So what's behind this urge to ditch folks who are anti-forced invocation?

[Modem Butterfly]

Why are so many on DU so quick to want to purge the party of people who are uncomfortable with having religion jammed down their throats?

Title edited for clarity.

[mike_c]

1. it's part of the Democratic Party's continuing emulation...

...of all things previously republican, IMO.

[SteppingRazor]

2. Who wants to do that?

I haven't seen anyone demanding that atheists or anti-school prayer advocates be removed from the party.

Granted, the view is starting to seem almost like pro-legalization, in that it's one of those things that seems to be tolerated with a roll of the eyes and a shrug.

[Modem Butterfly]

4. Removed, forced out, publicly disavowed...

...just so long as we're gone, I suppose...

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. No I suspect some of the DU'ers asking for this are DLCers

others are just practical questioning the timing... which is pure coincidence, for it to go up the court

[JetCityLiberal]

43. DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

dlc whiners, they love that minority status.

I am sick of so called Democrats telling me what I do and don't have to support, when and how I should support it. That has worked so well...

[Ladyhawk]

76. I'm an atheist and I fall into the "questioning the timing" category.

That's all. I certainly don't want to throw MYSELF out of the party. :) Eventually, I'm hoping the American people will see why the "under god" clause has to go, but now is not the time. Pushing this now is like pushing Nader in 2000...that's what I'm thinking.

:shrug:

Maybe I'm wrong. I'm still thinking this through, but it seems to me we could alienate middle-of-the-road folks who want the neocons gone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

3. Hey I want separation of church and state

and the under god was added in the 1950s, to a pledge written by a socialist

[ihaveaquestion]

6. No idea what you're on about.

Please provide links to posts that say this.

[Modem Butterfly]

8. Here's one

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4769839&mesg_id=4769839

[SaveElmer]

29. Yeah that doesn't look like a purge request...

He is advocating getting the issue off the table. Politically it's a loser for Democrats. Even if they take it up there is nothing they can do about it...it's in the courts.

Walt is right...we don't need this now

[Walt Starr]

39. Thank you

That's precisely where I'm coming from.

[Modem Butterfly]

44. He's advocating the Dems turn their backs on those of us...

...who are offended by this issue. Whether we're forced out or driven out, what's the difference anyway?

And in any event, this issue was covered extensively the last time it went to the USSCOTUS, so much so that it's not even on the media's radar this time around. So what's the rush?

[SaveElmer]

49. Sorry Butterfly...

I really think you are reading too much into his comments. Democrats don't have to agree all the time. Doesn't mean you are trying to be purged.

[Ladyhawk]

79. I have wanted the "under god" clause out for a long time, but

I think Walt may be right about the timing on this one. I don't want you purged.

[Warren DeMontague]

85. How about we ignore it and let the GOP flagellate it like it's something

that affects ordinary Americans.

We have plans, they have platitudes.

[Ladyhawk]

94. Sure, let 'em. Meanwhile we need to get our own act together.

We can all agree we want the neocons gone, right? I Now is the time to focus on issues upon which we AGREE. Don't let the right drive wedges between us! Let's focus on those things that will make the right look inept or downright evil. Katrina and the Downing Street Minutes come to mind.

LH

[Modem Butterfly]

96. But that's just the problem

Some folks are actually advocating having the Dems rush to sponsor "Save the Pledge" legislation, ignoring everything else that we have to contend with in order to get into a pissing match with the GOP over who loved god more...

[Warren DeMontague]

99. Maybe we should make a statue of Jesus 1,776 feet tall

out of red, white, and blue cake.

I mean, Everybody likes Cake, right?

See, Fuckers??? We Love God WAY MORE Than You Do! Nyah!

[Modem Butterfly]

100. Or we could build a big cement Jesus...

It'll be like he's on the dashboard of the entire country!

[July]

156. Well, we didn't bring it up.

All of these threads are discussions in response to a decision in a court case.

The Republicans are already taking it up, because it's one of those freebie hot button issues that they can score "values" points on.

And we're a discussion forum. So what's wrong with discussing the issue?

[ihaveaquestion]

101. Sorry, try again. This is not in any way a "purge" request.

Got another?

[Modem Butterfly]

102. Well, it's not a request so much as an urging

Plus, it has the added effect of neutering the Dems at a time when we actually have a chance to make some headway.

[ihaveaquestion]

104. It's only advocating a political tactic.

I happen to disagree with it, because I generally tend to stick to my guns.

I have to take issue with your characterization of the poster's intent. You seemed to take the suggestion personnally and used inflammed rhetoric to make your point. If I were the original poster, I'd be offended at your comments. Besides, it's not exactly helpful to your own cause to alienate fellow dems.

[Modem Butterfly]

107. That will alienate a good chunk of the base and fool no one...

...from the other side.

You seemed to take the suggestion personnally and used inflammed rhetoric to make your point.

This is a personal issue, yes, and my rhetoric was considerably less inflamed than that particular poster.

Besides, it's not exactly helpful to your own cause to alienate fellow dems.

:rofl:

That's a good one.

[marbuc]

7. I haven't seen any actions by this party that have weakened our resolve

to keep church and state separated.

