Spectacularly dumb GOP argument of the day

July 19, 2006

As part of the truly absurd “[tag]American Values Agenda[/tag]” Republicans are pushing to make their base happy, the House is debating a uniquely pernicious proposal called the “[tag]Pledge Protection Act[/tag].”

Here’s the idea: some people believe Congress violated the separation of church and state when it changed the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, adding the phrase “under God.” Worried that some federal courts might agree with this analysis, the House GOP wants to strip the judiciary of the ability to hear cases involving the Pledge, whether the case has merit or not.

Today, the leading proponent of this nonsense explained why his measure is so important.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. [tag]Todd Akin[/tag], R-Mo., said America was a nation of God-given inalienable rights and that’s why the country is in a war against “[tag]radical Islamists[/tag].” [tag]Democrats[/tag] wouldn’t want to “cut and run” in Iraq, he said, “if they understood the importance of those basic principles and that inalienable rights are impossible without a recognition of God and that’s why the pledge bill is important and not irrelevant or trivial.”

Follow that? Our rights come from God, which means we should recognize God publicly, which means Congress was right to change the Pledge, which means we should limit federal courts’ jurisdiction on the issue. And if you disagree, you want to “cut and run.” Or something. (I really wonder sometimes how these guys are smart enough to even get to work in the morning.)

Actually, my favorite part of Akin’s argument is that his bill is necessary because of the “radical Islamists.” As Akin sees it, the United States is battling religious fundamentalists who want to merge religion and government. And what better way to demonstrate our differences than to undercut our courts and mandate that a once-secular Pledge has to acknowledge God, whether it’s unconstitutional or not?

Makes perfect sense. If we take “under God” out of the pledge of allegiance, the terrorists have won. And anyone who disagrees is a yellow-bellied coward.

  • eh, this is kind of minor. now, tomorrow’s America’s Values Agenda bill, requiring all women in the United States to wear burkhas, will be the more interesting vote.

    gotta love that fighting, competitive American spirit: oh yeah? well my facist theocratic impulse is bigger than yours! nyah nyah nyah! I win!
    (then again, what do you expect from a country whose elected leader cares more about the pig roast than middle east wars?)

  • This is the same nonsense they tried with the “Constitution Restoration Act” — yes, it was hideously misnamed — where they tried to strip federal courts of jurisdiction in any kind of church/state matter, so that judges like Roy Moore could invoke Old Testament law whenever they felt the spirit move them. I predict this foolishness will suffer the same fate and will go nowhere, but of course that is probably not the point, anyway. Sam Brownback, you will recall, was one of the sponsors of the Senate version of the Constitution Restoration Act, and last I heard he was still contemplating a presidential run. Imagine — a Republican endorsing legislation designed to solicit votes from judge-haters. Who’d – a – thunk – it?

  • Missouri, the Show Me State.

    Yep, go to Missouri and Show Me an Idiot.

    Or is that a bit harsh?

    What he gets wrong, what all Republican’ts get wrong, is why we are at war with Sunni Islamic Extremists (aka, Wahabists). It’s not because we are ‘free’, it’s because we are supporting autocratic regimes in the Middle East.

    So dumb, so very dumb!

  • If they stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction over Pledge cases, wouldn’t that mean whatever ruling the state supreme court made would have to stand? Seems like that could lead to some unhappiness among the wingnuts if the court ruled the “wrong” way.

  • I wonder if the fact that religious freedom is one of those inalienable rights is lost on Akins. Or the fact that the phrase ‘One nation under God’ was inserted in the pledge as a response to those godlesss commies who were out to get us. Now we need to protect the pledge from the radical Islamists (who wouldn’t be so bad if they worshipped the right god).

    Eek! If our elected officials don’t smarten up soon, I’m going to have to change my name to VT Cynic.

  • Man oh man, what is it with the midwest? Ever notice it’s always Missouri, or Indiana, or Oklahoma, that produce these congressmen? Is America really full of people that elect people like this? This country is in real trouble.

  • A Muslim scholar once explained that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. One of he major differences being that Islam looks at Christ as another in the line of prophets and not as the son of God and the obvious difference in religious texts. I wonder if Akin would still feel the same way if a Muslim told him one nation under God is the same as one nation under Allah.

    Muslims also aren’t the heathens Christians are by defiling the name of God by placing it on something as unclean as money.

  • Thanks for bringing us stuff on what’s going on in religion. It depresses me, but I want to know.

  • So let me get this straight….When we were neck deep in the cold war against athiest commies we added relgious langauge to a bunch of nationalistis items like the pledge and the money etc. We planned to defeat communism with the “Freemarket Jesus” gambit.

    In the end we bankrupted the USSR and communist fell and there was much rejoicing. Now, the evil is Islamic Fundies. People so wrapped in their fundamental religious beliefs that they blow themselves up on purpose. Our answer to that is to make sure we keep the religious lingo in our nationalist arsenal. If they are for god we have to be more for our god that they are for their god (which per petorado #10 reminds us is really the same god).

    The only logical conclusion here is that god is the solution to every problem. How on earth these people get elected is a true mystery to me….

  • Man oh man, what is it with the midwest? Ever notice it’s always Missouri, or Indiana, or Oklahoma, that produce these congressmen?

    You’re forgetting Kansas, which boasts Sam Brownback, Pat Roberts, Jim Ryun and Todd Tiahrt among its Congressional delegation. Rep. Steve King of Iowa is proving to be a real kook as well.

