Archive - Sep 19, 2005
Under God And Over Done
19 September, 2005 - 11:01 — Bryan Lambert
If the world is going to insist on covering the same ground over and over again, I will be forced, as an observer of the world, to cover the same ground over and over again. It's not my fault.
It was eighteen months ago that I predicted, with uncanny accuracy, that the Supreme Court would find a way to keep "Under God" in the Pledge. It was fifteen months ago that I noted they took the wussiest possible way out, but did what I knew they would. It was twelve months ago that I took fuckwads (specifically, the House of Fuckwads) to task for their extraordinary efforts on behalf of "Under God".
One year later, and Michael Newdow, the persistent atheist who the Supremes tossed on a technicality in June 2004, is back with a legal standing that'll pass court muster. Having cleared his first legal hurdle, history is repeating itself. Motherfuckers feel the need to weigh in.
I know it sounds a bit hypocritical coming from someone who weighs in five times a week, but whenever one of these little, quaint relics of our less-enlightened past are threatened, everyone feels the need to leap to its defense to show their audience they're on the side of the lord god jeezus. Before we get to them, let's recap established fact regarding the Pledge of Allegiance:
1. The Pledge Of Allegiance is retarded. - It's meaningless, the brats being forced to say it don't know what half of the words mean, and don't care about any of them. Plus, just about the only factually correct part of it is the number of nations we are.
2. The Pledge got even MORE RETARDED in 1954. That was when Congress stuck "under God" between the well-counted "one nation" and the historically-inaccurate "indivisible". They did this to show we were better than the Commies, who hated Jesus. Now the only Commies left are either cranky Cubans, or people who make all our stuff.
3. Newdow is right. - Look. If you're going to force children to say this nation exists under God, then you're forcing them to say there is a God, and it's the Christian God at that. Putting the burden on the child to set himself or herself apart, by demonstrably not participating, isn't an option in the Lord Of The Flies social cauldron that is the American public school system. Period.
But you can't be against God, so everyone steps up to defend the stupidity. Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals - anyone with a stake in the opinion of the brain-dead majority has to defend the Pledge.
So it does not surprise me when the Texas attorney general called the pledge a "constitutional acknowledgment of God", even though the fact that it's -forced- makes that a blatant contradiction. Or when a rural congressman from Ohio called it "judicial activism run amok", even though we all know it's political correctness that runs amok.
When the editorial page of "Southwest Iowa's Leading Daily Newspaper", the embarrassingly-named Daily Nonpareil, prints the incredibly boneheaded statement that "...the vast majority of people in this country want the phrase "under God" to remain in the pledge. We also believe that a tiny minority, without infringing on their freedom of speech, shouldn't try to mandate their beliefs for masses by going to the courts just because they oppose a certain phrase.", I am annoyed at their casual dismissal of minority views, but I am not surprised.
But when I have to bitch out the BOSTON HERALD... I mean, this is Boston! I distinctly remember reading somewhere that Boston was so liberal, the very air was thick with microscopic sin particles that, when absorbed into the lungs of priests, forced them to fuck small boys. Yet their editorial was more mean-spirited than all the hick pigfucking grandstanders put together. ACTUAL QUOTE TIME!
"There will be no reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in some California classrooms today, thanks to the absurd effort to ban the patriotic oath in public schools because it contains the phrase 'under God.'... Let's hope a new Roberts court will reject Newdow's self-indulgent quest to twist the Constitution in an effort to satisfy his personal goals."
Absurd? Self-indulgent? Personal? I swear, the Boston Herald is one "pigfucker" away from a "look and feel" infringement lawsuit.
One of the best arguments I heard all week is that the vehement, vitriolic defense of "under God" itself puts the lie to the defender's argument that it's a minor historical acknowledgement of our heritage that atheists shouldn't get our panties in a knot about. When the Boston Herald is praying for John Fucking Roberts to be confirmed so he can smack the heathens down from his perch atop the American judicial system, I think that point has a lot of merit.