Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: alexander_busek
From what I saw Betty McCollum was BORN in 1954.

You can tell from the cadence of the pledge that “under God” was an addition, as lobbied for by the Knights of Columbus, during the height of the Cold War - to differentiate us from those godless Communists.

I can see someone who learned it pre 1954 reciting the original version from memory, but she wasn't pre 1954.

16 posted on 10/25/2010 9:37:50 AM PDT by allmendream (Income is EARNED not distributed. So how could it be re-distributed?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: allmendream

I don’t care if she was born in 1930. If she left out the “under God” it was intentional, and not just a trick of memory. 56 years is long enough to learn to include it.

Again, I have no problem with her doing what she did if she has a strong atheistic belief, but the odds are strong that she wouldn’t want a large share of her constituents to have a clue about any such belief.

What a person feels about religion is a personal matter. I don’t even care if they “go along to get along” by saying “under God” even if they’re not all that religious. But if they have a strong atheistic belief, yet look for votes by proclaiming a Catholic faith, then they’re blatant hypocrites and should be noted as such.

Here’s the one explanation I would buy from her: (Unfortunately, she didn’t come up with it) IF she objected to the inclusion of the words “under God” in the Pledge due to its coercive nature (requiring a belief in God to support one’s country) AND had shown past evidence of that position, THEN I would understand her reason for omitting the phrase when she personally says the Pledge, and would support her position. Note that this would also allow her to be a strong Catholic, i.e., no hypocrisy involved.

I personally don’t think “under God” should be in the Pledge of Allegiance, by the way, though I routinely say it each and every time I repeat the Pledge. It was a mistake to put it in, but it will be nearly impossible to take it back out. It will take a “Nixon goes to China” environment, where a devout Christian President explains his/her reasons for removing it (the reason stated above; it’s coercive and is unrelated to a pledge to support one’s country.)


17 posted on 10/25/2010 10:04:11 AM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

To: allmendream

By the way, should a devout Christian President ever actually contemplate such a move it would be worth going ahead with just to watch all the liberal talking heads explode on screen.

Cognitive dissonance at its best.


18 posted on 10/25/2010 10:08:31 AM PDT by Norseman (Term Limits: 8 years is enough!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson