.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

A Faerie's Farthing

Flitting through the internets looking for sparkly bits. All content mine and not to be reproduced without permission.

Name:
Location: All Material Copyrighted, United States

Friday, March 10, 2006

(Inadvertent) Truth in Advertising

(Inadvertent) Truth in Advertising

North Carolina's got itself a live one: Congressional Candidate Vernon Robinson. He recently pulled this ad from his website and rightly so. It's a veritable smorgasbord of hatred and bigotry. I have to give him credit though - it's an exceptionally clever ad. The end is especially amusing. Too bad it's so repulsive. The ad rather begs the question of "Has it come to this?" Does the Wingnutâ„¢ Brigade now feel so emboldened that they no longer have to hide their true agenda?

Naturally, the issues he carps on are all the wedge issues you'd expect - gays, immigration, prayer in schools, etc. The one that really stands out to me for its lack of intellectual honesty is how the right gets its knickers all atwist over the objections to "under God" being in the pledge of allegiance, mentioning God on our currency, etc. Do they not realize those notions weren't added until the '50s?

"Political correctness run amok" is how one senator is describing a court's ruling that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress.

...Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said, "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.'"

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

Unfortunately, though, it's not just the fundies; some members of Congress called the ruling "nuts," and "stupid" among other things. The Senate passed a resolution in support of the pledge 99-0. The squatter in the White House even had the DoJ look into it.

Pray, tell, what about this position is conservative? What is strict constructionist about including religion in the national pledge? How many more blatant contradictions like this will it take before people realize that this group is dead serious about installing a theocracy?

Just like they only support state rights when it suits their masters interests, the legions of the far right are really only strict constructionists when it comes to civil rights and government regulation. Other than that, they're open to all manner of creative interpretation. To wit: money is equivalent to free speech, companies deserve the same civil rights as citizens, Florida needs to stop counting votes right this second, etc. Taken to its logical extreme, strict constructionism should preclude the entire bill of rights - they're only amendments, after all. Women's suffrage? An obvious afterthought.

But maybe we shouldn't go giving them ideas...



Tags: , , ,

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home