-SPAN’s searchable library. I’m not sure I’ve heard of this being an issue in McCollum’s earlier races, but then again, she hasn’t found herself in a competitive race in any of her re-election campaigns. The closest race she had was a 58-33 squeaker over Patrice Bataglia in 2004.

It’s up on the front page of Fox Nation today, so obviously some people think this is a big deal. Do you agree? Take the poll:


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

vote the Biatch out!

SDarchitect on October 25, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Betty worships Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. D on October 25, 2010 at 1:18 PM

With all the garbage they dig up about high school and college pranks…here is a liberal in a position of power.
Fair game, and she should be reamed for this…
Still keep on point with unemployment and lousy economy…but throw this in as Un-American, and atheistic…

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Pubic school graduate?

seven on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

It’s pretty easy to leave phrases out saying the pledge of allegiance… now if you have her doing it on more than one occasion it might be something worth bringing up…

ninjapirate on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Eh, i’d say it was no big deal if not for the fact that she was the one who wanted to say it, so she clearly intended to offend people and/or make a statement. So hey, right back at’cha Betty, enjoy your return to the private sector.

clearbluesky on October 25, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I think there’s no getting around the fact that she’s making a statement by specifically closing her mouth as others recited those words. It will be interesting to see whether her constituents agree or disagree with that statement (and how strongly).

morganfrost on October 25, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I haven’t said the prayer version of the pledge since high school, (around 25 years).

If all my friends here hate me for it, I don’t care.

FloatingRock on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

The fact is regardless of when it happened ….if you do not know the pledge don’t ask to lead it…this is just wrong on many levels

JKotthoff on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

why volunteer for the job?

1!

the_nile on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Any reason to kick a Democrat out the door, I always say.

She’s a Democrat, therefore she’s incompetent and corrupt.

Else why would she be a part of that criminal enterprise?

NoDonkey on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

Teresa Collett has as much of a chance on MN-4 as Joel Demos has in MN-5.

Zero. Zip. Nada.

Nice try, though.

Better to focus on redistricting Minny & Paulie into one CD, thereby ridding the Congress of at least one candidate for the title of Most Despicable Representative.

Bruno Strozek on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

It’s a big deal because The Declaration is one of our founding documents…

WHAT ELSE WOULD THEY OMIT?

tetriskid on October 25, 2010 at 1:23 PM

We are “One nation under God” just as “one Nation indivisible” after the “War of Northern Aggression”.

How’s that for an analogy?

belad on October 25, 2010 at 1:24 PM

Pathetic, not rusprising, but pathetic.

And yes it IS a big deal…these leopards NEVER change their spots, they just put a dab of makeup on ‘em!

Justrand on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Well now, speak of the devil. I just watched this this morning and forwarded it on to my email address book. Maybe a good time to send it on to yours?
Red Skelton Explains The Pledge of Allegiance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZBTyTWOZCM&feature=player_embedded

sicoit on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

And Dear Liar leaves out “endowed by their Creator”

Coincidence?

rbj on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

If all my friends here hate me for it, I don’t care.

FloatingRock on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

It’s a dumb thing to hate someone over, and it’s also a dumb thing to make that big a deal over.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Did they even have to put a “D” next to her name? :-P

DethMetalCookieMonst on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Gosh we finally got bho to say the word ‘Creator’ and now this gal leaves off God in the Pledge. She should have just not agreed to lead the Pledge if she feels this way about God.
L

letget on October 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM

…if you have her doing it on more than one occasion it might be something worth bringing up…

Yeah, like, for instance, if you ever misspelled something in public, once you learned how to spell it correctly no one should ever bring it up again. Ever.

Knott Buyinit on October 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM

It’s pretty easy to leave phrases out saying the pledge of allegiance…
ninjapirate on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Check out the vid. There is no mumbling or catching of breath. She comes to a full stop and starts strong on the next phrase.

eeyore on October 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM

I think there’s no getting around the fact that she’s making a statement by specifically closing her mouth as others recited those words.
morganfrost on October 25, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Exactly, it was deliberate and she almost has a look of disgust as the words were said by the others. It’s her choice not to say it but she owns it now.

Les in NC on October 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM

She sounds like an animatronic robot.

RarestRX on October 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM

Even if it were recent, I wouldn’t care. Minor thing, but I could understand some people getting upset about it.

However, being from nearly a decade ago? Really? How about we focus on whether or not she voted for ObamaCare and the stimulus?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:28 PM

Yeah, like, for instance, if you ever misspelled something in public, once you learned how to spell it correctly no one should ever bring it up again. Ever.

Knott Buyinit on October 25, 2010 at 1:26 PM

I would think most of us agree that those who harp him on that still are just being petty.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 1:28 PM

If she objects to the “under God” portion of the pledge, then why volunteer for the job?

Why? Because she wanted to be a douche and make a point.

keepinitreal on October 25, 2010 at 1:29 PM

This is a VERY BIG DEAL!

And this is going to come back to haunt this lady. If it hasn’t already!

Man, what the heck is it about Minnesota? There something in the water of one of those 10,000 lakes up there or what?

pilamaye on October 25, 2010 at 1:29 PM

She just wants Conservatives to come after her so she can play the victim and get invited to PMSNBC.

She is a Left-wing attention whore and nothing else.

Machiavelli Hobbes on October 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM

These Progressives (Democrats specifically) are just Anti-Traditional American values COMMUNISTS!!!!


TEANAMI !!!!!

500 seat CONSERVATIVE Pickup on 11/2!!!!

PappyD61 on October 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM

Pubic school graduate?

seven on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Unlikely. She knew the rest of the pledge’s words.

Shy Guy on October 25, 2010 at 1:31 PM

We should have taken it as a warning. “under God” was inserted in the 1950s to distinguish us from the godless Soviets. We are losing that distinction.

zmdavid on October 25, 2010 at 1:32 PM

It’s not so shocking. I think we’re pretty sure that most dems lean to atheism, and see themselves as gods, and goddesses, with no need for a higher power.

What I find REALLY offensive, is when they use God, and religion when it suits their narrative. I wonder if God appreciates that? I’m thinking….nope!

capejasmine on October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

One’s views on God should be secondary – at least there should not be a God litmus test for public office.

But in this real world, politicians lay down markers all the time that give us insight into their true nature, character, and ideology.

Betty McCollum finds the notion of pledging that we are “One nation, under God” offensive, and this gives us an insight into who she is, and what she believes. This is useful to the people in her district.

If they want to elect a Godless pig who would choose to use the Pledge of Allegiance to this country as a moment to make an anti-God, secular-humanist statement, by all means, have at it.

It also helps the rest of us know the nature, character, and ideology of the 4th District of MN.

IronDioPriest on October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

Use ANYTHING to vote her OUT!

Lockstein13 on October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

This was a very obvious, intentional ommission and makes no difference that it happened in 2002.

tomshup on October 25, 2010 at 1:33 PM

It’s been Under God since 1954, when Eisenhower signed a bill into law.

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM

She wanted to flip off America one last time before you guys VOTE HER OUT!

The Expert Knows
http://theexpertsblog.blogspot.com

HotAirExpert on October 25, 2010 at 1:34 PM

Big deal. Especially with the senior vote.

swamp_yankee on October 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM

I’m Agnostic and it offends me… I may believe what ever I do about God, but this is the Pledge of Allegiance. you say it as it is…

Kaptain Amerika on October 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM

No big deal.

John the Libertarian on October 25, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Big Deal.
It is also a big deal when Obama leaves the Creator out. I don’t care if she doesn’t believe there is a God, or god and Obama……..well I’m about as sick of him as I can get. But there is obviously a far left movement to abolish anything that could be conceived of as more powerful than them.
People need to know what kind of insanity they are voting for.

ORconservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM

What did she say? “I pledgely allegiance…?” “I pledge the allegiance…?”

The under God part is pretty weird, but I’m sure she will stand behind it and declare some church/state/liberal blather.

Jaibones on October 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I am offended by that and I ain’t a Christian.

She was being deliberately offensive by volunteering and then quite obviously leaving out the parts that she didn’t like.

Do others get to drop parts of the pledge they don’t care for as well?

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 1:37 PM

I’m a non-believer myself, but this kind of thing (like leaving the “creator” part out of the Declaration) really irritates me. That the contemporary left feels perfectly comfortable editing some of our most historic and significant national language tells you pretty much everything you need to know. So in that sense, it is a big deal.

Infidoll on October 25, 2010 at 1:38 PM

– Begin flame guard –

I actually think its just fine.

Really.

We aren’t Iran, we don’t have a State religion. I prefer obnoxious secular peeps in office to Religious nutjobs.

Sinner on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

sicoit on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Thank you for that. I sent it out to all my email contacts.

milwife88 on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I voted for “it’s offensive” but that still doesn’t accurately describe it to me. I see it as stealth/subversive activism by a leftard progressive, which I’d describe as “dangerous”. I’m not “offended” when someone refuses to say “under God”, but I am on alert that that person has a wider agenda which threatens our institutions/traditions/culture – kinda like how Obama promised to remake America’s foundations and rewrite history and all that.

Buy Danish on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Her response at the time… From the Congressional Record:

HON. BETTY McCOLLUM
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Ms. MCCOLLUM. Mr. Speaker, soon after I
delivered my remarks on the House floor this
morning, I received numerous calls from news
organizations. Unfortunately, these calls were
not about the importance of the Clean Air Act,
which was the subject of my one-minute
speech. Instead, the press was more concerned
about a pause I took during the Pledge
of Allegiance—as I was trying to determine if
I had my back to the American flag
—than
what I said about protecting our environment.
I would hope the media pays closer attention
to the issues affecting our air quality so that
the people of this Nation, under God, will be
able to one day live in an environment free
from pollution.

Yeah… that big flag you were looking right at might have been behind you.

Abby Adams on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Even if it were recent, I wouldn’t care. Minor thing, but I could understand some people getting upset about it.

However, being from nearly a decade ago? Really? How about we focus on whether or not she voted for ObamaCare and the stimulus?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:28 PM

That’s ironic, considering the things you’ve focused on vis a vis O’Donnell’s past.

fossten on October 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM

This is a big deal.

Democrat Michael Dukakis became suddenly and instantly unelectable as President in 1988 when everyone was reminded that, as Govermor of Massachestts, he vetoed a bill requiring public schoolchildren to recite the pledge.

To rub Dukakis’ nose in it, Pappy Bush led the Republican Convention in the Pledge of Allegience as the final part of his acceptance speech in New Orleans.

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM

/aka Massachusetts

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

It’s a dumb thing to hate someone over, and it’s also a dumb thing to make that big a deal over.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 1:25 PM

No, it’s not dumb to make a big deal over it. This is the classic democrat of today. This is the epitome of what they stand for … nothing. They hate God, they hate this country and they hate anyone who stands in their way.

They are the antithesis of our founding principles and everytime a light can be shone on who they are the better.

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

milwife88 on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

You are welcome! :-)

sicoit on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Honestly, I do not care whether she says “under God” or not–that is between her and her maker or the quantum forces that govern the wave function that is she….

For my part, I am just relieved to see a Democrat who is actually willing to pledge allegiance to our country!

Kasper Hauser on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

I think it’s more funny than anything. I dont really care, but it’s sort of obnoxious I suppose.