[Walt Starr]

9. Where's the forced part?

OOPS, ya missed that one.

Nobody is FORCED to say the damned thing. SCOTUS ruled on that long ago.

[Modem Butterfly]

12. I myself was forced to say the pledge on several occasions

In fact, my father ended up running for the school board because both my brother and I were forced to say it.

[Walt Starr]

15. The sue the fuck out of the school district

This is settled law, and any school that did that was violating your rights.

West Virginia vs. Barnette is all you need to know:

http://www2.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/foliocgi.exe/historic/query=^^^/doc/{@1}/hit_headings/words=4/hits_only?

[Modem Butterfly]

24. With what money, Walt? With what lawyers, Walt?

With what resources, Walt?

[Walt Starr]

30. ACLU

four little letters. That's what they are there for.

:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

55. You know, the DNC used to stand for defending the little guy, too

:eyes:

[Walt Starr]

129. The DNC STILL advocates for the little guy

But then again, the DNC stands for the Democratic Party, unlike some.

[July]

158. And defense of minority rights is part of our system, isn't it? nt

[July]

157. Happens all the time.

Many people don't even know what the "settled" law says students or teachers may or may not do.

[Ladyhawk]

81. Ouch. I won't say it nowadays, but that's my choice.

The whole pledge seems kind of stupid, especially the clause that was added in the 1950s. I just think this is not the time to alienate friends in the middle. This battle can come another day.

[Modem Butterfly]

86. The answer to that is not to alienate our base

Quite frankly, taking this out of the courtroom and turning it into a legislative issue for the sole purpose of showing that the Democrats love god every bit as much as the Republicans is a flat-out losing strategy. It will alienate those who vote Dem to keep politics out of religion and it will offend the religious folks who will think the "Demon-craps" are pulling a fast one.

Why not let the courts work this issue out while the Dems concentrate on the very important issues, like recovering from Hurricane Katrina and Iraq? Instead of simply rolling over for the GOP, we could portray ourselves as sticking to the issues that affect everyone and portray THEM as the ones who want to meddle in the court system.

[Book Lover]

150. Are there no principled citizens in the middle?

You speak as if the middle were one homogenous mass ready to be led by ... what? If both parties agree on substantive issues, why should they choose us?

[Occulus]

73. Untrue

There are many people right here at DU who have had their children tell them they were either forced to stand for the pledge or were forced to say it.

You forget, SCOTUS does not sit in the classroom and teachers and administrators are free to punish and violate SCOTUS rulings at will- it is only AFTER the damage is done that they are told they are wrong, and in some cases, they even refuse to apologize to the student for violating their rights- mostly because they don't CARE about their "so-called right to be unpatriotic".

For the record, I'm getting tired of people blithely assuming that all authorities abide by unpopular SCOTUS rulings, especially when there are no authorities present to enforce those rulings, or when those very same authorities are the ones violating the rulings.

Walt, it doesn't MATTER to teachers who would force students to recite the pledge that the SCOTUS has ruled otherwise. When confronted even with the decision itself, many of them would say something along the lines of "well, maybe so, but this is MY classroom and in MY classroom we ALL stand and recite the pledge. Now, stand up and put your hand over your heart or go to the principal's office."

And when the student refuses, the principal gets called in and further humiliates the student right in front of their peers- illegally, I may add. But they just. Don't. Care.

Saying "nobody is FORCED" ignores the fact that students ARE forced (by teachers' threatening punishment for refusal), and in violation of a standing SCOTUS ruling.

In practical terms, the fact the SCOTUS ruled thus-and-so is meaningless if there are people free from oversight who are willing to defy the ruling. By the time the situation is "corrected" the damage is done, and they'll try any trick in the book to wiggle out of it- by claiming, for example, that the students' refusal to recite the pledge created a classroom disturbance, and so the student needed to be removed from class.

I really really hope you don't honestly believe this doesn't happen. I know you're not that naive.

[SaveElmer]

10. That's not it...

It's the timing and a question of priorities. I'd be perfectly happy if it was removed. But for most Americans, including I suspect a majority of Democrats even, this is a minor issue, only designed to whip up the right wing money machine.

[Walt Starr]

13. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING!!!!!

Give that man a ceeeegar!

[Warren DeMontague]

31. So if it's a "minor issue"

why are certain people here flogging it or overinflating its importance?

[SaveElmer]

40. The issue is minor...the reaction could be major

Because this is the kind of thing the media lives for...it could be a huge distraction in the end.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. If the media wants a distraction, they will find one.

I, for one, am not so eager to sell off core principles just to try to shut them up.

We already have one party of craven, religious-right pandering hypocrites. Do we really need two?

[SaveElmer]

58. You have to fight the fights you can fight....

Take it up under another banner...but the primary job of the party is to get Democrats elected. There is absoultely NO upside to taking this on as an issue. Just plays into stereotypes some have about Democrats with no esy way to reframe it.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. The only people suggesting taking it up as an issue

are people like Walt, who is saying we should float some bs -and clearly unconstitutional- "save the pledge" legislation as political cover.

