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

So, this group including Obama (although he recently used the word Creator) believe that symbolisms are not part of the modern culture of patriotism.

That’s the liberal vernacular.

The hypocrisy, I think, is not on the omission:

IF THESE POLITICIANS (OR THEIR RESPECTIVE CONSTITUENTS) BELIEVE THAT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IS FLAWED OR IRRELEVANT (ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE REALLY CONVINCED THAT THERE IS NO GOD) … THEN WHY RECITE IT AT ALL!

Anyway they do whatever they want regardless whether constitutional or not!

JUST LET EMINEN, P!NK, LADY GAGA, JAY-Z AND LUDACRIS DO THE OPENING RAP SALVO OF EVERY HOUSE SESSION! HOW PATRIOTIC, MAINSTREAM, AND AMERICAN, RIGHT?

TheAlamos on October 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

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

You seem to write the words “under God” without much of a problem…I bet you would have no problem reading them either.
You don’t have to totally buy into what you are reading, especially when you volunteer or ask to read the words.
Out of respect, I am sure when you go over to your friends house and they say a prayer at the table you just continue eating and loading up the plate until the prayer is over…or do you sit quietly and respectfully wait for them to finish…it’s about respect.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

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

A reading of this thread alone can easily show that there are many non theists who have no problem with the words. So, no, he isn’t saying that only theists should be able to lead other citizens in the pledge.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I wonder what the Muslim Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, says while saying the Pledge of Allegience. Does he say under God, nothing, or Insh’Allah!

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM

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

Tzetzes on October 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

If that was her defense, then a I could see you (and probable only you) using that argument…but it wasn’t, she said she was “distracted”.
So your argument is void…she tried to lie her way out of trying to be “cool”…she got caught and didn’t have the huevos to defend her act.
So not only was she disrespectful, but weak minded as well…just who a liberal wants as a representative.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:34 PM

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

right4life on October 25, 2010 at 2:26 PM

I hadn’t before heard him characterized that way.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 2:41 PM

Put her with the troops in Afghanistan for a month, she’ll learn the proper words.

Wade on October 25, 2010 at 2:47 PM

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

I think you have a valid point there, though I did find the last bit intentionally disrespectful of people with different reactions.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 2:48 PM

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

Tzetzes on October 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Doesn’t sound very progressive for a progressive. Bad argument. Try again.

Wade on October 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM

A reading of this thread alone can easily show that there are many non theists who have no problem with the words. So, no, he isn’t saying that only theists should be able to lead other citizens in the pledge.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 2:29 PM

I don’t think he could have made it any clearer that he thinks the words “under God” should be spoken every time the pledge is invoked. McCollum may have just forgotten to say the words, so she’s probably a bad example. Still, he made it perfectly clear that the official pledge of allegiance to our country is set aside for theists.

What people have said on the thread doesn’t change what Ed wrote.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM

First of all, as a Southerner – I’m against pledges of allegiance. The fact is – I’ll have to break that pledge if the government decides to take away my vote and starts rounding up African Americans or any other ethnic group for internment in concentration camps – or worse. The pledge really doesn’t come with a “escape clause” … and that’s my problem with it. I’m not going to pledge, in my heart anyway, absolute compliance to a government forever and until the end of time – because governments turn bad all too often.

So it’s a worthless pledge – but I still say it because I was in the military for many years and did a lot of worthless things. Doing worthless things is a part of life that you have to get used to.

However, as my Dad taught me – if you’re going to do something – do it right. This applies to performing worthless tasks too.

The pledge, as written, says “under God” … and recited that way. If you don’t want to recite it that way then either refrain from volunteering to lead the pledge – or at least have the nuts to say … “Hey I want to do this and I’m going to leave out a part of the pledge because I don’t believe in it.” At which point – you’ll probably be told to “shut up and color” – but at least you’ve been honest.

HondaV65 on October 25, 2010 at 2:51 PM

She will be on TIME magazine soon. She was just so courageous wasn’t she. She stood up to all those old men and spit on our country. God Bless her.

tomas on October 25, 2010 at 2:52 PM

Ahmadinejad, the Saudi’s, Arafat…

What’s your point?

Sinner on October 25, 2010 at 2:20 PM

Jus’ saying, as far as safety for ones self and ones well being goes, it is much safer under religious nutjobs than secular nutjobs. I mean, how many people have those idiots killed compared to oh, say Stalin?

