The Pledge of the Allegiance and Getting Dems elected

[beachmom]

Okay, my fellow Kerrycrats, I thought I would start a lively debate about this recent ruling that said the Pledge was unconstitutional because it said "under God". In the end, I don't really care whether my kids say the Pledge at school or not. But for some people, it is vitally important to them, and this ruling is like a slap in the face. I like secularism, but it can't be forced on people. Something like 95% of Americans believe in God. Here is part of an entry from BullMooseBlog.com. This guy used to be part of the Christian Coalition but became so disillusioned with the Republicans that he has split off and has joined the "bull moose party" a la Theodore Roosevelt. He usually makes scathing comments about the Republicans and counsels the Democrats. He had this to say about the pledge:

http://www.bullmooseblog.com/archives/2005_09_11_archive.html

Democrats, however, should not be stricken with irrational exuberance over the Republican travails. As bad as it is for the elephant, the donkey is not exactly knocking the socks off the American people. Many have doubts about the Democrats position on such fundamental cultural issues as patriotism and faith. The Republicans are defined by their money elites and the Democrats are branded by their cultural elites.

That is why it would be good to hear from a chorus of national Democratic leaders denouncing the ludicrous California judge's ruling against the pledge of allegiance. How about a defense of "under God" in the pledge from Chairman Dean?

With the horrible government response to Hurricane Katrina, the war in Iraq, the deficits at home, the corruption in the WH and Congress, I'm sorry, this is an issue we need to nip in the bud. If we don't, the Republicans have their issue for '06, and we end up on the losing end again. With the exception of gay marriage and abortion rights, these other cultural issues are SO dumb. The Dems need to come up with a strategy NOW so this ruling isn't used against them. Yes, many of us may need to hold our noses, feeling like we're catering to the religious right, but like in parenting 2 year olds, it's best to "choose your battles". I don't want to battle this one. I say keep the Pledge with Under God in it, and instead let's save the country from financial ruin and incompetence.

What do you all think?

[Island Blue]

1. I absolutely DON'T think this is an issue worth fighting over

There are just way too many real problems that desperately need to be discussed and dealt with. I am a very firm believer in the separation of church and state, but to me this particular issue (with the pledge) is way down on my priority list. To me the Pledge of Allegiance is a strange thing anyway. Who recites it most often? Grade school children. (Correct me if I'm wrong in saying that.) When you were in grade school and recited the pledge, did you have ANY idea what it actually meant? Congratulations to anyone who did, because I was just parroting what I was taught. Maybe in high school I understood it better, but by then (at least in my high school) you don't recite it on a regular basis. I think this is just another one of those issues meant to get the "religious" right fired up, and quite frankly (IMO) I don't think it's an issue worth wasting a lot of time and energy fighting over.

[Mass]

2. I think there are several aspects to this isue:

- while I would certainly prefer that we return to the original form of the Pledge (the one that did not include Under God), it is not a very important issue for me. In fact, there are plenty of other instances where there are reference to a "God" and people do not care: "God Bless You" when a president speaks, the dollar Bill, ... There are plenty of more important issues to fight for.

- This stated, just consider for a moment what would be the reaction if they added the word Christian. Justly, it would be an immediate uproar, because it would impose a belief on us. Well, "under God" imposes a belief on us as well, the one that says that there is a God. It is wrong.

- It has been said that deleting "under God" would prevent saying the pledge. It is not true. Until EisenHower, the pledge was said without it. Patriotism is NOT linked to faith, and, why I believe that it is far from being the most important issue, it IS still discrimination. You are sending to kids whose parents are atheist a bad image, the one that their parents's beliefs are wrong. (You say that 95 % of people believe in God - this means that 5 % do not - this is higher than the number of Jews and Muslims in this country - Would you accept that easily something that discriminatory against these religions?).