It was a JUDGE who made the ruling, not Howard Frikken Dean. I think "under god" doesn't belong in the pledge, I will tell my kids to leave the room or mumble "under Bob" if they don't want to say it in school, I'm a Taoist who doesn't exactly buy the Western concept of "God"...

but it's not a front burner issue for me.

Saying that, however, doesn't mean I want my party to ACTIVELY pander to the religious right theocrat crowd on this.

[SaveElmer]

69. Walt is advocating a pre-emptive strike...

Too many times Democrats believe that issues like this will simply go away...but in reality it is issues like this that the media dreams of...it's a ratings bonanza for them. It would be a distraction we do not need, and out of which we could never look good. He is simply saying get it off the table now. It will have no practical effect on the disposition of the issue ultimately and would allow us to concentrate on Bush's failures

I do think however, that in this particular instance, it may be that the media is too distracted to really take it up. But I see where Walt is coming from and think it would be a good strategy were Democrats disciplined enough to pull it off.

[Warren DeMontague]

84. I think it would backfire, like the Terri Schiavo thing did for the GOP

Pandering is pandering.

Let them be the party of cheap smoke and mirrors and silly games. We've got real shit to deal with.

What Walt is proposing would SERIOUSLY alienate the people in our party who actually believe in the Constitution and the Separation of Church and State- and I hate to break it to you boyos, but y'all are going to have to jettison more than just us Atheists to win over the "God Squad".

[SaveElmer]

88. Well not if they understood the strategy...

But I do think it would be too much to pull off. And again he is not proposing jettisoning anybody. He is advocating a political strategy to keep us on the offensive...that is all.

I agree that the words Under God are unconstitutional and ought to be removed...and I am not offended because I see the larger benefit of handling it this way.

[mccoyn]

103. If the democrats approve it, I'm outta here.

Nope, no government agency should ever force me to acknowledge the existence of a God. If the democrats disagree with me on that then I'll have to go shopping elsewhere. I'm sorry, but thats just it.

If democrats take this strategy for political expediency then they are jettisoning me.

[SaveElmer]

114. Whatever...

If it isn't this I'm sure you will be gone over something else. Political Parties by definition cannot satisy everyone...every issue is the most important thing to someone...it's a matter of trying to represent most of the people most of the time.

[Modem Butterfly]

118. Gee, the Democrats used to be about defending the little guy...

You know, civil rights, reproductive rights, worker rights... Maybe if we went back to our roots instead of doing a poor impersonation of the other party we might start to win elections again. Just a thought.

[SaveElmer]

121. They are...

But when have Democrats fought tooth and nail on every issue. It's a matter of priority. If you take up bandwidth with the Pledge of Allegiance issue, which I guarantee is about 1000th on most people's list (including Democrats), you take the focus away from the important parts of your agenda, such as those you mentioned, and you lose on all of them.

[Modem Butterfly]

130. That's just the problem...

The only ones who are advocating the Dems take up bandwidth with the pledge are the folks who think the Dems should be defending the majority from the minority. The rest of us think it's a court matter.

[SaveElmer]

155. When has the media ever been stopped because...

It is just a court matter...it's a political matter!!! The actual importance is irrelevent to the media.

[Modem Butterfly]

53. So because something might be a huge distraction at some point...

...it's better to simply capitulate to the GOP before it's too late?

Really?

[SaveElmer]

60. Yep...sometimes you have to

For the greater good. Ultimately taking it up now would be more harmful to your cause.

[Modem Butterfly]

67. So who else should we ditch? Gays? Black people?

All those smart-assed women who think they should be able to control their own reproduction? Because once you start capitulating, it won't end. The GOP will not simply start playing nice if the Democrats surrender on one issue...

[SaveElmer]

72. You are simply misreading the stratagy...

For all but a minority of people, this is an extremely back burner issue...one that has nothing but negative consequences for Democrats politically, and one over which you can have no positive influence by advocating now. And all it does is move us off our core issues which include the issues you list. The public only has so much bandwidth, and if you clutter it with things that are of lesser importance your whole agenda suffers

[Modem Butterfly]

78. Then why make it a front burner issue?

We're talking about a court case, not a legislative issue, involving eight anonymous families, about whom we know nothing, let alone their party affiliation. So why should we break our necks by sucking up to the religious right? Do you suppose that this does anything other than take energy away from the other issues that we have facing us? Do you suppose this will somehow paralyze the religious right into stopping the lies and smear campaign? Do you suppose this will not alienate and offend a good chunk of our core base and sow dissension in our ranks?

[SaveElmer]

82. The point is...

That the media will make this an issue...as they do so many other minor issues...this is red meat for them. It was big last time it came up, and could be big now. Just like all the other irrelevent issues they turn into huge issues. The facts of the case, or who is involved, are irrelevent to them. Walt is saying we should go nuke on them right away, take the initiative away from them before it turns into another loser for us.

[Modem Butterfly]

87. The media already made this an issue last summer

And by the fall, no one was talking about it at all. In fact, the day after the election, there were many here on DU who blamed our losses on gays and choice, but no one who brought up the pledge as an issue...

[SaveElmer]

90. Would not prevent them from doing it again...

If it gets ratings...it'll come up again.