Mao is in a league unto himself though.

I’m just under the opinion I’d rather be ruled by a crazt nutjob who believes in a higher power than oneself.

MadDogF on October 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM

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

PersonFromPorlock on October 25, 2010 at 2:06 PM

Communists persecuted and killed millions of believers… in my lifetime! Under Kim Jong Il and Castro, the presecution continues. Communism was (and still is) an existential threat to this republic.
Our nation included the “Under God” phrase so that communists, who have no respect for the faith of others, couldn’t say the pledge honestly. SHAZAM! It worked with Betty.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Doesn’t matter if it was eight years ago. Put in an ad and make her explain herself: “That was eight years ago>” “So, when you recite it now you use “under God?” If “No,” she’s toast. If “Yes,” then why didn’t you say it in 2002? Was that a mistake? Do you repudiate your behaviour from eight years ago? Have you stopped beating your husband.”

Let’s stopping handicapping ourselves wit the “Let’s not stoop to their level” nonsense.

InterestedObserver on October 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM

There is a movement on the left to purge from national history, and national memory that which conflicts with the socialist agenda and political correctness.

I think it is important to call attention to these games

They just had an episode at an illinois debate between DEM Melissa Bean and GOP Joe Walsh. Sponsored League of Women Voters the event was staged at a school, moderated by a teacher

An audience member asked if they were going to recite the pledge of allegiance before starting, the teacher-moderator said no, and the audience stood up and recited the pledge.

The interesting part came later when the teacher-moderator is pressed to explain why she said the audience disrespected her.

Why was it such a big deal, to have the audience rise up?
The audience had not let the teachers control the message

The teacher implied the students had planned the event without the pledge, which brings the question, did teachers inform the students of the tradition, at least in the midwest, of reciting the pledge at such events, or did they ‘forget’ to teach the students about the tradition, or did they intentionally steer the students away from the fascist, bigoted, statist pledge?

That is what such episodes are all about and that is why they are important

We are supposed to go quietly into our newly choreographed roles. The Tea Party refused to obey and the battle is just beginning

entagor on October 25, 2010 at 2:56 PM

You seem to write the words “under God” without much of a problem…I bet you would have no problem reading them either.

Of course not. I’m talking about the words in the context of the pledge. Surely you know that?

You don’t have to totally buy into what you are reading, especially when you volunteer or ask to read the words.

Reciting the pledge hundreds of times a year for years when we were all kids has cheapened it for everybody. I understand it seems like the words don’t mean anything, like they’re just some rote liturgy. If you think about what you’re actually saying during the pledge, it’s actually pretty damn important that you “buy into” what you’re pledging.

Out of respect, I am sure when you go over to your friends house and they say a prayer at the table you just continue eating and loading up the plate until the prayer is over…or do you sit quietly and respectfully wait for them to finish…it’s about respect.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 2:28 PM

Yes, eating dinner with my friends is exactly like leading the pledge of allegiance in front of congress.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

I don’t think he could have made it any clearer that he thinks the words “under God” should be spoken every time the pledge is invoked. McCollum may have just forgotten to say the words, so she’s probably a bad example. Still, he made it perfectly clear that the official pledge of allegiance to our country is set aside for theists.

What people have said on the thread doesn’t change what Ed wrote.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM

Of course it doesn’t, but just because he believes the pledge is the pledge and should be said in full (at least when leading others to say it) doesn’t mean he thinks only theists need to say it. I used this thread as evidence, since clearly not all are bothered by the words and thus would fit in just fine to lead Ed in the pledge.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

“I wonder what the Muslim Minnesota Congressman, Keith Ellison, says while saying the Pledge of Allegience. Does he say under God, nothing, or Insh’Allah!”

Emperor Norton on October 25, 2010 at 2:32 PM

I seriously doubt he recites it at all because he believes Islam comes before anything else.

GFW on October 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

If the marxists can eliminate God then the source of our inalienable rights becomes The State, and they then are systematically eliminated as if they never existed as well.

So it’s obviously part of the plan.

Good piece at American Thinker about O’Donnell/Coons debate and why The scumbag marxists want God out and how the left are collectively losing their minds.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/a_mass_nervous_breakdown_of_th.html

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

It’s not as bad as Feingold saying infanticide should be a decision between a woman and her doctor on the Senate floor, which is also available via C-SPAN but which has also never seen any play in the media.

