Stephen Maturin

In the interest of completeness, something along the following lines should be inserted just above the "NOW, THEREFORE" paragraph:

WHEREAS, everyone, even the most rabid of accomodationists, knows full well that the foregoing James Madison quote is bogus; and

WHEREAS, we know it too, but we consider you, our constituents, an unwashed mob of apathetic dumbasses who will not bother to question our nonsense; and

WHEREAS, there was no Pledge of Allegiance at all before 1892; and

WHEREAS, Congress did not codify the Pledge of Allegiance until 1942; and

WHEREAS, the version of the Pledge of Allegiance codified by Congress in 1942 did not include the words "under God"; and

WHEREAS, due to the lobbying efforts of the Knights of Columbus and the kneejerk anti-commie hysteria drummed up by corrupt political opportunist Joseph McCarthy, Congress added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954; and

WHEREAS, none of the powers enumerated in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution expressly authorized Congress to to include "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, or for that matter to codify any Pledge of Allegiance to begin with; and

WHEREAS, in light of our approval of Congress enacting the Pledge of Allegiance, and, by extension, our approval of Congress acting beyond its enumerated powers, any rhetoric you hear from us that extolls the virtues of a limited federal government or of "state's rights" is unmitigated and hypocritical horseshit; and

WHEREAS, despite what we resolve herein below, we really wanted to say that the United States is exclusively a Christian nation, but felt compelled to toss in "Judeo-" so as not to risk honking off too many people; and

WHEREAS, this General Assembly has real work to do, but - gaggle of knob gobbling vote whores that we are - will never pass on an opportunity to engage in political pandering of the basest sort. * * *

Ab_Normal

Stephen: :notworthy ^100!

RufusAtticus

I'm working on a letter to my representative and the writers of the bill. Here is the current version.

------

I wish to address my concerns about the error-filled House Resolution 27. The primary purpose of the resolution is to interfere with an on going court case. If the State of Georgia wishes to get involved, it should file an amicus curiae brief, not pass a resolution condemning a court decision. The fact that if this resolution is passed, the Georgia House would be requesting that Congress violate the rule of law in this country, does not sit well with me. Any politician that would seek to do such a thing do not deserve to be leader in a democratic society. Checks and balances were established in the constitution to prevent tyranny. It is scary that any politician would want ignore such important facets of our system.

Bills and resolutions often provide justification for their existence. However, any bill or resolution that uses false justifications can neither be a just nor satisfy due process. The James Madison quote offered in HR 27 is a forgery. Even the man who popularized it, David Barton, has admitted as much.

John Stagg and David Mattern, editors of “The Papers of James Madison” issued the following statement concerning this misquotation:
"We did not find anything in our files remotely like the sentiment expressed in the extract you sent us. In addition, the idea is inconsistent with everything we know about Madison's views on religion and government, views which he expressed time and time again in public and in private." (Letter dated November 23, 1993, to which the editors refer all who inquire about this falsehood.)

It is hard to justify that the US is a “Judeo-christian” nation when confronted by the historical evidence. Much of this is discussed in the decision of Newdow v US Congress, which I’d hope the Georgia Assembly would have read before passing a resolution against it. Take for example the Treaty of Tripoli (1797) which was signed into law by President John Adams and ratified by congress. Article II states, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.” It is hard to justify that the founding fathers founded a Christian nation when they ratified a treaty stating otherwise.

Furthermore, HR 27 is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. For any federal, state, or local government to declare that America has any affinity for a sectarian belief or a set of sectarian beliefs is to establish those faiths and beliefs above all others.

FairFiend

I wonder if those proposing this legislation is arguing that the United States used to be a Judeo-Christian nation (with the implication that it no longer is a Judeo-Christian nation), or that it has been and still is Judeo-Christian nation? Would the former position be easier to defend if challenged in court than the latter? If they're arguing the former, it would seem ludicrous to try to write history through legislation or attempt to use it as a basis for reinstating "under God" in the pledge.

It would be like them saying,

A RESOLUTION

Urging the Congress of the United States of America to reaffirm the history of this nation as a slave-owning nation; and for other purposes.

What the founding fathers said or intended is irrevelent even if each one proclaimed, "American is for the Judeo-Christian God alone." Using the fact that some of the founding fathers held slaves is no support for the institution of slavery. Likewise, the religious beliefs of the founding fathers should have no revelance on what kind of nation it should be labeled today. I almost hope that it gets passed so that it can be challenged and (hopefully) struck down by the courts.

SLD

You should also get your letter published in the Atlanta Journal

SLD

pug846

I don’t see the problem with Georgia passing a resolution that condemns a court decision in another circuit. If a circuit court upheld the constitutionality of separate but equal some 50 years ago, I would have no problem at all with my state’s legislature re-affirming that this is a nation of liberty and justice for all.

Second, it isn’t clear at all what rule of law the Georgia house would be violating. Are you talking about violating your understanding of the establishment clause? The 9th Circuit’s? The Supreme Court’s? I'm not saying you're wrong, but that you are unclear here.

I would re-write the entire piece, concentrating on the historical errors, pointing out the misquote and the fact that the 9th circuit was attempting to follow Supreme Court precedents.

I’m not sure what this sentence means.

It’s also false that a bill that uses false justification can’t be just. I could justify a bill that would have ended slavery because blacks are all smarter than whites. The justification would be “false,” but the bill would be just regardless.

Grad Student Humanist

I've argued the same thing here before. To my mind, this is the most effective counter-argument to the deification of the Founders' views on everything. There are plenty of views the Founders held which are today rightly and roundly ridiculed. We are not bound to respect their opinions on church-state separation any more than we are bound to respect their opinions on slavery, equal rights for women, medicine or religion. The Founders' right to influence the government ended on the day they expired and were buried, and the same goes for anyone alive now. As Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams: no generation can make a perpetual law (my paraphrase).

FairFiend

There is a cavet to such an arguement though. If we assert that citing the beliefs of the founders as an arguement for declaring the U.S. a Judeo-Christian nation is irrevelant, we would also have to concede that any of their beliefs that the U.S. wasn't founded as a Judeo-Christian nation are also irrevelant.

I guess then the matter comes down to interpretation of the Constitution and what we the people believe the course this nation should take - becoming a Judeo-Christian nation, or a secular nation.

It seems like that's already what it's coming down to, so remember to vote.