[Modem Butterfly]

92. Especially if we drop everything and pander to the right

Of course, it will have the side effect of making the GOP start playin nice...

:eyes:

[SaveElmer]

95. I hate to break it to you...

But pandering often works as a political strategy. Republicans have proven that. I'm not saying it should become SOS, but a little pander now and then for the greater good is not necessarily bad.

[Modem Butterfly]

97. Sure, just look at Terri Schiavo

[SaveElmer]

98. Yep...

Somtimes it backfires...especially if you do it on every issue as the Republicans invariably do!

[Warren DeMontague]

68. Who is "taking it up now"?

It's a COURT CASE. I haven't seen anyone suggest our party propose LEGISLATION taking "Under God" out of the Pledge, even though I personally believe it would be the right thing to do.

[SaveElmer]

74. Doesn't matter...

The media will portray it that way....and they will get some civil libertarian from the ACLU or someone that people associate with liberals to debate it, and the connection will be made.

[Warren DeMontague]

80. Well boo fucking hoo.

Maybe if times were great, and there weren't dead bodies floating in the streets of what once was New Orleans, and kids weren't coming home in boxes from a bullshit war predicated on lies, and 45 million Americans weren't without health insurance, and the deficit wasn't through the roof, and gas wasn't 3 bucks and rising..

Sure, they might make a go of turning it into a "real" issue. But with everything else on the table now, LET THEM FUCKING TRY.

[SaveElmer]

83. Yeah I am inclined to agree with you...

That in this time and place, they may not even make the attempt. But normally they would, and we are talking about the MSM here, I wouldn't put anything past them. I see Natalee Holliway is bubbling up again on their coverage.

[Warren DeMontague]

89. The MSM is a whole nother kettle of wax.

And if we tried Walt's idea, they would devote a whole month to coverage of "Democrats TRYING to PLAY the GOD GAME". They would find a way to spin it as phony like they did Al Gore's shirts.

Trying to "out smart" the media on shit like this is a waste of time. Far better, in my mind, to hammer home things like 45 MILLION AMERICANS WITH NO HEALTH COVERAGE and let them try to change the subject.

[SaveElmer]

91. It would only work...

If everyone were on board...otherwise the story would turn into one of bickering Democrats...

[Modem Butterfly]

149. It's been done

And it made no difference.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll445.xml

[Warren DeMontague]

153. THANK YOU!!!

And yeah, it royally pissed me off at the time- even Lynn Woolsey voted for it.

Please Note, Mr. Starr, the DATE on that Resolution- October of 2002. Therefore, all those folks you anecdotally referenced as voting against the Democrats for "Hating God" took NO NOTE WHATSOEVER of the 188 House Democrats- an overwhelming majority- who voted for this absolutely useless, nonsensical, pile-of-pandering legislation.

You want profiles in courage, I would look to the 5 house members who actually voted AGAINST it.

[Walt Starr]

41. I have no clue. All I want is for Democrats to get it off the table

in the most beneficial manner possible.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Well perhaps some edumacation of the public vis a vis the distinct

roles of the judiciary and the legislature might be in order..

I might also remind you, Walt, that the Terri Schiavo legislative grandstanding on the part of the GOP was not exactly the "values voter" win-win bonanza that they thought it would be.

[Modem Butterfly]

59. And get away from the atheists, right?

After all, we'll cost the Dems votes if we make too much noise, won't we?

[Walt Starr]

113. Man, you just cannot see the forest for those damned trees, can you? n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

123. I can see well enough to notice the GOP has been knocked on their heels...

...and I am astute enough to notice that it would be better for the party AND the country if we pressed the advantage rather than lose political momentum by trying to anticipate the GOP's PR moves...

[mccoyn]

125. Well said.

The democrats are in the best position they have been in for 3 years. Why waste that on a conservative agenda. We will have plenty of time to be powerless before the 2006 eleection.

[Walt Starr]

126. And you are going to stand back and let 'em get right back up

Sorry, but this issue is a loser for us with the vast majority of the coutnry. Like it or not, most Americans Looooove the "under god" phrase.

[Modem Butterfly]

137. No, I think we need to focus on the VERY PRESSING issues at hand

You know, like New Orleans, Iraq, our failed energy policy, our failing economic policies...

[Walt Starr]

142. Then what the fuck are you complaining about?

I give up.

goodbye.

[Modem Butterfly]

143. The folks who think that a good chunk of the Dem base...

...needs to be repudiated because the GOP MIGHT try to slime the party.

[Walt Starr]

145. From where I sit, you don't have a clue about what you are talking n/t

[Modem Butterfly]

14. So the answer to that is to have the Dems embrace "under god"...

...and repudiate the heathens? That makes no sense.

[Walt Starr]

17. I am a Pagan, it's not repudiating me

It's moving the fucked up issue off the fucking table, nothing more.

[Modem Butterfly]

21. You think that just because you're a theist, you're immune?

Please, Walt.

[Walt Starr]

26. No, I think it's meaningless as an issue and...

making any sort of a big deal over a nonsense issue like this is not only counterproductive, it's STUPID!

[Modem Butterfly]

27. If you think it's meaningless...

...why are you so ready to carry the GOP's water on this issue? Why should the Dems drop to their knees and service the Xian right on such a meaningless issue?