The relevant exchange between Feingold and Santorum occurs at 55:52-57:25. He later had the text of the Congressional Record changed to cover up what he really said and denied that he was expressing support for infanticide. The tape, however, doesn’t lie. Enjoy:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/75545-1

cschande on October 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Our nation included the “Under God” phrase so that communists, who have no respect for the faith of others, couldn’t say the pledge honestly. SHAZAM! It worked with Betty.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM

That’s an interesting theory.

I’ve read that the author of the original version of the Pledge (that didn’t include ‘under God’) was a Christian Socialist. Do you know if there’s any truth to that?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

That original author being Francis Bellamy.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:04 PM

There was no “under God” in the original pledge. It was something congress added in as a provocation.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:10 PM

She intentionally shut her mouth when the words “under God” were said by the rest of the body.

Better late than never to know this about a Congressional rep. She should be fired, Minnesota. I am sure her stand on this issue is only further entrenched after all this time, given the liberal leftists who are her contemporaries at present. MN – it’s up to you. YES, YOU CAN vote out this un-American nitwit.

DINORight on October 25, 2010 at 3:12 PM

That’s an interesting theory.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

It’s more than a theory:

In his sermon, Docherty reasoned that reciting the Pledge didn’t make nonbelievers profess a faith in God.

“He is pledging allegiance to a state, which through its founders, laws and culture, does as a matter of fact believe in the existence of God,” he said. “Without this phrase ‘under God,’ The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag might have been recited with similar sincerity by Muscovite children at the beginning of their school day.”

Afterward, according to Docherty, Eisenhower told him, “I think you’ve got something.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/nation/20020628undergod0628p3.asp

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM

If the marxists can eliminate God then the source of our inalienable rights becomes The State, and they then are systematically eliminated as if they never existed as well.
ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 2:59 PM

“God” as the source of your rights is tissue paper thin, anyway — all it takes is for the whims of religion to blow them away. The US, on the other hand, was founded with it’s government centered around the protection of those rights, and that is why they have preserved.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM

It was something congress added in as a provocation.

So was the Bill of Rights, Dickhead.

Jaibones on October 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM

It was something congress added in as a provocation.

So was the Bill of Rights. What’s your point?

Jaibones on October 25, 2010 at 3:14 PM

Am I the only one who can’t see the video?

RINO in Name Only on October 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

I love it when people point to Kim Jong Il as an example of atheism. Kim Jong Il is not only a theist, he himself is a god. Hitchens, on North Korea: “North Korea is the most religious place in the world.”

Mark Jaquith on October 25, 2010 at 3:16 PM

Our nation included the “Under God” phrase so that communists, who have no respect for the faith of others, couldn’t say the pledge honestly. SHAZAM! It worked with Betty.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 2:54 PM

Not really. A communist would have more problem pledging to the nation than reciting the meaningless words “under God”. All it does is piss off patriots that don’t believe in gods and pump of the self importance of those who do.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM

“He is pledging allegiance to a state, which through its founders, laws and culture, does as a matter of fact believe in the existence of God,” he said. “Without this phrase ‘under God,’ The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag might have been recited with similar sincerity by Muscovite children at the beginning of their school day.”

That’s exactly how I see it. It doesn’t bother me that the phrase ‘under God’ is in there.

Christian principles were instrumental in how the Republic was formed and that must be respected if we want it to continue. You can’t tear the foundations apart and expect it to stand.

The Soviet constitution sounds great but it is men who give and take away the rights in it. Remove the theological argument from the American founding documents and you will see the same thing happen.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 3:20 PM

So was the Bill of Rights. What’s your point?

Jaibones on October 25, 2010 at 3:14 PM

The Bill of Rights was the opposite: it was added as an appeasement of the anti-federalists. “Under God” was a stick in the eye of all atheists because Christians felt threatened by the rise of a self declared atheist empire (though atheism was the least they had to worry about it).

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

“He is pledging allegiance to a state, which through its founders, laws and culture, does as a matter of fact believe in the existence of God,” he said.

