I thought that we lived in a Democracy. A country were no person has believes forced upon them, were no one group can control the country and were religion does not play a role in government. In short I thought we lived in a FREE country.
I guess I missed the moment that we became a theocracy.
You are probably wondering at this point what I am rambling on about. Congressman Shimkus said today that he will be supporting legislation that will "protect the Pledge". Now unlike some of those I have heard speaking on this issue I actually do support the Pledge of Allegiance. I think it is an elegant way to teach our children love of our country. However I do not agree with the 1954 addition of the words "under God" which have nothing to do with our country and in fact go against our countries views on freedom. For that reason I cannot believe that this bill is actually being considered by any of our elected officials.
There are multiple issue with this fact and I am going to stick to the Constitutionality of this absurd law. Here are the main problems that make this law completely Un-Constitutional.
1) First of all the very words "under God" are Un-Constitutional when used in reference to our country as a whole. For two reasons, first this is establishing a National religion, maybe not a specific belief system but at least the belief in a God. This diminishes the rights of atheists who do not agree with this statement and whose rights are protected under the Constitution.
2) Forcing a child to say the Pledge also forces them to say the words "under God" by doing this you are forcing them to except the existence of a God and therefore taking away their right to choose on their own. Furthermore you are putting the child who's religion will not allow them to say the words in an awkward position. This includes Jehovas Witnesses, I do not know the specific reason here so if someone can fill me in I would appreciate it; Muslims, who first of all say Allah, not God, and in that some would consider this a prayer would not be able to do so unless facing East towards Meca, Buddhist who do not believe in a higher being than the self, Hindus who believe in multiple Gods and depending on the one that they worship may be being blasphemes to say this, Wiccans who may very well believe in a Goddess, Pagans who likewise may believe in a Goddess. There are those who say that these people are in the minority and therefore can just skip the words or add in the name of their higher being. I disagree that they should have to do this. First of all the Constitution clearly protects the minority from being ruled by the majority. Secondly while having the words in the Pledge forces the minority to be put in an awkward spot not having them does not adversely effect, or effect at all, the majority.
3) Making a law that would keep the courts from being able to rule on certain cases that challenge the Pledge takes away the power of the courts and the voice of the people. You are not only going against the Checks and Balance system, but you are violating the First Amendment right of the people to challenge the Government and the Pledge. One of the most fundamental rights of Americans is the ability to challenge Government on any issue and to take a matter to court. It is then the Courts decision, not Congresses, to decide whether it is a viable complaint. This is why we have courts. To make sure that Congress stays in check. And the moment you begin to weaken that Powers the moment that you begin to weaken the Constitution and the rights of the people.
If this law passes I hope that the Supreme Court stands up and protects the rights of the people and does what is right and strikes down this law. If that doesn't happen all I can say is that it is time to be afraid, be very afraid because our rights are now and the mercy of the Administration and Congress.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Involvement from John Shimkus isn't a surprise. If West Point would have rejected his application (as it should have), he fallback choice for a career was Lutheran minister. His constituents would be better off.
Good call PF. What I don't understand though is I have met Shimkus and he really is a nice guy. And prior to the last couple of years he has been quite level headed. Lately however he seems to have lost it.
Just because he's a "really nice guy" doesn't mean he's supposed to be in Congress. He hasn't done anything on his own. He doesn't work for his constituents, he works for the GOP & takes his orders directly from them.
What you see isn't the "real" John Shimkus. It's a facade. It takes a while to realize it, but it's there. He's very careful. Working for him is a nightmare you'd never want. He's cultivated his "nice guy" persona quite well. He's in over his head, throws massive tantrums, & has violated campaign finance laws from Day One.
I think lately the truth has gotten to him. It takes a lot of energy to maintain secrets & lies.
PF, Actually I was agreeing with you that lately this has been the case. However about 6-8 years ago it did not seem to be the case. He truly seemed to care about his constituents. I will be honest I was young at the time and so I do not remeber much, but I do remeber constantly hearing about the good he was doing.
I know that now he is a puppet for Bush and the GOP, and it suprises me to a point.
I say to a point because I am aware that he, as most politicians, has been taking cue from the higher party for a long time.
I see no problem with the pledge nor forcing those little snot nosed kids who will probably fail in life anyway from reciting the pledge.
This nation was, believe it or not, founded on many religous principles. The Puritans, Quakers, Deists, etc. Our friggin Presidents from day one have given the oath of office on the Bible! Many of our founders even spoke of the many purposes that divine law and guidance had for our country. They may have been opposed to the establishment of a state religion, but never once stated that religon had no purpose in the public square. At least these kids would be learning something as opposed to doing what those hulligans do because of our lackluster education system.
The constitution is vague and in many parts not valid for the times anyway. Why not just have another constitutional convention.
Anon -- This nation was, believe it or not, founded on many religous principles. -- Agreed, so why are you contradicting your own argument? "Under God" doesn't conform to those many different principles. It solely conforms to Christian beliefs & only for the last 50 yrs. It completely discriminates against Native Americans, Muslims, Buddists, & anyone else that doesn't adhere to the New Testament.
APL -- We're agreeing on the present.
We're disagreeing on the past:
1. He's never done a good job.
2. He never should've been elected to Congress.
3. He's never been a "good guy".
4. He's always cared about John Shimkus & NO ONE else.
5. He's been a fraud since day one.
The real John Shimkus is finally showing thru. Instead of forgiving him, his constituents, media, & the entire Dem Party should hold him accountable. No one is because he's a "nice guy".
I don't think so!
PF, I will have to agree with you based on what I see now, and the fact that I do not remeber that much from back in the time that I lived in his area.
___________________________________
Anon 4:19 said...
At least these kids would be learning something as opposed to doing what those hulligans do because of our lackluster education system.
So we should teach them to disrespect those that believe in any other way than themselves?
___________________________________
Anon 4:20 said...The constitution is vague and in many parts not valid for the times anyway. Why not just have another constitutional convention.
There we go, lets just scrap everything that this great country was built upon and start over. While we are at it why don't we give Bush the dictatorship, get rid of the Supreme Court and Congress, and make speaking out against government illegal. Idiot.
As for the Constitution being out of date for todays society, there is a little clause at the end of the Constitution known as the Elastic Clause. This little sentance allows the Constitution to change throughout time with Amendments as seen fit. But in order for this to be done it first has to pass through both houses of Congress and then be signed on by the President. This is how government works see. You don't just scrap the old and start over. You improve what you have. Luckily enough people are level headed enough to see that a change like this would be restricting the rights of many and therefore is not a just amendment.
its kinda hard to improve a heap of trash
Very American of you Anon.
Post a Comment