[Walt Starr]

34. IT'S NOT CARRYING GOP WATER DAMNIT!

It is operating as if we are at WAR, which we are.

But go ahead, make politcal hay out of bullshit and the next thing you know, we'll lose next year, but you'll feel oh so empower3ed, right before the REAL theocracy becomes reality.

:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

46. If you think we're at war, what do we win by surrendering?

If we simply lay down our arms on this issue, do you suppose the GOP will start to play nice?

[Walt Starr]

52. Who's surrendering?

This is laying bait.

I suggest you read Sun Tzu. Much to learn from a medievel general.

[Modem Butterfly]

56. You are, Walt.

You are.

[Walt Starr]

66. No, I'm not, YOU ARE

You're falling for the baited trap of the enemy. Thay WANT you all riled up over this issue demanding the words "under god" be immediately stricken from the pledge, oh and take that "In God We Trust" shit off our money, too!

You are falling right into their fucking hands and you are doing it precisely the way they want you to.

And you know what, you are surrendering more than any wimpy Dem who was elected and voted in faovr of the IWR by doing so. This is precisely the reaction they want because no matter what, no matter how passionate you feel, and no matter how logical your arguments, WE CANNOT WIN ON THIS BULLSHIT ISSUE which makes YOU the person surrendering.

[Modem Butterfly]

70. We don't even know if the parents in this lawsuit are Democrats, Walt

Instead of having the party focused on the EXTREMELY pressing issues of the moment, you want us to dance to the GOP's music and race to make what is essentially a court battle into a legislative one.

"Falling right into their fucking hands" indeed.

[Walt Starr]

109. It doesn't matter, the issue is already tied directly to the Dem Party

and that is a fact.

At best, we break even on this issue if we do nothing to "Save Our Pledge".

Unfortunatley, that's the politcal reality because Democrats are PERCEIVED as the anti-god party.

[Modem Butterfly]

110. How is it tied to the Democratic party?

It's not a Democratic platform, it's not an issue for Democrats, and Michael Newdow himself isn't a Dem. The only way it's been tied to the Dems is through successful GOP PR. And you can't fight PR by catering to it.

[Walt Starr]

111. P-E-R-C-E-P-T-I-O-N

It's the perception that has taken decades for the GOP to build within the electorate. We are tied directly to it because Joe Barcalounger and Mushy Marvin from the Midwest PERCEIVE the Democratic Part to be tied to it.

Absolute dead best we canb do is MAYBE break even if we ignore the damned thing.

[Modem Butterfly]

117. So you advocate PLAYING into that perception?

Really, I don't think you thought this one through. At least, I hope you haven't.

The GOP has an excellent slime machine, but even that can't build this issue up into a vote-getter without our help. What we need to do is actually focus on the issues that are on our plate. The GOP has been knocked on its heels by the war, the leak scandal, and Katrina. This is NOT the time to roll over on one of their pet issues.

[Walt Starr]

122. Noooo, I advocate turning that perception on its ears.

:eyes:

[Modem Butterfly]

124. And losing whatever momentum we have, while alienating much of our base

Um... which side are you on again?

[Walt Starr]

127. Much of our base??????????

I call bullshit on that one.

Again, you advocate us losing next year over a bullshit issue.

Nobody forces anybody to utter the bullshit and the vast majority of the coutnry (probably 70-80%) support keeping the phrase there.

You advocate a losing position and you advocate swinging the momentum back tot he Republcians at a key moment.

[Modem Butterfly]

132. A lot of people who vote Dem don't like their religion mixed with politics

I hate to break it to you.

The only one who's advocating losing is you, Walt, by advocating we play right into the GOPs hands at exactly the time when we have political momentum on our side.

[Walt Starr]

135. No, you are the one advocating playing into their hands

They are laying back just DROOLING over your desire to fight this bullshit issue when they know damned well and good that the moment any Democrat on a naitonal level picks this one up, they get to pound away at it for months on end because Democrats hate god.

And Democrats like you just cannot wait to take the bait.

It's disgusting. It's like I'm watching the Roman Legion at the height of its strength walking into the forest armed to the hilt only to be decimated by a bunch of little guys who fight naked and are painted blue.

[Modem Butterfly]

139. Laying back is right, Walt

They have been shoved down the stairs, so to speak, by world events, the most recent being the fuck ups surrounding Katrina. To squander our chance, and the nation's chance, on what the GOP MIGHT do is stupid at best.

[Walt Starr]

141. I guarantee you, if the Dems jump on this, we will have fewer than 40 Dems

in the Senate next year.

Guaranteed.

[Modem Butterfly]

144. My point exactly

If the Dems jump on this and follow your hare-brained scheme, we'll lose for sure.

[Walt Starr]

146. Bass Ackwards, as you ahve been throughout this thread

:eyes:

I'm done with you, and will never darken another of your threads. I see no way we can ever agree on anything.

[Modem Butterfly]

147. So dramatic, Miss Scarlett?

:rofl:

[Warren DeMontague]

75. There is a difference between "winning", "losing"

and aping the other side's bald-faced, craven hypocrisy and pandering.

