Friday, October 07, 2005

wolf, sheep, bah.

i recently emailed my senator, (Dem) Salazar, with concern over his resolution to overrule the courts on continued use of the phrase 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. here is his response:

"As Colorado's Attorney General, I determined the Pledge of Allegiance does not constitute a breach of the Establishment Clause. In fact, all 100 of the nation's state attorneys general so determined in supporting a brief submitted by them to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004. I stand by that determination today. The Pledge neither advocates a specific religious doctrine by the government, nor does its recitation advance such doctrine by requiring government funding. I do not believe it is inappropriate for our Nation to embrace this general public and time honored expression.

In response to the latest ruling by a California federal court regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, I introduced Senate Resolution 244, which was adopted by unanimous consent September 15, 2005. This resolution expresses the Senate's support for the Pledge of Allegiance and opposition to that court ruling. I invite you to view a copy of S. Res. 244 at "

now that Democrats are working so steadfastly to eliminate the separation of Church and State, i guess this does support the suspicion that ours is a one party nation. one party, run by one Church and one corporate ethic. oh, and in case you were wondering, the mere phrase 'under God' advances the religious belief that there is one and only one god. thus infringing on the beliefs of atheists, agnostics, and Hindus (who belief in the existance of multiple gods)-just to name a few.

given how 'time-honored' 1954 is, perhaps we should bring back McCarthyism. oh wait. that's already happening...


in the fun column, google 'failure' and click "I'm feeling lucky"

if you did as Simon says, you went here.

here is the explanation.

No comments: