Today's lesson: Spin

[libertango]

"New poll indicates nearly 40 million Americans oppose phrase 'Under God'."

Well... OK. That's not how the headline reads. Instead it reads, "Poll: Americans Overwhelmingly Favor 'Under God' ".

It then goes on to say: "The survey showed that 87 percent support the phrase and 54 percent think the government should not avoid promoting religion. Additionally, 60 percent think that government leaders making public expressions of faith in God is good for the nation."

So, if you're among the 37 million (13% of 287 million in the country, according to the Census Bureau) who don't approve of "Under God", or the 132 million (46% of 287 million) who think the administration should obey the Constitution and not promote religion, or the 115 million (40% of 287 million) who think public expressions of faith while in office may be a bad idea... well, um, too bad, I guess.

Unless the Court -- assuming this makes its way up to the Supreme Court -- acknowledges that the Constitution means what it says, and agrees with the 9th Circuit in striking "Under God" down.

But I love the implication that 40 million US citizens somehow "aren't enough" to be considered, or that just because 54% of people think the Constitution under which they live is wrong on this subject that illegally overturning it would somehow be a good idea... No, no, really. Can't you tell?

After all, 37 million is only equal to the populations of California and Nevada combined... {cough}

Comments

[zanna-voodoo.livejournal.com]

Amen, brother Libertango!

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your kind words (he said, hoping to trip e-mail notification for zanna so she reads what's been said since she posted... :).

Good points

[wednes.livejournal.com]

I think its important to review that the framers of the constitution did not add that phrase to the pledge. Let me first say that I am opposed to the mentioning of any particular diety in government writings. I am also opposed to the rote recitation of "pledging allegiance", especially for children too young to know what they are saying.

More importantly, is the fact that these men were white, land owning, slave owning, witch killing, pro government, pro war, wife beating kind of guys. I mean, we are talking about the guys who wrote the "rule of thumb".

When these guys made the rules, they made them only for people like them, who agreed with them, and did not dissent in any way. that is certainly not the way we interpret the consitution today. Not to mention that the constitution is in serious need of a rewrite, and has been since the abolition of slavery. I mean, have you ever READ that thing. Do it, you'll be in for some surprises.

Good day, everyone!

Re: Good points

[(Anonymous)]

"the fact that these men were white, land owning, slave owning, witch killing, pro government, pro war, wife beating kind of guys. I mean, we are talking about the guys who wrote the "rule of thumb"."

They were white and land owning. This is certainly true.

Some owned slaves, some did not. Most of the New Englander's did not own slaves.

Absolutely none of them where witch killing. You have your centuries confused. The Salem witch trials happened in 1692, and the Constitution was written in 1787.

They were not really pro-government, in the sense that phrase is used today. They were pro-liberty and wanted to guarentee the maximum of liberty for all citizens. Unfortunately, some did not feel that way towards blacks and nearly all did not believe that way towards women. But, for the time, this was a remarkable step forward to guarenteeing personal liberty.

They were not really pro-war. They were pro-independance. If England would have left us alone without a war, the founding fathers, by and large, would have been happy. This was just impossible though. Washington, in his farewell address said we should stay out of forieng entanglements (i.e. wars).

Wife beating? Please show me some documentation of this regarding the founding fathers. I know of none and I am really well read in the area. I assume, like any random group of people, this went on to some extent, but it was certainly not documented at all. Madison, certainly could not be accused of this as Dolly was bigger and most likely stronger than he. :)

Rule of thumb..... That is laughable: http://www.debunker.com/texts/ruleofthumb.html
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt

Re: Good points

[wednes.livejournal.com]

How interesting. I appreciate your comments, and corrections.

Whether or not the framers of the consitution were hands-on in terms of slave ownership and witch killing, they supported the status quo which allowed these things to exist.

Indeed I am in error about the dates of witch trials versus constitution. While vast numbers of witches haven't been ferreted out and killed in awhile, surely you must admit that persecution of witches exists even today, with full government support. Obviously, that is not the same as killing. But ask a pagan mother how she feels when the courts take her children away, I imagine she would not feel that her rights have been respected.

