All I know is that I don't know.
All I know is that I don't know nuthin'.
Links and whatnotBlogs and Friends
Just Cheap Dirt
Jack Jackson's Dirty Pictures 2000
Funny, yet true
Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog
Get Your War On
A Softer World
News and stuff
Music and Art
Pitchfork They Might Be Giants
Rate Your Music
Rocket From The Crypt
The All Music Guide
Tha Friendly Gangstaz Committee
The Wooster Collective
Star City Scene
oh my god
The Zyklon Bees
Lone Prairie Records
Genuinely Useful Stuff
The Straight Dope
The Free World
Mail me AIM: RawkStah
My MySpace Space
Friday, June 28, 2002
I'm sure that everyone here is just chomping at the bit, eager as hell to know what I think about the 9th District Court's decision that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegience was unConstitutional.
I support that decision without qualification for a number of reasons.
First of all, the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1954. Now, when the pledge was written and adopted, it simply said "... one Nation, indivisible..." If the phrase was that important, wouldn't it have been put in there from the beginning?
Secondly, my support for the ruling was further entrenched by things various politicians said in reaction to the ruling, especially President George Dubya Bush. I don't recall his words verbatim, but, the jist of it was this: "It is a reminder that all of our rights are derived from God, and a daily affirmation of that. God or The Creator is mentioned 4 times in the Declaration of Independence." Now, for those of you who don't know, the Declaration is not, nor has it ever been, a legally binding document, any more than me sending a list of reasons to bite my ass to a person would be legally binding. The D of I was just that -- a declaration of our intentions to break away from the rule of England. It wasn't law, and it still isn't law. Was it an important document? Yes. But, it is not a legally binding document. As far as our rights being granted by God, I disagree. First of all, rights are granted by governments, not deities. Secondly, if rights are derived from deities, that means that power is derived from deities, which is one of the reasons we were breaking away from England in the first place -- the whole Divine Right of Kings concept. If Dubya is in power because God wants him to be president, we also have to accept that God wanted the Taliban in power, Hitler in power, Stalin in power, Idi Amin in power, you can see where I'm going with this.
Thirdly, which God is the nation under? Vishnu? Zeus? J.R. "Bob" Dobbs? L. Ron Hubbard? YHWH? Allah? Boognish? The King of Thailand? Ra, and his various incarnations as the pharoahs of Egypt? The phrase is problematic, even for people who believe in God. At least, it should be. Obviously, if a Hindu is uttering the phrase, he is not thinking about the Triune God of Christianity, or the plague-bringing badass of the Torah.
Fourthly, someone made a comment that the next step is to remove the phrase "... so help me God." in oath taking for office or trials. They already have. There are different 'oaths' that people can take in a court of law that coincides with their belief system, all of which are equally binding.
Fifhly, I don't want religion in politics. I am against theocracies. Theocracies are an abomination. There is no room for tolerance. When a church gets involved in politics, we get things like The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials and The Red Menace. Besides, do you really want God involved in something so inherently corrupt? Did you ever think that perhaps God really doesn't want to be involved in anything that the Kennedy Clan is a part of?
I am totally NOT looking forward to the 4th of July, or, Independence Day this year. I saw the fireworks display in Washington, DC during the 50th Anniversary of D-Day. I doubt that anything can top that. Plus, there's only so much jingoism I can take. My quota was filled within 2 months of The Unpleasantness, thanks very much.
Comments by: YACCS