That is they unilaterally changed something that was defined by Congress without going through the tiresome process of building support and getting a revised law passed.
Back in 1954 Congress passed a law adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge.
But just as with the rest of their agenda--abortion, gay "marriage", coddling criminals, redefining sex as gender, etc--Democrats don't feel the need to actually get the people to support that change; they're cool with unelected elites imposing it on us.
And of course why do they want to take "under God" out of the Pledge other than the fact that they hate God? It doesn't say Jesus so Jews can see God as Yahwe, Muslims can see God as Allah, and Christians can see God as Jesus. So it really doesn't pose a problem for any significant group of Americans, atheists make up 3% of Americans.
Exiling God from the public square isn't being tolerant of atheists it's be intolerant of the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.
This one act shows us that a significant segment of Democrats view the law as having no authority over them and that Democrat politicians view God as a problem not as a solution.
This also shows that either the DNC is supportive of taking God out or they don't control their own party. If some Republicans at the Republican convention took out say "justice for all" we all know that the #FakeNews media and the Democrats would blame Trump.
Posts
3 comments:
> So it really doesn't pose a problem for any significant group of Americans, atheists make up 3% of Americans.
Uh, and we shouldn't solve problems that impact only 3% of people? Let's not require accommodations for the blind since they only make up 2% of the population?
> Exiling God from the public square isn't being tolerant of atheists it's be [sic] intolerant of the beliefs of the vast majority of Americans.
So until 1954 the pledge was intolerant of religious people and then they fixed it? Maybe the pledge was fine and then they made it intolerant of atheists and they're just fixing it now?
> This one act shows us that a significant segment of Democrats view the law as having no authority over them
The law doesn't even require them to recite it at all! This is not a legal issue whatsoever. They could sing "this land is your land" for all it would matter.
No we shouldn't deny the rights of the 97% to support the intolerance of the 3%.
Accommodating the blind doesn't restrict the rights of the sighted.
Rejecting it is the issue. If it had never been added we'd be having a different discussion.
Yes they could sing whatever they choose to sing but they chose to pretend to be reciting the pledge when they really weren't.
If they were honest they'd have sung something else that they agreed with like the State Anthem of the Soviet Union. :)
> No we shouldn't deny the rights of the 97% to support the intolerance of the 3%.
what right? the right to have god mentioned in the pledge of allegiance? I don't remember that one in the bill of rights. I do remember something about separating church and state though.
Post a Comment