Funny, then, that the Founders didn’t think it important to create a pledge of allegiance with those two words in it.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Its appaling to eliminate God from the pledge…but haven’t we slipped down the slippery slope and eliminated God from nearly every aspect of public life?

jbh45 on October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

I’ve read that the author of the original version of the Pledge (that didn’t include ‘under God’) was a Christian Socialist. Do you know if there’s any truth to that?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:03 PM

Yes. And Bellamy would have hated the “Under God” change. But then Bellamy was a eugencist, a racist and a support of National Socialism, AKA Nazism.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

All it does is piss off patriots that don’t believe in gods and pump of the self importance of those who do.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM

???

You went way out of your way to insult people. In fact, in one sentence you took billions of people, squeezed all into one monolithic group and pissed all over them.

Is this something that pumps up your self importance?

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

“God” as the source of your rights is tissue paper thin, anyway — all it takes is for the whims of religion to blow them away. The US, on the other hand, was founded with it’s government centered around the protection of those rights, and that is why they have preserved.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:13 PM

I’m not talking about the source of our rights, just why the marxists are so insistent on eliminating God, and this douche from Minn is staying with the Commie party line.

Click the AT link.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Of course it doesn’t, but just because he believes the pledge is the pledge and should be said in full (at least when leading others to say it) doesn’t mean he thinks only theists need to say it. I used this thread as evidence, since clearly not all are bothered by the words and thus would fit in just fine to lead Ed in the pledge.

Esthier on October 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

The way the pledge is worded makes it easy to stand on ceremony and pretend it doesn’t exclude a significant percentage of the population. If he thinks the words mean absolutely nothing — they almost do thanks to elementary school principals everywhere — then, sure, I can understand him standing on ceremony and asking everybody to just get through the whole thing. If he thinks the words don’t mean anything, then I take it all back. I’m assuming he doesn’t, though.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Christian principles were instrumental in how the Republic was formed and that must be respected if we want it to continue. You can’t tear the foundations apart and expect it to stand.

No it wasn’t. The founding principles were completely separate from religion (as evidenced by the absence of such a republic in the previous two melinia of Christian dominance), except where religion was shoehorned into them in order to sell the ideals to a religious public.

The Soviet constitution sounds great but it is men who give and take away the rights in it. Remove the theological argument from the American founding documents and you will see the same thing happen.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 3:20 PM

The soviets had a constitution? First I’ve heard of it. Either it said nothing about the protection of personal rights, or no one payed any attention to it from the beginning.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Not really. A communist would have more problem pledging to the nation than reciting the meaningless words “under God”. All it does is piss off patriots that don’t believe in gods and pump of the self importance of those who do.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:19 PM

I refer you to the “Muscovite” quote above from Dr. Docherty. The addition distinguished us from the godless communust hordes who threatened us with nuclear annihilation.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM

Yes, eating dinner with my friends is exactly like leading the pledge of allegiance in front of congress.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:58 PM

You seem to miss the point…it was more about respecting the moment rather then the food.
You have a problem with understanding a metaphor or allegory when it puts you in a difficult position.
I also knew you would misrepresent my statement of “not buying into”. Yes, that is what I posted, but you know I meant (if you read the whole post) by stating that when volunteering to recite the pledge. I guess I have to really expand so you understand, quick sentences seem to confuse you.
When you respectfully ask to do something, like leading the pledge or reading a passage from the bible, then the assumption is that you will do it with respect, honor, and traditionally. This isn’t a “Do you think you can Pledge” contest, it’s a request to lead the congress in a pledge of allegiance. Just like you are expected to read the passage from the bible, not how you think it should be, but how it is written.
You don’t understand that principle?
If you want to do something different, then you reverently, respectfully, state what you are going to do, and let the person who is choosing decide whether it is appropriate.
As I stated, try that with your wedding vows…
I don’t care how many times it is recited, it is still an honorable pledge to be taken seriously, especially in the arena she was in. If she was at one of her liberal gathering, big deal, typical.
Discernment is a word that most people do nut understand…

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM

communust=>communist

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:28 PM

???

You went way out of your way to insult people. In fact, in one sentence you took billions of people, squeezed all into one monolithic group and pissed all over them.

Is this something that pumps up your self importance?

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

I did nothing of the sort — you are projecting.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM

The soviets had a constitution? First I’ve heard of it.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Yeah … interesting reading. If one didn’t know better you’d think the democrats wrote it. In fact, FDR’s second bill of rights is taken from it.

