Misrepresenting Our Rights and Reality

Congressman and Court Are No Help in Religious Issues Really? I guess that depends on your point of view. Oh...the article was written by a columnist in Dall-ass, Tex-ass...if that helps shed any light on the issue.

Judging from a mountain of e-mails, many of you had not heard of him (Rep. Jim McDermott - D, WA) until I focused last week on the transparency of his desire to show every returning casket from the Iraq war.

His motivation was, and is, to subvert war support.

It sounds more like his motivation is the truth. If the Bush maladministration and their talking heads (such as this genius) think that the way to maintain support for the war is to lie and cover up reality, then I say, "Subvert away, Jim"!

It was his turn at a task that is routine yet special: leading his 434 colleagues in the Pledge of Allegiance. And it was in that task that McDermott drew attention to the other thing that defines him these days: his opposition to the phrase "under God" in the pledge.

OK. That's a debate in progress, and people can differ on the subject. But unless those words are removed as surely as they were inserted by Congress a half century ago, the pledge is what it is, and it contains the words "under God." It is the duty of anyone leading a group in reciting the pledge to include them.

Sorry, Bonkjob...wrong again. According to the Supreme Court, it is the right of every citizen to abstain from reciting the phrase "under God" or the pledge in its entirety.

I sent an e-mail to Rep. McDermott congratulating him for standing up for what is right, especially in the face of such opposition from the masses of religious zealots. Given what an uphill struggle doing the right thing regarding freedom of religion has become these days, I encourage you to voice your support for him, as well. I'm sure he could use a few friendly e-mails amidst the guaranteed flurry of "rot in hell you devil-worshipping Atheist" e-mails he'll get from the Religious Reich.