[beachmom]

5. They say prayers at my daughter's pre-school

Look, I'm not a big fan of all these prayers -- my daughter recites a prayer before eating -- we fold our hands, and softly say, thank you God for our snack today!! To me, it's weird, but in the end, I don't mind. Why? Because you can kind of lump God in with Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy for children. Some of these atheists are almost as dogmatic in their atheism as the religious right is in their form of Christianity. I just think that if you let the religious right have their stupid stuff, then they have less of an argument for the important stuff like gay marriage and abortion, causes which ARE worth fighting for.

When I was in Germany, I was talking with my sister in law, who is in no shape or form a religious person. She NEVER goes to church, and certainly doesn't discuss God or pray. But she is a member of the Lutheran Church, allowing 10% of her income to go to the Church (it's a tax through the state). Why? Because she said she thought they were good for society, helping the poor, plus she wants to get married in the church. Germany is traditionally a very Christian country, and it just keeps getting more and more secular, but not due to any secular agenda. People just lost interest. That's how we should play it in America. If people don't feel threatened, then they'll shut up. Is this a form of appeasement? Yes. But it's kind of like the politically correct movement from the Left in the 80s and 90s. They overreached and then there was a backlash. I remember being extremely annoyed in college when I was told there were certain words I couldn't say. It's not that I approved of those offensive words, but having my free speech limited in a university dormitory was just unAmerican in my view.

Let these people have their Under God. The atheists sometimes are a bunch of whiners, just like the fools who are mad that the Theory of Evolution is being taught in public schools. There are certain things that are almost universally accepted in this country, and unless it is proved to be fundamentally wrong and detrimental, I don't see the point in making a big stink over it. I guess, as you can tell, I agree a lot with that book "What's the Matter With Kansas", and I think we need to stick to the real issues, and to the other stuff, just tell the right -- "you know, you might be right about that. now back to discussing the lack of funding for the department of homeland security". I mean, we do live in a democracy, and if it's what the people want, fighting it means you will be "right" but not get elected and have no power whatsoever.

[Mass]

7. OK, then count me in the bunch of whiners.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. What you say is perfectly derogatory and you would not be saying it concerning members of another religion, I am sure.

[beachmom]

15. I apologize if I offended you, but I also dissed the Christians over

Evolution, too, in the same sentence! Look, I think I'm something of an agnostic -- today, I might think there is a God, tomorrow, I'm not so sure there is one. But there are people out there who are obsessed with having this stupid Pledge. And there are other people who don't think the Pledge is so bad. And meanwhile, you've got a tiny minority of atheists who are trying to impose their views on everyone else. Now you could argue that "under God" is also imposing a view on everyone. But like Roe v. Wade, it is the status quo. It is "settled", if you will, among the American people. I just don't think it's worth the battle. And we live in a democracy where, unless you can prove it is an absolute wrong (like, say slavery, segregation, and depriving women control over their reproductive rights) for which it must override a majority (well, at least regionally like in the South), I don't see it changing. And if it does change, then you've sparked an awful movement, otherwise known as the Religious Right, which I would like to see out of power ASAP.

Once again, sorry Mass. I'm trying to be provocative without annoying people, and I failed. I want to talk about this openly and honestly and I like this forum because I think there are actually a variety of views here without people getting nasty. Sorry if I crossed the line.

[karynnj]

3. I agree with you that these issues are infuriating and we lose on them

At a time when the culture is so far to the right, it is annoying that these people brought the case. They think they are standing up for some grand principle, when in real terms the main thing they are doing is putting the people they should support in an extremely awkward position.

I would hope that the Democratic party would try to avoid even discussing it - saying instead that it is a matter for the courts. (It would allow those who are religious to say "Although I believe in God, the constitutionality of this must under the Constitution be determined by the SCOTUS.) For those in office, they have sworn an oath on the BIBLE that says they will uphold the constitution. Saying this would put them on the high ground upholding the constitution while not denigrating religion.

Unlike abortion or gay marriage, no one is really hurt here. A child who is being brought up as an atheist can be told by his parents to simply not say those words or to QUIETLY say others, so his mouth is still moving. The parent can say this is just our culture's mythology that many people still believe in.