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM

I refer you to the “Muscovite” quote above from Dr. Docherty. The addition distinguished us from the godless communust hordes who threatened us with nuclear annihilation.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:27 PM

How?

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:30 PM

Yes. And Bellamy would have hated the “Under God” change. But then Bellamy was a eugencist, a racist and a support of National Socialism, AKA Nazism.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Maybe not. He was also a Baptist minister after all.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

The soviets had a constitution? First I’ve heard of it. Either it said nothing about the protection of personal rights, or no one payed any attention to it from the beginning.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:26 PM

Yeah, that would be the point. If the man can give you something, then he can also take it away.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/77cons02.html#chap07

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Funny, then, that the Founders didn’t think it important to create a pledge of allegiance with those two words in it.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

Yet they opened each session with a prayer, and made sure that Sunday was honored…BTW, founders didn’t write the Pledge of Allegiance, it was written by, with irony, a capitalistic bashing Baptist Minister…in the mid 1800′s.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM

Maybe not. He was also a Baptist minister after all.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Well Pelosi is a Catholic, Reid is a Mormon, and Obama is a Christian.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM

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

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 2:27 PM

We have few of those, relatively speaking, but I’ll give it a shot:

Godless & proud + R = Libertarian.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

I did nothing of the sort — you are projecting.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Projecting what? I can read.

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Yet they opened each session with a prayer, and made sure that Sunday was honored…BTW, founders didn’t write the Pledge of Allegiance, it was written by, with irony, a capitalistic bashing Baptist Minister…in the mid 1800′s.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 3:32 PM

I’d be more comfortable, personally, with a non-denominational pledge and a prayer that people don’t have to join or even be in the room for.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

Godless & proud + R = Libertarian.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 3:34 PM

Awesome. You can’t be a Republican unless you believe in, I’m assuming, YOUR god. Great to hear.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

Its appaling to eliminate God from the pledge…but haven’t we slipped down the slippery slope and eliminated God from nearly every aspect of public life?

jbh45 on October 25, 2010 at 3:22 PM

God should be a part of public life but not part of the congress. The Creator in the Declaration has a relationship with the people not with the government, which is just there by consent of the governed to ensure the rights given directly to the people.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 3:37 PM

Well Pelosi is a Catholic, Reid is a Mormon, and Obama is a Christian.

sharrukin on October 25, 2010 at 3:33 PM

There aren’t enough Buddhists.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:42 PM

You seem to miss the point…it was more about respecting the moment rather then the food.

No, it’s just a bad analogy. My friend owns his house. Everybody owns the government (the whole for the people, by the people bit), not just Christians.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 3:44 PM

Awesome. You can’t be a Republican unless you believe in, I’m assuming, YOUR god. Great to hear.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:36 PM

I have absolutely no problem with Libertarians. They tend not to be corrupt like the ‘rats.

And I guess I wasn’t clear. Obama is absolutely Godless. How’s that workin’ out for us.
And don’t give me that hogwash that ‘I don’t know what’s in his heart’. He is not Muslim, nor is he Christian or anything else. He worships at the alter of government.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

So she used the original version of the Pledge, and omitted the bit that was added as a schoolyard taunt to a now-defunct enemy. Big effing deal to everybody but the closet theocrats and “EVUL COMMIEZ!” types.

(clue to the clueless: I am not condoning Communism in any way)

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

I did nothing of the sort — you are projecting.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 3:29 PM

Your statements make it clear that it’s more important to you to ridicule the significance of religion than to recognize that our individual rights are under siege by a group of cretins that want to assert that the State is almighty while the existence of God makes that problematic.

Belief in God is not required for American citizenship, but working adamantly to eliminate any reference has been used consistently by the commie crowd.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Maybe not. He was also a Baptist minister after all.

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 3:31 PM

No “maybes” about it. He resigned the church in 1891.
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech4.htm

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

Sorry, kid. 75 % in this poll disagree. Just like 75 % Americans say that they are Chrstians. Gosh…imagine that.

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM

I have always wondered why someone who does not believe in God finds it offensive for someone to reference God in speech or prayer. If they REALLY believe God does not exist what is the big deal? It is as if they know God exists but they feel compelled to deny it (and prevent others from stating what THEY believe in.)

jerseyman on October 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM

Sorry, kid. 75 % in this poll disagree.

Gee, that couldn’t possibly be because this is Theo-Wingnut Central, could it? Or do you think the world begins and ends at Hotair?

Just like 75 % Americans say that they are Chrstians. Gosh…imagine that.

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 3:49 PM

75% of Americans will tell a pollster that they’re Christian, because it feels good and they know they won’t be followed up on. Gosh…imagine that…if you can.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM

jerseyman on October 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM

That is a good question. And I could explain it, but it would take all of AnninCas comment space.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 3:59 PM

I have no problem pledging allegiance to the United States. I drop the ‘under God’… thats for Christians, Muslims, and Jews whose first affiliation is to their faith and not their country. I understand that but people should not be penalized or criticized if they merely want to proclaim their fidelity to their country without humbling it to some figure of religion.

There is no religious test for office or citizenship in the United States. If you want to enforce religion in the United States, say so and amend the constitution accordingly.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:01 PM

And I guess I wasn’t clear. Obama is absolutely Godless. How’s that workin’ out for us.

I don’t know. I didn’t vote against him due to where he goes on Sunday. I voted against him due to his being a socialist weasel.

And don’t give me that hogwash that ‘I don’t know what’s in his heart’. He is not Muslim, nor is he Christian or anything else. He worships at the alter of government.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

You don’t know, and I don’t know, what his belief on the hereafter is. I agree with you, though, on his worship of the state.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

No “maybes” about it. He resigned the church in 1891.
http://www.oldtimeislands.org/pledge/pdgech4.htm

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:48 PM

Did he become an atheist? I don’t see any mention of that.

I do see “He explained that he had become a Christian Socialist on the basis of the Scriptures alone.”

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM

Wow, Kreskin. So you can read millions of minds and look into their hearts? You’re good. As far as this being Theo-Wingnut Central, AP and a bunch of agnostic posters around here might disagree.

Want a Kleenex?

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:01 PM

Well put.

dedalus on October 25, 2010 at 4:05 PM

Belief in God is not required for American citizenship, but working adamantly to eliminate any reference has been used consistently by the commie crowd.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 3:47 PM

That is not the case. The suit against school prayer was initiated by Jewish families who felt their faith was being undermined. You might as well complain about the framers of the constitution for not providing for a state religion.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

I agree with you, though, on his worship of the state.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

And when you have no moral compass that comes from belief in something greater than self, you become in your own mind ‘sort of a god’.
I forget which clown in the MFM said that, but I can be certain Obama smiled when he heard it.
Had the same been said about W., I cannot envision a smile on his face.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

Did he become an atheist? I don’t see any mention of that.

I do see “He explained that he had become a Christian Socialist on the basis of the Scriptures alone.”

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Let’s revisit what I wrote:

Yes. And Bellamy would have hated the “Under God” change. But then Bellamy was a eugencist, a racist and a support of National Socialism, AKA Nazism.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 3:23 PM

Hmmm… was atheism in there? No, I guess not.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 4:08 PM

Wow, Kreskin. So you can read millions of minds and look into their hearts? You’re good. As far as this being Theo-Wingnut Central, AP and a bunch of agnostic posters around here might disagree.

Want a Kleenex?

kingsjester on October 25, 2010 at 4:03 PM

Yep. For every pious, nauseatingly self-righteous Christian zealot, there are the narcissistic, sickeningly self-absorbed atheist zealots.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:11 PM

I’d be more comfortable, personally, with a non-denominational pledge and a prayer that people don’t have to join or even be in the room for.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 3:35 PM

It is non-denominational, when they “under God” that about as vague as you get.
And you don’t have to be in the room (let alone join)…just that most want to be in the room.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:15 PM

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

You’re making way too big a deal of this. Which seems to be a pattern in critics of COD.

By that standard, Palin was out of line to pray before her debate, and every soldier that prays before the battle is out of line. Besides, a huge part of prayer is designed to make sure your heart is right with God before the conflict.

tom on October 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM

And when you have no moral compass that comes from belief in something greater than self, you become in your own mind ‘sort of a god’.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

That simply does not make sense. You can still believe in something more important than yourself without believing in God. Tillman believed in something more important than himself or he would not have passed up a glittering NFL career to serve in the US Army.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM

75% of Americans will tell a pollster that they’re Christian, because it feels good and they know they won’t be followed up on. Gosh…imagine that…if you can.