Dash on October 25, 2010 at 1:44 PM

I voted for “it’s offensive” but that still doesn’t accurately describe it to me. I see it as stealth/subversive activism by a leftard progressive, which

I’d describe as “dangerous”. I’m not “offended” when someone refuses to say “under God”, but I am on alert that that person has a wider agenda which threatens our institutions/traditions/culture – kinda like how Obama promised to remake America’s foundations and rewrite history and all that.

Buy Danish on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

Well said. These were my thoughts exactly.

ladyingray on October 25, 2010 at 1:44 PM

She pretty deliberately slammed her yap shut during “under God”, but she did at least put her hand over her heart rather than her crotch.

ctmom on October 25, 2010 at 1:46 PM

Does her voting public know that she isn’t a Christian or that she doesn’t believe in God? If they don’t then I think it’s very important from that perspective and they deserve to know so they can decide if it’s important to them or not. Of course that’s is in addition to the obvious reason that if your not going to say it the way it was written then don’t do it at all.

New Patriot on October 25, 2010 at 1:48 PM

What she should have omitted is the part that says “with liberty and justice for all.”

She could replace it with this: “with liberty and justice for certain politically influential Democratic special interest groups, such as blacks and illegal aliens.”

With this administration, that would be more accurate, at least.

AZCoyote on October 25, 2010 at 1:48 PM

i’m sure there are plenty more and better reasons to vote her out than this.

chasdal on October 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM

That’s what the Pledge sounds like if you’ve learned it from a public school.

repvoter on October 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM

To rub Dukakis’ nose in it, Pappy Bush led the Republican Convention in the Pledge of Allegience as the final part of his acceptance speech in New Orleans.

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM

And in gratitude, God promised to always protect New Orleans from the elements.

Dumb mistake on the congresswoman’s part. She should be prepped, but as long as she recognizes Americans have rights beyond the reaches of congress then it seems minor.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Omitting “under God” or “In God we Trust” or even lowercasing the ‘g’ in God does nothing to change the fact that God governs in the affairs of men. Those that engage in this type of stuff do so at their own peril. The fact is that God raises up nations and he lays them down. I believe that acknowledging God in our pledge is important insofar as that our system of laws and governance are subtended under His laws and nothing we can do or say will change that. We will, however, reap God’s wrath for failing to acknowledge and follow it. There are several cases in history where that is shown. It is far better for us to choose to acknowledge God and ask to live under His blessings than to deny that we do. thanks for posting–red meat indeed.

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM

Socialists/Marxists and yes atheists won’t admit it, but they worship only Satan. Why? Because they use God, and Christianity as their whipping post, but never a peep out of them bashing, or denying Satan….NEVER!

byteshredder on October 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM

If all my friends here hate me for it, I don’t care.

FloatingRock on October 25, 2010 at 1:22 PM

And what office are you running for? Oh yeah, none…
Try to win an election with that attitude…these aren’t “friends” that she is responsible for.
Mainly people hate people like this because they fully understand that they have no respect…even a respectful atheist would say the words.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 1:54 PM

Selective Allegiance.

portlandon on October 25, 2010 at 1:55 PM

I wouldn’t call it “offensive” but rather revealing. Leftists worship the State, plain and simple. And they’ll make you worship it too. That’s their goal: a command and control society. Good intentions are irrelevant. Statist laws and acts need to be judged by their results, not their intentions.

visions on October 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM

Even if it were recent, I wouldn’t care. Minor thing, but I could understand some people getting upset about it.

However, being from nearly a decade ago? Really? How about we focus on whether or not she voted for ObamaCare and the stimulus?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 1:28 PM

It’s as simple as this, MadCon:
Godless & proud + ‘D’ = lawless.
You should be able to figure this one out.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM

It’s obvious to point out she is a Democrat…

chai on October 25, 2010 at 1:59 PM

– Begin flame guard –

I actually think its just fine.

Really.

We aren’t Iran, we don’t have a State religion. I prefer obnoxious secular peeps in office to Religious nutjobs.