For the majority of kids, the pledge might as well be in Chinese as it is said in a rote way, with no cognition of what is said. Like anything, if examined word for word, there might be phrases others would dispute. Five years ago, my then 8th grader and her 2 best friends had a problem with the truth of the last line - so they said "with liberty and justice for some". Whether it was noticed or not, it was ignored by the teacher - possibly because the 3 kids were among her favorites. I only learned because the 3 kids were talking about it when I drove them somewhere. (Why do kids think carpool drivers lose their sense of hearing?)

[MH1]

4. Ludicrous ruling???

That someone would call the court's decision a "ludicrous ruling" in itself is ludicrous.

The Dems should stay away from this. It is not a matter for politics. Unless you want a constitutional amendment that this country may coerce people (including children) to recognize "God" and that this country's government is subordinate to "God" in some way.

The sad fact is that many people in this country do not accept that our constitution stipulates freedom of religion which includes freedom from religion.

No one, and I mean NO ONE, should be stigmatized for not believing in the same religion as 90% - or 95% - or 99.9% of the rest of the people. Not in America.

(No one makes a person speak the words "In God we Trust" when they pay for something with coins. But I'd take it off the coins too, if it was up to me. When was it put there, anyway? I just found a buffalo head nickel in my coin purse - too worn to be worth much more than 5 cents, but not too worn to see that the word "God" does not appear on it at all.)

Let the court decide what the words mean, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." If the people don't like the result then let's amend the Constitution - if that large a majority REALLY believes we should have a generic state religion asserting the existence of a God.

All that said, the political reality is as you have noted. But should we ignore what is right just because it isn't politically expedient? Just defer to the courts. If someone gets pushy, the answer is "I don't need to say a pledge of allegiance to a government to affirm my faith in God. And I would rather convince someone of the rightness of my faith through persuasion, rather than coercion."

[Mass]

6. I agree with you 100%.

[whometense]

8. I agree,

even though the political ramifications make my stomach churn.

This is an issue that means a lot to me, actually. As a jewish child in a suburban WASP-y town, I had to recite the Lord's Prayer every morning in elementary school.

Our Father, who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy Name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, On earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, As we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, But deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

I don't find anything inherently disagreeable in the sentiments expressed in the prayer, but I remember even as a small child being very uncomfortable with having to say it, and very aware that the prayer did not come from my religious tradition. And as uncomfortable as I was with saying it, it would have been equally uncomfortable to not say it. I don't think 6-year-olds should be put in that position in a public school. Period. Worship should be a personal and private matter that has nothing to do with school (unless you're taking a course in theology or comparative religions or some such - and I don't think they're teaching that in elementary school these days).

[Mass]

10. Exactly - My huband had the same experience in another small WASP town

As they were several Jewish kids, they were silent and it was very noticeable and unhealthy. They stopped saying it somewhere in the late 70s.

[whometense]

12. It's a really awareness-heightening

experience. To be part of a town, part of a class of students, and yet an outsider. So I don't think you can argue that young kids don't know what they are saying, anyway. I remember those feelings with perfect clarity.

[Island Blue]

25. I agree with you 100% when it comes to prayer in school

I think the only praying that should be done in school is silently, by a child if he/she chooses (say before a big test or before eating mystery meat in the lunch room). Otherwise, there should be no organized prayers said in public schools. Period. I also don't think people should have to swear on the Bible in court but that's yet another topic of discussion.

[beachmom]

11. I knew some of you wouldn't like Bull Moose's comments

But I printed it because this guy is a solid Centrist. He used to be on the Right, but he's kind of like Jim Wallis, and cares about the poor, and is disgusted with people like Tom DeLay. My point isn't that you have to agree with him but instead to know that not only is the Right outraged with this ruling, but mainstream America is, too. It's a political loser, and in my view, is merely symbolic. Would losing "Under God" have saved more people from Hurricane Katrina? No. And right now, we're in a religious arc in American history. Apologies to JK and other Baby Boomers here, but this is a baby boom phenomenon. All those young people (who are children of baby boomers) now who are religious -- well, when they get older they're going to reach a backlash, too -- AGAINST religion. The baby boomers had a lot of fun in the 60s and 70s, and are now repenting for their sins (like, say, our current president). But generation Y is going to wake up one day and say -- hey, wait a minute, I haven't had ANY fun in my life yet. I am looking forward to that moment. Oh yeah, and despite the growth in religion among the young, they are overwhelmingly FOR gay marriage. In 10 or 20 years, people will look with shame at how politicians and preachers are talking about gays today.