As for the war for independence, I think that is much more about taxation and much less about idealistic "freedoms". Although I am clearly not as well read as you it seems that some simple tax negotiations would have done the job nearly as well.

I'm sure Wahington intended that we not get involved in forgeign affairs. That is yet another way in which the ideals of the constitution have not been preserved. We are deep in debt and still poke our noses into everyone else business.

I am glad to hear that the "rule of thumb" is a hoax. Naive though I may appear, I learned about that in a high school social studies class, and never questioned it. Thanks for clearing that up.

With regard to womens rights, even beating aside women were victims of the whole "taxation without representation" thing. If my learning is correct, that is what we accused England of during the revolutionary war. Not to mention, women were not legally allowed to leave thier husbands, not were they allowed to keep inherited land if married. Perhaps I am not able to put this in the proper historical perspective, but that sounds like utter bullshit to me.

I admit though, that much of my historical learning has taken place in a highly feminist context.

Thanks for sharing your learnedness (if, in fact that is a word)

Re: Good points

[torch.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<a href="http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html"</a>http://memory.loc.gov/const/fed/fedpapers.html</a>

those are the federalist papers. they give, arguably, the best account of the framers' ideas of what the new nation should be. of course, since they were written by white guys, that probably doesn't fit in with your feminist education, but perhaps you could take some time to go to the source instead of trying to vilify those people who were able to create a nation out of nothing, utilizing the most plausible liberal ideas of the time.

Re: Good points

[wednes.livejournal.com]

I love the way people conclude that if you don't agree with them, than you must not have read the same source material.

Check you fed papers and find out if its still okay for me to disagree with you in this country.

I guess you'll just have to pardon me if I tend to vilify these men who made a nation out of "nothing". That nothing being land which was usurped from people who had lived on it peacefully, filled with people who had defected from England then went on to propagate thier injustices on people who were not able to defend themselves.

Re: Good points

[torch.livejournal.com]

i assume that you haven't read the source material since you are representing firstly a lack of understanding of the politics regarding slavery during the creation of the constitution, which is evidenced by your ignorance of the fact that a majority of the founding fathers wanted to abolish slavery (see any discussions of the 3/5ths clause for some evidence). secondly, you flat out said that you haven't read enough to come to a definite conclusion on the issue of the ideals of the founders. i hope you can understand how this would lead me to believe that you haven't read anything but some textbooks which gloss over some of the finer issues. if i'm wrong, i'd like to know how you have so grossly misinterpreted the benevolence of hamilton and madison.

at any rate, yes, it is fine for you to disagree with me, but that statement implies something: it implies that simply because you can have your own opinion, that opinion must have some truth to it. however, when you state things that are plainly not true (all the fathers were pro-slavery, pro-witch-burning, pro-war), i feel it necessary to point out that you are wrong.

finally, i refuse to argue against the idea that the founders were horrible people that slaughtered indians, because it is a fuzzy issue. did indians get masscred during the founders' lifetimes? of course. was it government sponsored? sometimes. but colonists were also friendly to indians as well. it was a case by case basis. hell.. the iroquois supported the colonists so much, they fought on their side against the french. furthermore, when the american revolution occurred, the iroquois tribes individually chose sides, because they agreed with one side or the other. this wasn't an example of white men killing indians, but indians choosing to die by the sides of white men.

Re: Good points

[wednes.livejournal.com]

Perhaps you should look up the word "usurp". It doesn't have anything to do with slaughter.

Like many people, I learned about government in public schools. If that means I have not learned the truth on a great many things...who is responsible for that?

Relax guy, take a rest. I'm just a regular person who expressed an opinion based on the information they had recieved. If that means I have opened myself up to the tirades of strangers, I guess that is part of living in a country with free speech. But if I see the founding fathers as a bunch of hyppocrites, than that is my opinion so again I say RELAX...

Re: Good points

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

See my thoughts below... But my main point here is that the Pledge is only statutory and extra-constitutional, and post-dates the Constitution by about 110 years.