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:57 PM

That’s the same kind of argument that Pelosi is using “Outside influences are why we are losing”…just pull something out of the arse to justify.
The fact is, most people identify themselves as Christian…well maybe you are right, because it does feel good…

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

When I say the pledge, I do the same thing. If I get push back I replace those 2 words with “without Gods.” Personally I think it’s a great way for an atheist, which I am, to express his patriotism without making a hypocrite of oneself.

MJBrutus on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

It is non-denominational, when they “under God” that about as vague as you get.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:15 PM

Mea culpa. I meant no references to religion within the pledge.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I have always wondered why someone who does not believe in God finds it offensive for someone to reference God in speech or prayer. If they REALLY believe God does not exist what is the big deal? It is as if they know God exists but they feel compelled to deny it (and prevent others from stating what THEY believe in.)

jerseyman on October 25, 2010 at 3:55 PM

What would your response be if someone insisted that you to mix an affirmation that “Santa Clause exists and hands out presents on the night of December 24″ every time you wanted to make an official interaction with the government?

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

When I say the pledge, I do the same thing. If I get push back I replace those 2 words with “without Gods.” Personally I think it’s a great way for an atheist, which I am, to express his patriotism without making a hypocrite of oneself.

MJBrutus on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

Seems like being needlessly provocative.
Since the fifth grade, I just say the pledge as it was originally intended: without the “under God”.

Count to 10 on October 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM

So she used the original version of the Pledge, and omitted the bit that was added as a schoolyard taunt to a now-defunct enemy. Big effing deal to everybody but the closet theocrats and “EVUL COMMIEZ!” types.

(clue to the clueless: I am not condoning Communism in any way)

Dark-Star on October 25, 2010 at 3:45 PM

OK, instead of trying to spin an incident from 8 years ago, let’s see you give this one from just last week a whirl:

At a debate sponsored by the Illinois League of Women Voters between Democratic incumbent Rep. Melissa Bean, GOP challenger Joe Walsh and Green Party candidate Bill Scheurer Wednesday, the audience loudly objected when the moderator, Kathy Tate-Bradish, insisted on proceeding without reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. In the end, she didn’t stand a chance against the 300-member audience. The camera captures Republican Joe Walsh’s reaction:

Ms. Tate-Bradish reportedly scolded the crowd after the pledge ended, blaming the outburst on the Republican candidate. The LWV executive director, Jan Czarnik, also condemned the Pledge’s recitation, telling the local news, “It’s a phony patriotism issue is what it is,” she said. “[Republicans] must think it helps their campaign.”

Both LWV have been active members of the progressive movement. Ms. Tate-Bradish was an active supporter of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign and even hosted campaign events for the then-Senator in her own home.

Ms. Czarnik is a former ACORN Project Vote worker and has been involved in the progressive People for the American Way, but as blogger Jeff Dunetz notes, these former affiliations would surely in no way lead her to unfairly criticize a Republican candidate, right?

Rest of story:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/voters-defy-debate-moderator-to-make-pledge-of-allegiance/

Del Dolemonte on October 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM

Hmmm… was atheism in there? No, I guess not.

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 4:08 PM

You’ve so far failed to support the assertion you made that “And Bellamy would have hated the “Under God” change.” even though as I’ve pointed out, he was a Christian.

Can you support it?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Your video is not the half of it… Check this out Betty McCollum Voted Against the Pledge of Allegiance!!!

Nearly Nobody on October 25, 2010 at 4:22 PM

I stand by my original statement…it was disrespectful, that’s all, just plain disrespectful.
Like a comedian “mis singing” the national anthem, it isn’t that it was out of tune, it was the disrespect shown.
You don’t take on a “project” that has an honored history, and arbitrarily disrespect it…then make up a lie to cover up your foolishness.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:23 PM

That simply does not make sense.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:16 PM

It makes perfect sense. You just fail to see it.

Lanceman on October 25, 2010 at 4:24 PM

That is not the case. The suit against school prayer was initiated by Jewish families who felt their faith was being undermined. You might as well complain about the framers of the constitution for not providing for a state religion.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:07 PM

It is the case repeatedly, you can’t use the Jewish complainant you cite as proof positive that the marxists haven’t consistently outlawed God or organized religion as a tool in establishing a foothold in their long march.