[TayTay]

13. The 'GReat Awakenings' have traditionally been about 45 years

from inception to decline in America. Then there is about 45 years where the pressure rebuilds. It has ever been thus.

[whometense]

14. Are you being ironic here?

The baby boomers had a lot of fun in the 60s and 70s, and are now repenting for their sins (like, say, our current president).

I don't know how old you are, so I don't know what your perspective is. I'm not sure what you're getting at with this statement, but if it's not a joke it's pretty sweeping. Only a very small number of boomers actually lived the hippie lifestyle, you know. We may have worn the clothes and grown our hair long, but speaking strictly for myself I don't have anything to repent for. I lived then pretty much the way I live now. Not to be too defensive or anything, but that statement kind of pissed me off.

[beachmom]

16. Okay, guys, I surrender, just shut me up now.

I was talking about the Religious Right baby boomers, not all of you. I know many of them. Many were drug addicts and alcoholics and needed a very strict religion to keep them in the straight and narrow. President Bush is the classic example, but I know many others. I was born in 1968. Wasn't there. I'm officially an idiot now.

Please feel free to comment, but I think I need to stop talking, because I think I have offended at least 5 people already. Looks like this is a touchy issue, and not easily resolved. One thing we can all agree on is that we want Democrats elected. Other than that, I don't know what the solution to this problem is.

P.S. -- I do after all live near Pat Robertson. Maybe his evil spirit has entered me, and it's not really ME who typed all of this. Maybe I need an exorcism . . .

[TayTay]

17. Beachmom: The point is taken, no quitting

There are two schools of thought

1> America is the most religious nation on earth with over 90% of the people believing in a Supreme Being. (85% see this SB in Christian terms.)

2> America has a proud tradition of people who resent being thrust into other people's religions. (It was ever thus.)

This is a dispute between religious and secular America. It will ALWAYS be there. That doesn't mean your point was wrong. It is, in fact right. As is the point that showing someone else's religion down your throat is offensive. We have both traditions in America. (It's what makes us such a 'spicy meatball' as a nation.)

Don't give up. Turn your argument just a wee bit. It is important for Dems to remember that purely cerebral arguments can be cold arguments. Some Americans will vote against cerebral arguments because they believe they are against religion. Dems need to remember that language matters and that they must remember this when forming arguments so that it doesn't look like Dems are 'going after' religion. There are, as Dr. Frist knows, many ways to skin this cat.

I see your point, and I raise you $5 on examining the idea that this is a fight worth having. Care to call?

[whometense]

19. I also agree that this is an argument

worth having.

And whoever brings it up is likely to have to step on some toes. That's ok. We're not all that delicate. :D

[whometense]

18. No problem -

just wanted to clarify. And I'm probably overly touchy on the subject - that's what all that right wing bombast has done to me. ;-)

I think this discussion is an interesting illustration of the various elements living under the big tent of the democratic party. I think the northeasterners here are more leftish than those who live towards the south. Or perhaps that's too simplistic?

Anyway, we all love Kerry, and that conquers every other disagreement!!!

[Mass]

20. I think we agree on more than that, beachmom

It is clear this issue is NOT the issue that needs to be dealt with right now. I would hope that most reasonnable dems agree with that.

It is fine and worthwhile to be able to discuss it between us, and yes, it is difficult to do so without stepping on a few feet, I agree.

[Island Blue]

28. Actually, I have to sort of agree with Beachmom here

from my experiences. First off, let me say that I certainly don't think that statement applies to ALL baby boomers - not at all. I do think however that a lot of today's true fundies are repenting for things they did as young adults. Please keep in mind that I can only speak for the fundies I know (and as a life long Southerner I am both related to, friends with or acquaintances with quite a few of them. There are just a lot of things we don't talk about.)

