McDermott omits 'God' from Pledge

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by jimnyc, Apr 28, 2004.

  1. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    Rep. Jim McDermott, Washington Democrat, yesterday did not say the words "under God" as he led the House in its daily recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

    Rep. Pete Sessions, Texas Republican, accused Mr. McDermott of "embarrassing the House" and proving that "he and those like him stand more for the liberal left than they do for our friends and neighbors."

    "The liberal wing of the Democrat Party launched yet another salvo today in its ongoing battle to drive a wedge between Americans and the values and ideals we hold dear," Mr. Sessions said in a statement last night.

    The House has overwhelmingly approved two resolutions expressing outrage at the June 2002 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it is unconstitutional to have schoolchildren recite the Pledge in class because it includes the words "under God."

    Mr. McDermott was one of seven Democrats who voted against a March 2003 House resolution — approved 400-7 — that condemned the 9th Circuit decision as inconsistent with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment. The House passed a similar resolution, 416-2 in June 2002, immediately after the court's decision, and Mr. McDermott joined 10 Democrats in voting "present."

    "Congressman McDermott already knew that he had a problem with the words 'under God,' based on two votes he cast. The question is why he put himself in the position of embarrassing the House in this way," Mr. Sessions said.

    When asked about yesterday's Pledge incident, Mr. McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCesare, said his boss "hesitated, unsure of what he should do because the words 'under God' are under court review." Mr. DeCesare confirmed that his boss did omit the words.

    Read the rest here:
    http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040427-105435-1862r.htm
     
  2. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    This guy is along the lines of Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Sheila-Jackson Lee, etc. as the most outspoken leftist in the House. Absolute moron.
     
  3. Moi
    Offline

    Moi Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Messages:
    1,859
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    The ONLY GOOD place
    Ratings:
    +11
    I see nothing wrong with him remaining silent rather than utter those words. Isn't it the entire argument of many that by requiring the pledge of allegience we aren't necessarily forcing the religious aspect because the speaker doesn't have to say those words? Isn't the issue of prayer in public schools also that those who don't believe in them can just stay silent?

    He chose silence on those two words but he still pledged allegience...I think that's the more important part of the pledge.

    You may fire those salvos at me now for I'm sure that mine is an unpopular opinion.
     
  4. KLSuddeth
    Online

    KLSuddeth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    My opinion is that I believe God exists in everything, but then again, my opinion in full isnt a popular around here either Moi, being that I am Spiritual, not religious. INW, Im metaphysical.
    (I bet more people will throw crap at me than at you now)
    LOL

    :cof:
     
  5. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    I have no problem with him not wanting to say those words, but then he shouldn't be the one leading the house in the recitation.
     
  6. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Whether or not to have "under God" in the pledge is not a big issue for me though, to be fair, I think it should be removed. It is unfair to those who don't believe in monotheism. To say that they should just shut up is also unfair. If the pledge were to have "under Allah" or "under Satan" or "under the gods of the land sea and air", would it be right to have Christians remain silent when such is spoken?
     
  7. jimnyc
    Offline

    jimnyc ...

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    10,113
    Thanks Received:
    244
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    New York
    Ratings:
    +246
    If I should move to an Islamic country, would it be fair for me to ask them to remove references to Allah from anything similar to the pledge?
     
  8. KLSuddeth
    Online

    KLSuddeth Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    thats a damn good point Jim. And one that I am going to be thinking about for sure.

    thanks! :)
     
  9. _dmp_
    Offline

    _dmp_ Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    854
    Thanks Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +7
    Fuck being fair. (shrug).

    It's getting so that Catholics will SUE Mormon Churchs for not allowing them to have catholic beliefs available, should they choose to go to church at a Mormon temple. Watch. That will happen.

    McDermott is a piece of shit. As a person. That trator flew to Iraq pre-Liberation, to meet with Saddam and tell him how much he's loved, and being victimized.


    Seriously. I'd not shed a tear if God sent Baghdad Jim a heart-attack. The world would be a better place by far.
     
  10. mattskramer
    Offline

    mattskramer Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    5,852
    Thanks Received:
    359
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Texas
    Ratings:
    +359
    Your comment implies that this is a Christian nation. Please define "Christian Nation" in concrete terms? What about non-Christians? Are they to be removed? It is interesting to read what they do with non-Muslims in Islamic countries.
     

Share This Page