Which, I'm sorry to say, Walt, is what you are suggesting.

It's a RULING. It's not our problem, and personally, it's not a huge-front burner for me. I disagree with you, we CAN ignore it, and the more we ignore it and the more they try to talk it up like it's important shit--- right now, the more clear it becomes that THEY don't have any REAL answers for this country. It's like fucking FLAG BURNING. I DARE THEM to bring up the god-damn flag burning amendment now, while the numbers of dead from Bush's incompetence are still being counted in New Orleans. That kind of crap is a LUXURY for when times are good, and buddy, times are REALLY FUCKED, NOW.

A judge brought this to the fore, not us. I say we just ignore it and LET THEM get all hysterical about it. Ma and Pa Kettle have bigger fish to fry than the pledge and those pesky "God-hatin'" Democrats.

[Walt Starr]

116. Hopefully, you're right, because the kneejerks won't accept an attempt

to make gains from teh issue.

[July]

159. The best response to this is the 1943 decision.

If more people knew what it said about our freedoms and WHY we must defend the rights of those who don't want to pledge, at least some would get it. The decision explains it very clearly. And I think it was no coincidence that it was issued on FLAG DAY in wartime.

[SaveElmer]

18. No...ignore the issue altogether...

Or reframe it as a Right Wing stunt designed to divide the country...like so many others (Terry Schiavo, Gay rights etc).

This really is not a fight national Democrats ought to take on...there is no upside to it politically.

[Walt Starr]

19. Neither way gets you anything. Democrats still hate god

and that is how it comes off. sorry if you don't like political reality, but there it is.

[SaveElmer]

23. Yeah...that is how they will portray it...

Best we can do is minimize it...

I actually think with all that is going on this is not even gonna get alot of media attention...even though this is the kind of thing they usually salivate over!

[Modem Butterfly]

25. It's a story that was covered extensively last summer

The press smells blood in the water over Katrina (literally as well as figuritvely). Which makes this urge to purge so mysterious...

[Walt Starr]

28. Nope, we can make it go away forever with a single simple move

And it would be by doing precisely what the Repugnants have done for decades.

We propose legislation that we know damned well and good will never stand up to constitutional muster and put the damned issue right back in the laps of the Repukes.

It's simple. We are at war. If we don't fight this like a war, we'll continue tilting at windmills and wasting our resources and losing elections.

Next stop, the Republicans have 61 Senators because Mushy Marvin from the Middle votes Republcian because he PERCEIVES Democrats hate god. Then the filibuster (you know the filibuster, the last bit of power wielded by Democrats) is gone forever and we end up in a REAL theocracy.

[SaveElmer]

35. Not a bad strategy politically...

Course that would raise a hue and cry on the left! Everyone would have to be on board with a strategy like this, otherwise the pledge story would be enhanced with a story about bickering Democrats.

[Walt Starr]

47. Yep, based solely upon the kneejerks here

it probably would not fly enough so we can pick up Mushy Marvin from the Middle, which is sad. We have such an opportunity here.

And like I said, the legislation would clearly be unconsitutional, which would be the point. The Republicans have used this strategy for decades.

[SaveElmer]

54. Not the kind of strategy Democrats can usually pull off...

Takes discipline we have never exhibited!

[Walt Starr]

57. That's the sad thing

We go off wasting resources on bogus bullshit while the Republcians conserve their forces for the battles which matter.

[SaveElmer]

64. That's true...but

Curiosly it is one of the things that keeps me a Democrat. I wish, as you do that we could be more disciplined on things like this. We lose the forest for the tree too much. But the Republicans are so good at it, that it really shows how lacking in principle they are!!!

[SmokingJacket]

36. Ah, you said it better. Thanks. nt

[MadHound]

11. Same motive as the people who were willing to dump

Abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights, etc. during the '04 election. They don't think that the Democratic party can win with such "baggage" hanging around, and are willing to throw it all overboard in an effort to win at all costs. Yet they fail to realize that by becoming 'Pug lite, not only will they still continue to lose(after all, who is going to vote for 'Pug lite when they can have the real thing), but even if the party then did win, the cost of such a win would be too much to bear.

[Bridget Burke]

16. So--you're complaining about one thread.

Why not post your complaint there?

What about people who start threads slamming any story involving religion--even if it is not politically relevant?

[Modem Butterfly]

22. Actually, there's been a number of threads

And this is really a separate question. What drives people to want to move the party away from its roots of defending the minority from the tyrrany of the majority?

[Bridget Burke]

33. Go to each of those threads & ask there.

I fully believe in separation of church & state, so I can't speak for these people who are persecuting you.

The most recent thread was slightly sarcastic.

[Modem Butterfly]

50. Again, this is a separate question

And I believe it merits its own thread.

[Bridget Burke]

61. Can you at least count the threads?

Why blame everybody at DU?

[Modem Butterfly]

63. I'm not blaming everyone at DU

[Rowdyboy]

20. Americans are funny people....They like to say they're religious but

most very rarely attend church and have only the vaguest of notions of whats in the Bible (and many of those notions are wrong). But they LOVE to appear religious and to defend religiosity vigorously.