It’s really disingenuous to cite one example as reason to throw out all of the other instances of these stealth marxists for the last 9 decades having a super sensitivity to the mention of any Deity as competition for the almighty state.

I don’t have a problem with anyone that doesn’t believe in God for their own logical reasons, but don’t make false assertions that the obvious hasn’t happened in thename of leftist treachery just because the MFM hasn’t spotlighted it.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 4:25 PM

I just started reading this thread, and to be honest, it was more of just a quick perusal, so I don’t want to stick my nose where it doesn’t belong, and I don’t know the rest of your argument or the points you’ve made, but regarding one particular statement:

McCollum may have just forgotten to say the words, so she’s probably a bad example.
RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 2:50 PM

She “may have just forgotten to say the words”??? You ARE joking, right?

Dopenstrange on October 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM

It is the case repeatedly, you can’t use the Jewish complainant you cite as proof positive that the marxists haven’t consistently outlawed God or organized religion as a tool in establishing a foothold in their long march.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 4:25 PM

No but I can use it to refute your fallacious argument that those wanting separation of church and state are all commies and atheists.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Mea culpa. I meant no references to religion within the pledge.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:18 PM

I figured, but the fact is, it is there…it is what it is.
If you are going to “screw” with it, then announce your intention.
Obvious with the link provided above she has no real respect for it, so her requesting to state it probably just shows it was “in your face” disrespect…then she tried to lie herself out of it.
It’s the process, the deception, the dishonor, that I don’t agree with.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM

Del Dolemonte on October 25, 2010 at 4:20 PM

So if someone decides not to lead a group in the pledge of allegiance, then they should be punished for their insolence by having it recited at them. But if someone decides to compromise and recite it in a form that they can say in good conscience — and they even pause to let everyone else say it their way — they’re still being disrespectful. We can’t win. Nothing short of a public religious declaration makes you people happy.

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 4:31 PM

She “may have just forgotten to say the words”??? You ARE joking, right?

Dopenstrange on October 25, 2010 at 4:26 PM

It’s completely irrelevant, but that’s how she explained it (she said she was checking to see if there was a flag behind her).

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM

No but I can use it to refute your fallacious argument that those wanting separation of church and state are all commies and atheists.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM

I didn’t come close to saying that, since I want separation of church and state.

You are either disingenuous or a really careless reader.

Why don’t you toss out some more duds since fallacy seems to come naturally to you.

fox/not to put it nicely, just in case you are female.

ontherocks on October 25, 2010 at 4:38 PM

No but I can use it to refute your fallacious argument that those wanting separation of church and state are all commies and atheists.

lexhamfox on October 25, 2010 at 4:28 PM

Well, they are. Who do you think got the 1st Amendment interpreted to mean that anyway?

darwin on October 25, 2010 at 4:40 PM

For the record, the Catholic Knights of Columbus includes “under God”, in their pledge, and also “BORN AND UNBORN” (This comes after “liberty and justice for all, BORN AND UNBORN)
Her head would probably explode if she said those words!!!

codekeyguy on October 25, 2010 at 4:41 PM

It’s completely irrelevant, but that’s how she explained it (she said she was checking to see if there was a flag behind her).

RightOFLeft on October 25, 2010 at 4:33 PM

Sorry…I guess I missed the part where you became the arbiter of what is relevant.

Dopenstrange on October 25, 2010 at 4:41 PM

You’ve so far failed to support the assertion you made that “And Bellamy would have hated the “Under God” change.” even though as I’ve pointed out, he was a Christian.

Can you support it?

DarkCurrent on October 25, 2010 at 4:21 PM

Yes.

To this Francis Bellamy’s granddaughter said that he would have resented the inclusion of the words ‘under God’. These words were added partly due to the desire to differentiate between communism and Western capitalistic democracies.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-the-pledge-of-allegiance.html

theCork on October 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Obvious with the link provided above she has no real respect for it, so her requesting to state it probably just shows it was “in your face” disrespect…then she tried to lie herself out of it.
It’s the process, the deception, the dishonor, that I don’t agree with.

right2bright on October 25, 2010 at 4:30 PM

With this, I agree.

MadisonConservative on October 25, 2010 at 4:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3