Sinner on October 25, 2010 at 1:39 PM

I mean, obnoxious secular people aren’t all that bad -stalin&mao

MadDogF on October 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM

It’s pretty easy to leave phrases out saying the pledge of allegiance… now if you have her doing it on more than one occasion it might be something worth bringing up…

ninjapirate on October 25, 2010 at 1:19 PM

It was deliberate. Watch it again, and watch her expression and the way she purses her lips during that phrase. This is a common thing among uber-libs. That’s why Obama skips over the words so consistently.

I don’t care if she is atheist… she should at least respect the belief of others. Liberals are deeply contemptuous of believers. Even liberals who adopt faith as a fashion can barely restrain condescension towards real believers.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 2:02 PM

Don’t you folks remember the memo/video from Obama?

We are no longer a Christain Nation

Rovin on October 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM

or even lowercasing the ‘g’ in God does nothing to change the fact

ted c on October 25, 2010 at 1:52 PM

In Hebrew there were no upper or lower case…so when someone doesn’t capitalize, no big deal.
Just like some bibles capitalize pronouns referring to God.
Like Son of God, or son of God.
Regardless, when someone doesn’t capitalize, then I know they are thinking of God…resistance is futile…

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:03 PM

The thing is, in this video she is showing her true colors, since she isn’t under the pressure of an election. What she may say now doesn’t matter. If she were to say the pledge today and include “under God” it wouldn’t convince me. These people have no difficulty lying to gain an advantage. What they say and do when there is no danger to their job is where their hearts and values really lie.

hachiban on October 25, 2010 at 2:04 PM

I am pretty sure she would now say “…under Obama…”

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:05 PM

…on the other hand, I do find this “power of prayer” business in a political context “offensive”. Why? Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama, and others could make the same claim when they push their Marxist liberation theology, which basically asserts that Christianity is all about collective salvation and redistributing wealth.

It’s fine to say that one is inspired/guided/given strength by God, but for COD to claim that God answered her prayers, and will garner her more votes, implies that her prayers took precedent over the prayers of someone else (like those people who might be praying for Chris Coombs victory!) which leaves the door wide open to legitimate criticism.

Buy Danish on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

There’s a problem with the WW2 version of the Pledge?

PersonFromPorlock on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Well it’s revealing that she is a militant secularist. Probably an atheist but not willing to admit it. People like this are very dangerous, but they are preferred over people who are atheist their whole life but join a Marxist racist church just to advance their carreers as community organizers.

Ted Torgerson on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

This should be a campaign ad by the end of the day.

Iblis on October 25, 2010 at 2:07 PM

She volunteered in order to make a show out of it. Is this really what we elect public officials to do? Symbolic gestures to annoy constituents for the sake of a stupid statement? She’s a jerk.

princetrumpet on October 25, 2010 at 2:07 PM

There’s a problem with the WW2 version of the Pledge?

PersonFromPorlock on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

There’s a problem with some people not having enough respect for others simply because they believe something different.

If she didn’t want to say the pledge then don’t volunteer to do exactly that!

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM

sicoit on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

Don’t forget the fellow in this article.

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM

That’s what the Pledge sounds like if you’ve learned it from a public school.

repvoter on October 25, 2010 at 1:51 PM

That’s also what it sounded like before 1954.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:11 PM

That’s ironic, considering the things you’ve focused on vis a vis O’Donnell’s past.

fossten on October 25, 2010 at 1:40 PM

Yeah, because leaving “under god” out of the pledge of allegiance is tantamount to seven million dollar sexual harassment lawsuits.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 2:12 PM

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM

KJ, I read your post this morning but had to get to work so I didn’t reply. My bad. Excellent as always. Your site is one of those that I read every morning. Keep up the GREAT work KJ! :-)

sicoit on October 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM

That’s also what it sounded like before 1954.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:11 PM

Well, since she was born in 1954 I doubt that’s what this is about.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM

There’s a problem with some people not having enough respect for others simply because they believe something different.