I have often asked myself, what do all of these neo-fundies have in common (speaking only of the folks I know personally.) The only answer I've ever been able to come up with is that they all had what would be considered a wild young adulthood. Mind you, not a single one of them would have probably considered themselves a "hippie" even back in the day. They did however, spend a considerable amount of energy smoking pot, having sex, drinking, etc. (Much like the current resident of the White House.)

Of course not everyone who let their hair down (so to speak) in the 60's and 70's felt the need to repent (thank goodness). They saw what they may have done as just what it was - growing up. For the people who are fundies today however, a switch flipped somewhere in their brains at some point and they felt the need to do a complete 180 in life.

Please don't hurt me too bad!

[TayTay]

9. I disagree that the Pledge is sort of ignored

America is a land of myth as much as anything else. What holds us together as a people is a shared belief in this special nature of being an 'American.' We are a nation of many different backgrounds and beliefs and are incredibly diverse. What creates nation out of this diverse group is a reliance on national mythology that is constantly reinforced. Americans play the 'National Anthem' at the beginning of sporting events, Americans, recite a pledge of allegiance, Americans celebrate a national birthday that reinforces the essence of 'American-ness' so as to have a common national coherence in the face of incredible diversity.

When I saw in Scotland a few weeks ago, the Guardian and the Times of London had a lot of articles expressing shock over how Britons could be involved in the 7/7 bombings. They wondered if they should adopt the American practice of identifying as Americans. (Consensus was that it wouldn't work, but might be worth a shot.)

The Pledge matters. We might not consciously know what we are saying as kids, but it seeps in. We are Americans, we have a common goal of pledging to the flag, because it stands for something. That 'something,' that elusive goal of 'liberty and justice for all,' how ever many times we may fall short of reaching that goal, is the essence of what it means to be an American. It's not a country that is knit together by geography. We are who we are because we share a set of common beliefs. Anyone who immigrates here and becomes a citizen is an American with full rights and privileges, not because of geography, but because of common beliefs. It matters.

[beachmom]

21. Alright, Tay Tay, I'll dive in once more

I completely agree with Mass and Whomtense and everyone else that having a Pledge of Allegiance including "Under God" is endorsing religion, and if I had my way, there would be NO Pledge of Allegiance in school because it promotes blind nationalism. How about they take time every morning to memorize the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution instead? Religion belongs at home and at church, NOT in public schools. I have total sympathy for my Jewish and Muslim friends who have had to endure weird traditions that are not theirs in a tax payer funded school. I was a Catholic in a small town full of a weird Norwegian sect of Lutherans who didn't allow dances at our Junior High, until one student had the gall to ask for it, and fight the School board (yes, my town was like Footloose). From an early age, I saw the evil and hypocrisy of organized religion including a mean nasty priest, who cared more about money than anything else.

BUT, we are in the total minority here. It's a battle we can't win, and it'll cost us seats in the Congress. That is why I railed, perhaps unfairly, against atheists who decided to take the court route when the country isn't ready for this change. Unlike gay marriage and abortion rights, I don't see how this betters our lives, if it means we're going to have Republicans running the show for years to come on such a, relatively speaking, tiny wedge issue.

So, I think this battle needs to be waged in the same way that the religious right's cause was bolstered. With good old private persuasion. WE can talk about it and discuss it, but I forbid JK to talk about it publicly because he will be told he is against "people of faith", and a huge proportion of LIKELY VOTERS will buy it. This amounts to appeasement, I know. Maybe I am a defeatist, but I talk to these people every day, and it's like talking to a wall. THEY BELIEVE. And, by God, you better believe, too, or you're going to hell. And these people VOTE. So, instead of fighting this small battle, the Democrats should talk about how we can help PEOPLE, how to make the government run better, how to bring universal health coverage. I can throw THAT into religious people's face, and ask what Jesus would think of a government that left the poor to suffer and die in a flooded city, because Bush decided to reward his cronies and stay on vacation, instead of helping these people. Promoting secularism should start at home and in our neighborhoods. Like the REM song said, "I wish the followers would lead". This is not a job for politicians, it's a job for us talking about this under the radar. But in addition to not promoting this court ruling, the question is, should Dean or Kerry or Reid or Pelosi or Clinton speak out AGAINST this ruling? Unfortunately, the answer may be yes. The country does not want this change, so in that sense, it's wrong. It amounts to a major compromise, but if it means winning in '06, sorry, politics are about compromise. Of course, Jon Stewart and Bill Maher will make remarks about how there is no opposition party, but until there is a REAL secular movement (apart from the ACLU, et al) that gains momentum, what else can the Democratic leadership do?