Its frustrating to have people who agree with you on major issues like abortion, civil rights, the war in Iraq and even some GLBT rights but then vote Republican because of ridiculous wedge issues the "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, flag burning and the damned 10 commandments.

Personally, I think the pledge is a farce (though I repeated it as a child), I think flag burning is protected free speech, and the 10 commandments belong in the Bible and in churches-not public building. Those issues just don't matter to me like Iraq, civil liberties, the economy and a scandalously incompetent and corrupt government.

I'm a Christian (at least in name) who despises having anyone else's religion forced down my throat. However, that issue is relatively minor to me-its "not the hill I want to die on"

[mopaul]

38. symbols trump reality every time

the pledge is utterly pointless, to chant daily, or to argue over, red meat for the easily excited. americans love a symbolic gesture more than an actual one. bush standing in the world trade center rubble with a bullhorn and a fireman as a prop.

the perception is more important than the reality

[SmokingJacket]

32. I LOATHE having religion forced down my throat.

But I don't want to be tricked into making the wording of the dumbass pledge the new Topic of the Day. It's the kind of knee-jerk issue that could get my old war-widow granny to vote republican.

No one's talking about purging the party.

[Walt Starr]

37. DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

And remember, none are so blind as those who REFUSE to see.

[Modem Butterfly]

62. Yet that is exactly what some here advocate

By playing directly into the GOP game of "who loves god more".

[RetroLounge]

42. Yeah, I think they should be purged out of the party.

Because we don't want to piss off Republicans (and DLC'ers)

Lets purge minorities too.
and women.
and gays.
and non-Xtians.

and anything else that may distract from whatever it is that is distracting.

Sad that so-called Democrats can't keep two thought in their minds.

RL

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

45. Just part of the continuing war between the DLC and progressives.

The "bend over to win elections" wing and the "Stand for something wing" are still fighting for the heart of the Democratic Party.

[jackelope72]

71. Oh, for _________ sake!

(fill in the blank with the possessive of your choice. I would say "for God's sake" or "for Christ's sake" or "for Pete's sake" or even "for Heaven's sake", but I wouldn't want to be accused of ramming religion down somebody's throat)

But let's use a little common sense here. What is it we tell people when they complain about nudity or language in a movie or on t.v.? "Don't watch it, then. Turn the channel. Leave the movie theater."

Well, the same thing applies here. If you object to "under God" in the pledge, simply skip over that part. Remain silent while everybody else says it. If you don't believe in saying the pledge, don't say it. It's stupid to pledge allegiance to a flag, anyway. If you don't believe in singing the National Anthem or "God Bless America", don't sing it. If you don't believe in praying, then don't pray. But let those who do believe in it, do what they believe in. Conversely, if someone comes over to your house for dinner and wants to pray before the meal, there's nothing wrong with POLITELY telling them, "I'm sorry, but we don't believe in prayer here. But if you want to silently offer up a prayer while we begin eating, feel free."

The fact of the matter is, in this country, a vast majority of the people at least think they believe in God, and since we live in a country where the majority vote is SUPPOSED to rule (I know, recent events have not borne that out, but...) we will never be able to completely stamp out the mixing of the religious and the political. And worse, the harder one tries, the more reviled they are going to be by the very people they are trying to convince and win over.

If the Democratic party is going to have any hope of regaining control the Presidency and at least one of the Houses (and right now that's a very big IF) then the party is going to have to concentrate on issues that it has hope of winning. And this is not one of them.

It's been my experience that people who set out to change the world, or even the country, will more often than not meet not only with failure, but with SPECTACULAR failure. I've found that people are much more effective when they focus on changing those people around them, the ones with whom they come in contact every day. Change those people, and watch the way they change others, and then watch the ripples go!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. What part of the Establishment clause don't you get.

Just as racists are free to express their views as individuals there is a huge difference between some redneck shouting "nigger" and codifying it into law. So, is the case of codifying religion into law.

"What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia

[jackelope72]

105. You know that and I know that...

All I'm saying is that until people with a more progressive agenda than our current administration come into power, there may be a need to focus on issues that we have some hope of winning. Right or wrong, good or bad, in our country's current emotional and political climate, the separation of church and state is not a battle we can win. And if we fight it, we may end up doing more harm to ourselves than good.

[Modem Butterfly]

108. Which begs the question of why some folks advocate focusing on this issue.

Some people advocate dropping everything and focusing on this issue to prove that the Dems don't hate god.

[jackelope72]

112. Okay, so...who are we supposed to be mad at again?

The people who are focusing on this issue, or the people who are ignoring it? Or are we just supposed to be mad at everybody?

[Modem Butterfly]

119. The people who think now is the time to drop everything...

...and distance ourselves from people who think religion and politics should be separate.

[Bridget Burke]

138. Even the people who don't mind about the Pledge....

Are not saying "drop everything." And they manage to participate in threads dealing with other topics.

But what's the point of starting a thread every time a story dealing with religion hits the news? Especially when there is no political connection?

Personally, I'm an Atheist & don't like the Pledge. But religion is meaningful to some pretty good people.

[Modem Butterfly]

140. That's fine but doesn't really pertain to this thread

Thanks for your input, though.