[(Anonymous)]

I am an atheist. I have no religious agenda to propagate here. I just want to be clear about this upfront.

I am very interested in the Revolutionary War Era in America and know a good bit about that history. The Constitution of the United States has nothing in it at about how the government should not promote religion. This is a complete misunderstanding of the first ammendment which reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Realize that this is a group of people just separated from a country with a state religion, The Church of England. Some states had already tried their hand at creating a state religion, and they were preventing this from happening. They firmly believed that this was an assult on the liberty of the people, that they could not be free to exercise the religion of their choice.

As an atheist, does the phrase "under God" in the Pledge violate my liberty to be an antheist? Not at all. I would prefer The Pledge not be altered in the 1950's and I would prefer that the money not pay homage to a fiction, but none of these things prevent my freedom of religion, nor does it prevent any non-christian's freedom of religion.
---
Jeffrey S. Blatt

[rivetkitten.livejournal.com]

perhaps the phrase doesn't infringe on your atheist beliefs. in my understanding, the ruling is not against the pledge itself- it is against requiring school students to recite the pledge in school. personally, i'm all for the ruling. i remember in gradeschool that one of the other kids (a jehova's witness) had to get permission to not salute the flag- the religion considers it idolitry, since you are pledging to serve something or someone that isn't god. if he was forced to recite it, as this ruling disallows, he would be forced to go either against his religion or the law.

a good decision? i think so.
oh, and i am an atheist as well.

~xq~

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

in my understanding, the ruling is not against the pledge itself- it is against requiring school students to recite the pledge in school.

No, the decision is more limited that that.

The name of the case is Mewdow v US Congress. That link is to an Adobe Acrobat file of the verbatim decision. The conclusion is this:

"...we hold that (1) the 1954 Act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policy and practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, with the added words included, violate the Establishment Clause."

So, basically, of the 31 words of the current Pledge, only two are ruled to be unconstitutional. The other 29, under this ruling, are admissable, and teachers are free to lead their students in reciting them.

What's interesting is that this returns the Pledge closer to the original phrasing and intent of the author, Francis Bellamy. Bellamy wrote the Pledge in 1892, partly as a tribute to the 400th anniversary of the Columbus landing. The words "under God" weren't added until 1954, after pressure from the Knights of Columbus (of all people). Interestingly, Bellamy's granddaughter stated at the time that even though Bellamy was a minister himself, he would not have approved of the insertion of "under God".

This all comes from a page written by John Baer, the author of a history of the Pledge titled The Pledge of Allegiance, A Centennial History, 1892 - 1992.

[hal-obrien.livejournal.com]

"As an atheist, does the phrase "under God" in the Pledge violate my liberty to be an antheist?"

But that's not the only thing the Establishment clause is currently interpreted to mean.

In writing Mewdow (note: as mentioned, that's a .PDF file), the circuit court was looking at, among other things, whether teacher-led recitation of the words "under God" constitute an endorsement of religion.

That standard has been used since a decision the Supreme Court issued in 1984, Lynch v Donnelly, written by Justice O'Connor. Here's how she put it at the time:

"The Establishment Clause prohibits government
from making adherence to a religion relevant in any
way to a person's standing in the political community.
Government can run afoul of that prohibition in
two principal ways. One is excessive entanglement
with religious institutions . . . . The second and more
direct infringement is government endorsement or
disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message
to nonadherents 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."

In other words, the Court currently interprets "respect" as meaning that Federal law should neither restrain anyone's beliefs, nor promote anyone else's.

This makes sense in practical terms -- majorities are always temporary, and today's emboldened "overwhelming majority" may well be the minority that needs protection tomorrow. This is why all civil rights cases, if you stop and think about it, are not only a way to be fair to current minorities, but also a way for current majorities to hedge their bets regarding mistreatment by future majorities.

Of course, to think such thoughts requires a mild amount of enlightened self interest, and the jury is still out as to whether we truly think that way on a societal level (he said wryly).