    Is America really full of people that elect people like this? This country is in real trouble.

    Unfortunately, yes. They’re called suburbanites.

  • Can’t speak for Kansas, but here in Iowa the districts with suburbs elect much more moderate R’s and D’s than King’s district. It is nearly 100% rural (as, I suspect, are some of the more troublesome districts in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.) Us burb-dwellers can’t get all the blame!

  • I have to give Akin credit. He squeezed a lot of rabid right barking points into a single paragraph. Never mind the absolute lack of logic, or reason – he squeezed a lot in there. But still, he could have done better. He could have included illegal gay immigrants storming our borders for marriage and abortion. Only the Pledge of Allegiance can protect us from them, and all god fearing men know it.

  • “As Akin sees it, the United States is battling religious fundamentalists who want to merge religion and government.”

    Actually, they only problem Akin probably sees is that it is the wrong religion. A intrinsic part of being a fundamentalist is the belief that only one religion is the correct one. I think is one of the reasons they are so vehement about denying the legitimacy of any other religion – they are afraid they might have picked the wrong one. Nothing sadder than holding a losing ticket when the Rapture goes down, after all.

    BTW, the passage seems to be gone from the link from “explained” now.

  • This ‘God’ thing is the fly in the American nation’s ointment. I wish I had the power of intellect and mastery of language to expose and nail this demonic illusion once and for all. But I haven’t. But knowing that doesn’t stop me trying, relentlessly. Why? Because everything good in me tells me that restoring secularity to government is the surest way to restore goodness to American culture and those in the world upon whom it impinges.

    There are, among the legion delusions besetting many people who should know better, some particularly pernicious fallacies. One of these is an assumption, without consideration or justification, that being unconvinced of the existance of a creator ‘God’ one is automatically unable to develop a wholesome, fulfilling and meaningful spiritual life. The choice is not between ‘God’ and ‘Godlessness’, the choice is between a belief in a ‘Creator’ for which there is no identifiable basis, and an understanding of the true nature of phenomena, selves and mind, for which there is a basis.

    By putting ‘God’ into government, and forcing citizens to subsume their native allegiances to a supreme, unprovable, undefinable, unchallengable, manifestly authoritarian phantom is opening the door wide to every imaginable form of abuse and usurption. It’s not necessary to wonder beyond that single — and unConstitutional — defect why you have a ‘Bush’ stalking the halls of power with totalitarian bravado. Quite simply he’s hijacked ‘God’. Read that Bible and you’ll see how easy it is.

    The solution: Restore ‘God’ to its rightful place among those of the citizenry who find belief in such a hypothesis helpful, and liberate government and the rest of the nation from its tyranny.

    One of these days.. again.

  • #17: he could have done better. He could have included illegal gay immigrants storming our borders for marriage and abortion. Only the Pledge of Allegiance can protect us from them, and all god fearing men know it.
    Comment by JoeW

    Actually, I did see somewhere (can’t remember where; my wretched memory and overload of info) an argument connecting the fight for gay marriage ban and the fight against islamic terrorists. Can’t remember how it went exactly (couldn’t quite follow the “logic” of it), but the essence was that it would show them how superiour our morality was…

    Get your theocracy off my Democracy, dammit!

  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” In 1954 the ultra conservative Knights of Columbus was responsible for ramroding the “one nation under God.” through Congress. This addition to the Pledge was approved by Congress with no floor debate or constitutional review (…did someone say Supreme Soviet here…?) and President Eisenhower signed the bill. Those who have tried to impose some level of theocracy or religious world view have been frustrated in the past so they have relied upon either divise issues (bans on abortion or gay marriage) or symbolic issues (it should be pointed out that during this time In God we Trust was added to money) to try and shape the paradigm to suit their prejudices.

    A little history here. Back in the forties during the Second World War a group of Jehovah’s Witnesses were in a classroom in West Virginia. By the tenants of their faith the Witnesses recognize no organized kingdom or government other than the heaven they believe in. They refused to stand for the Pledge (pre One Nation under God) and were forcibly removed from the classroom, threatened with expulsion or exile to reform school. The parents sued and it made it up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled in favor of the parents. Chief Justice Robert Jackson, who later presided over the Nuremberg trials, wrote “…if there is a fixed star in our Constitutional constellation it is that no public official, no matter how high or petty, may compel the average citizen to profess their faith by deed or word of mouth.” Even Clarence Thomas has acknowledged that the pledge may not be able to pass muster as it is written.

  • Can’t speak for Kansas, but here in Iowa the districts with suburbs elect much more moderate R’s and D’s than King’s district. It is nearly 100% rural (as, I suspect, are some of the more troublesome districts in Kansas, Missouri and Oklahoma.) Us burb-dwellers can’t get all the blame!

    Council Bluffs and Sioux City look like fairly “large” Iowa cities (I know it’s relative), and both are in Steve King’s district. I’ll split the difference and spread the blame to the “outstate.”

    In Todd Akin’s case, the blame clearly rests with suburbanites. He represents the well-heeled suburbs of St. Louis. This district is also responsible for jumpstarting Sen. Jim Talent’s political career.

  • The whole God-given inalienable rights thing has always set me to wonderin’…

    Say for a moment that you’re Tarzan, and you find yourself alone in the jungle. What rights would you have?

    “Rights” are defined and bestowed by citizens, through their governments, on themselves and others.

    • Comments are closed.