[jackelope72]

152. Let me put it this way...

I am a gay man who was raised in a VERY fundamentalist Xian family. With one or two exceptions, everybody in my family believes there should be prayer in schools, prayer in the courts, prayer at sporting games. They also believe that gays do not deserve ANY of the same rights given to others. They support Bush, his economic policies, and this war.

Now...

If I were, every time we had a family get-together, to pull out my soapbox and start ranting about gay rights, gay marriage, and the separation of church and state, I would either be shouted down, shouted at, or roundly ignored. In either case, nothing that I said would be heard. And all that I would have as my defense is beliefs. My belief in separation of church and state. My belief in the rights of EVERY PERSON to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also have their beliefs. Belief running up against belief. Impasse.

But...

On the other issues...the bigger issues, even though they may not affect my life or my emotions as directly...I have facts to back me up. I can--and do--show them how, when Clinton left office, we had the largest surplus ever. And how, not even halfway through Bush's first term, we had been sunk into the largest deficit ever--and it's growing! I can--and do--point out how the WMD's were a lie, how there are no viable ties between Sadaam and Al-Qaida, how this war and Bush's policies are leading this country to economic and political ruin.

And you know what?

I've managed to convince a few of them. They still may not agree with me on separation of church and state, or on equal rights for homosexuals, or on abortion, but they're starting second-guessing their opinion on Bush and his administration. And once that one domino falls...

That's what I'm getting at. We are not going to be able to convince the people of this country to join us by saying that THEIR beliefs do not belong in government. It's like Chris Rock said in "Dogma": "You can change an idea. Beliefs are a lot harder." But if you whittle away at them from a fact-based standpoint, use WHAT IS as a weapon rather than WHAT SHOULD BE, you'll get a lot further.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. Oh, baloney.

People are cowering in fear of the so-called "values voter" and claiming that the religious right has some kind of mandate. I think that's a pantload, frankly. The majority of Americans are pro-choice, for example. Likewise, the majority of Americans support the separation of Church and State.


Let's not cede any more influence to the would-be theocrats than they deserve.

[Az]

115. There is a difference between a gov mandated pledge and going to a movie

The government cannot take sides in religious issues. Period.

[jackelope72]

120. SHOULD not. The government SHOULD not take sides.

It obviously CAN, since it HAS and is CONTINUING to do so. And the reason it CAN and IS doing so, is because the people of this nation have allowed it to. And their minds aren't going to be changed by a bunch of shouting crusaders. If anything, it's going to make them get stubborn, and dig in harder.

[Az]

128. I stand by my words

Just because they doing it does not make it right. It is in violation of the constitution. According to the constitution they cannot take sides in matters of belief.

As to digging in. When was the last time the Dems dug in on something?

[More Than A Feeling]

77. Don't forget the people...

who want their religion removed from other's throats. After all, if something is jammed down your throat, you vomit, and who wants their religion lying in a pool of vomit? No one, that's who.

[Az]

106. Having your cake and eating it too

A democrat with a spine would reply that they don't believe the phrase belongs in the pledge but there are more important matters to focus on.

Politics is not about focusing on only one thing to the exclusion of others. The focus should be on important things. But there can be some effort made to do the right thing even if its a political loser. Simply because it establishes who you are. It shows you have a spine and will fight for the things you believe in. This is consistantly the single biggest image problem the Dems have. Long term fighting for the right things repairs our image and puts our people back in office.

Being spineless and going along with repug positions merely makes us lapdogs.

[patcox2]

131. Because you are sinking the ship over a trivial issue.

That issue being your hypersensitivity and martyr complex over a frigging meaningless word in a meaningless pledge.

Do what I did, say it, mangling the words (for Richard Stans is good for an internal chuckle) and smile to yourself inside over how stupid it all is and how stupid the people who get off on it are.

But no, so many people whine and moan and demand, self-righteously demand, that the democratic party make this a major issue.

[Modem Butterfly]

134. Actually, that's just what I'm arguing against

There are some folks who think we need to drop everything right now and try to anticipate what the GOP will do.

[question everything]

133. Where did you get that? Can you provide a link

for those of us who cannot read every single post?
Thanks

[Career Prole]

136. I object to the whole damned pledge.

They can put us out of work anytime they want to just because they found it a bit cheaper somewhere else yet I'm supposed to pledge my loyalty? HA!

I ain't pledging, period.

Call me a fealty free-marketer.

[Patiod]

148. Our Christian school won't allow the pledge or the flag

Our state tried to insist that every schoolchild have a flag in the front of their classroom, and that they stand and recite the pledge every day.

We basically wrote to our legislators and said "if this passes, our Friends School will refuse to observe it."

Because of the number of Quaker, Amish and Mennonite schools, which are strongly anti-militaristic and anti-pledging allegiance to anyone except God, they had to back down, and force this down the throats of only public schools.

It amazes me the otherwise thoughtful, moderate people who think that a day without the Pledge is like a day under freakin Stalin or something.

[DanCa]

151. blink blink are the freepers at it again?

And am I the only Christian who thinks public prayer is rude? What happened to respecting the privacy of others and manners.