If she didn’t want to say the pledge then don’t volunteer to do exactly that!

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:09 PM

Exactly, it isn’t the “words” is the lack of respect…
Standing in front of congress and purposely misstating the pledge is the same as standing in the pulpit and misstating the bible on purpose…try that with your wedding vows…

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Well, since she was born in 1954 I doubt that’s what this is about.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:15 PM

The point is that it’s the traditional version. Is it really a big deal?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

MadDogF on October 25, 2010 at 2:01 PM

I mean, obnoxious secular people aren’t all that bad -stalin&mao

Ahmadinejad, the Saudi’s, Arafat…

What’s your point?

Sinner on October 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

So she and Florence King use the original version. More power to them!

Tzetzes on October 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Is it really a big deal?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

It’s a glimpse into a nasty vindictive soul.

In and of itself, it isn’t a big thing, but it does tell you a great deal about the individual in question.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 2:21 PM

Well it’s revealing that she is a militant secularist. Probably an atheist but not willing to admit it. People like this are very dangerous, but they are preferred over people who are atheist their whole life but join a Marxist racist church just to advance their carreers as community organizers.

Ted Torgerson on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Toss “militant” as an adjective before most anything and it sounds pretty bad–whether a militant secularist or militant evangelical.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM

If she objects to the “under God” portion of the pledge, then why volunteer for the job?

Right, only theists should be able to lead a pledge of loyalty to their country. You’ve just put your finger exactly on the reason why “under God” is so problematic, I don’t know how you don’t see it there in front of you.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:24 PM

Republican California Congressman Tom McClintock wrote a brilliant column in 2004 on why the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegience is vitally important to all Americans.

I saved this article and share it with liberals whenever I have the opportunity.

Here is the link to the full article:

http://mcclintock.house.gov/senate-archive/article_detail.asp?PID=263

Here are hightlights from the article:

There is a great principle at the heart of the movement to strike the words “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance – and from our national customs, our currency, and our public ceremonies. It has very little to do with atheism. It has a great deal to do with authoritarianism.

….

This concept is the foundation of American liberty. And because it defines limits to the powers of government, it is supremely offensive to the radicals of the left. They abhor the words “under God” because these words stand in the way of an all-powerful state.

If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man – or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government.

Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The case now before the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.

Rep. Tom McClintock is running for re-election in California’s 4th Congressional District.

To learn more about Tom McClintock:

http://www.tommcclintock.com/meet-tom

wren on October 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

The point is that it’s the traditional version. Is it really a big deal?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:18 PM

Yeah, it’s the general lack of respect that the democrats show when in office.
Does it matter that the president doesn’t know how to properly salute? No, except is show a lack of respect.
Does it matter that people interrupt other people when talking, not really, it just shows lack of respect.
If you don’t value respect, then this is no big deal.
To you it’s no big deal…to me, respect shows responsibility, discipline, honor for your fellow man, anyway that is what I taught my kids…you have a different opinion.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:25 PM

whether a militant secularist or militant evangelical.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 2:23 PM

really? do you think Wilberforce was a militant evangelist? of course he was.

how about Paul? or martin luther?

right4life on October 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

Maybe God back in but indivisible out?

Mason on October 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

No, it’s not dumb to make a big deal over it.

I actually meant that to make such a big deal over it that you omit the words in protest is dumb. Could have made that more clear.

This is the classic democrat of today. This is the epitome of what they stand for … nothing. They hate God, they hate this country and they hate anyone who stands in their way.

They are the antithesis of our founding principles and everytime a light can be shone on who they are the better.

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM

That said, I wouldn’t go this far in describing the opposition or in reading into what she was trying to do here.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM

It’s as simple as this, MadCon:
Godless & proud + ‘D’ = lawless.
You should be able to figure this one out.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 1:58 PM

So what does godless & proud + ‘R’ equal?

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3