What answers do all of you have?

[TayTay]

22. Well, there is this news story from April

That reminds me that you do have to fight back. on the merits.

Kerry: GOP judge talk just God-awful
Boston Herald, All, Sec. News, p 3 04-21-2005
By Noelle Straub

WASHINGTON - Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday attacked Republicans for having an "orthodoxy of view" and overly inserting religion into politics, accusing them of using God as a justification for appointing conservative judges.

"I am sick and tired of a bunch of people trying to tell me that God wants a bunch of conservative judges on the court and that's why we have to change the rules of the United States Senate," Kerry told a group of Bay State residents who traveled to Capitol Hill for U.S. Rep. Martin Meehan's annual legislative seminar.

The Bay State senator was referring to a possible GOP move to alter Senate rules that would prevent Democrats from filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees.

"I am sick and tired of (them saying) they somehow have a better understanding of Christianity, of the Judeo-Christian ethic, of values," Kerry added. "We're talking about values? You show me where in the New Testament Jesus ever talked about the value of having taxes and taking money from poor people to give to the rich people in this country."

The Bay State senator added that the Christian values and Catholic church he grew up with "was a church of universality and understanding and true freedom of conscience" and that there was never this kind of "imposition of values" into politics.

Quoting the Biblical line that "faith without works is dead," Kerry cited budget cuts to schools, literacy programs and Medicaid as distorted values.

[beachmom]

23. Yes! The Religious Left -- the answer to our prayers

And guess what? Many of them might want "under God" in the pledge but are also disgusted with the tax cuts. I'm not sure. But I do intend to read Jim Wallis's book, which many of you have already read. I have to admit, thought, that I like secularism better. But if we are in that 45 year arc, then at least if there is a religious right AND a religious left, I can split the difference. The religious left leaves many of these wedge issues behind, by taking phrases like "pro-life" and talking about the poor and the excesses of war.

And Kerry, coming from a liberal Catholic tradition, is not just grandstanding. He means what he says, and says what he means. I know that this statement came from his gut and his heart. He was indeed pissed. Another reason to take "God" off the table and talk instead about "works". It's a winner.

[TayTay]

26. Not the Reglious Left as much as the meaning of the words

Jim Wallis is good, but he is just reclaiming what belongs to the left anyway. When was the last time you heard a Gospel Song about the spiritual wonders of getting a tax cut. When did any song (you know music, the language of feeling) contain lyrics about being down so low and finding that eliminating the Estate Tax was the way out? Think about this as a tradition, not as a recent innovation. Rove and his ilk are using one part of it, but there are others.

There are many religious traditions in America. The RWers didn't invent this and the neither did the left. It's bottom-up stuff. Dr. King used the imagery of the Old Testament and frequently talked about the biblical story of the slaves being freed from Egypt because it mirrored the struggle in America for civil rights. This power didn't start with King, it is an intricate part of the American story.

We can call the RWeers on their bullshit. Just flat-out call them on it. What does 'under god' mean? Why are we adding it to a pledge that call Americans to pledge to 'liberty and justice' for all? Who owns that tradition and why does God care if it is for all or not?

This argument has hooks for Dems because it is a natural fit. (We do own it, after all.) We need to call these other guys on their bullshit.

[karynnj]

24. I agree with most of what you say

Like you, I would replace the pledge - but if I were a princpal, I would ask teachers to let students volunteer to read some short historical comment - from Presidents, SC Judges, Senators, Governors ... or any of the founding fathers - that convey what America is or should be.

I don't think the Democrats should go out of their way to disagree, especially if it's against their real beliefs. Kerry is a good example, unless it is his sincere believe that the ruling is wrong, he should not speak against it. He is NOT an opportunist and his love of the constitution is very obvious and very attractive.

[beachmom]

27. But do you think the GOP will use his non-response against him?

How do we win this delicate battle, if we here at the JK forum, are struggling with it? Kerry never endorsed gay marriage, only civil unions, yet the GOP conveyed the message that he was FOR gay marriage, and people bought it. If Democrats say nothing regarding this ruling, will the GOP get away with saying that Democrats agreed with it? Or is there a way to bypass the whole thing? Like saying that something as trivial as this shouldn't interfere with the big issues of the day, notably the DHS and healthcare. I mean, this thing will end up in a town meeting question. I just know it. How should the candidate respond?

Is he FOR or AGAINST the ruling? The answer is a trap, of course. If he says he agrees with the ruling out of principles from the Constitution, he will be right, yet will have succeeded in insulting millions of Americans. If he says, no, he doesn't agree with the ruling, then people will say he's being opportunistic, and will say anything to get elected. If he tries for a "third way" talking about the issues of separation of church and state and the constitution and patriotism, then he will be labelled wishy washy, unable to take a stand. Maybe option 1 is the best, if he can give a convincing argument, but people, as a result, may vote for the other guy.

This happened with the abortion question in the debates last year. Kerry did the "third way" answer -- I am personally against abortion but I can't impose my religious views on the law. Then he talked about how the partial abortion bill did not include a provision to save the life of a woman. Bush mocked him, and said you're either for or against partial birth abortion, and he's against. Of course, Kerry's answer was right, but politically speaking, it turned a lot of religious people off. A woman called into the radio station here (NPR) after the election and said she wanted to vote Democrat but couldn't because the pro-life position was the foundation for everything else for her. It was a deal breaker. She didn't sound like a wacko or anything, quite compassionate really. We need her vote next time.

That's quite another issue, of course, but you know what I'm getting at. I just feel like these cultural issues are a trap.

[TayTay]

29. That's because they are a trap

They were intended to be a trap to separate Dems from their natural constituency and to convince voters that Dems dont share their patriotism or core beliefs. They are also wrong.

You fight them on the merits. Abortion is one such thing. The example that you cited is an 'absolute.' "I can't vote for this person because they support abortion." Honey, you aren't going to get this single-issue voter. (We are not going to get all voters. Never going to happen.) However, you can flip the discussion to say that you are in favor of of making abortion safe, legal and rare. Then you concentrate on what makes abortions rare. We need prevention programs. We need education. We need poverty prevention programs. We need to to the things that make abortion rare. And, if you want to meet the RW in the middle, you stipulate and agree that we also need to demand some responsibility from people to take charge of the own choice. (Take that weapon out of their hands.) There are ways to reduce the number of abortions in the US. There will always be cases where we need the procedure. But we can reduce the number of these instances. (And the number of abortions is going up not down under Rethug rule.)

[sandnsea]

30. Cultural differences

"BUT, we are in the total minority here."

I would venture a guess you think that because of where you live. Believe it or not, many red states don't give two hoots about "under God". Rocky Mountain states are very much live and let live, and resist conformity. Might be why some of the frontiersman who we learn about in our history classes left the south in the first place, lol. Some folks in rocky mountain states are likely to support "under God" as a reaction against liberals trying to change traditional values than any particular care about God being in the Pledge or anywhere else. If you asked parents in Rocky Mountain states if they'd rather have Christmas songs or god in the pledge, most would choose Christmas songs. More would choose for everybody to just stick their noses back in their own doors and shut the hell up. Live and let live.

In any event, the right to privacy and individual freedoms would be about the only way I could see the Democratic Party daring to step into this minefield. More than likely, they'll just say this is a generic reference, historic, bla bla bla.