two-twenty

god is sooooooo 1954

Yesterday, an unprepossessing emergency room doctor / non-practicing lawyer from California laid the smackdown on the rise of right wing religious political influence in America. He did so by effectively, and with Orwellian clarity of language, arguing against the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The admittedly non-denominational but gratuitously religious insertion was made by Congress in 1954, in a move now widely regarded as an attempt to distinguish America from the 'Godless communists' that we were then so ferociously engaged in battle against.

The doctor-cum-lawyer in question, Michael A. Newdow, appears to be one smart cookie, but his mission is aided by the simple fact that there does not, in fact, exist any logical or even coherent argument for retaining the phrase. Further bolstering Dr. Newdow's case was the fact that the opposing counsel, Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson, is a blithering, jargon-spewing idiot. Let's take a look at a sampling of the goings-on, and see if we can't parse things a bit (all excerpts taken from the NY Times transcript):

JUSTICE JOHN PAUL STEVENS Do you think that the pledge has the same meaning today as when it was enacted - when the words, under God, were inserted into the prayer, into the pledge? (ed. umm... love it when Freudian slips sew your case up for you in the first five minutes!)

MR. OLSON It's an important question because the reference to under God in the pledge, as numerous decisions of this court have indicated in dicta, what as a part of a thought process of coming about to the conclusion that it is an acknowledgment of the religious basis of the framers of the Constitution, who believed not only that the right to revolt, but that the right to vest power in the people to create a government became, came as a result of religious principles. In that sense, the Pledge of Allegiance is today, that has that same significance to this country as it did in 1954 when it was amended.

Okay whoa whoa whoa let's stop here. First of all, "It's an important question because..."!? That's like how we used to start our essays in fifth grade. We'll let you marvel at the absurdity of the language without our help, but we cannot give Olson a bye on his shameless attempt to connect the founding fathers (who did NOT include "under God" in the pledge) with McCarthy-era Quislings (who most certainly did) through the most amateurish of associative "logic". Anyway...

JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG Your argument is that there's a stronger case now than there would have been 50 years ago?

MR. OLSON Yes, Justice Ginsburg, and that is for many reasons, for -- because of the reason that I just made, but also because the Congress revisited this issue in 2002 after the decision below in this case. There are findings in the record which are a part of the brief, with respect to what the -- what the pledge means, the context of the pledge in its historical context, in the connection with its civic invocation, its ability to invoke certain principles that are indisputably true, which gave rise to the institutions which have given us freedom over all this period of time.

Translation: blah blah blah FREEDOM blah. Don't you love how people who want to impose their views on the rest of us are the first to throw around buzzwords like "freedom" and "liberty"? If the word "ironic" wasn't so played out right now we would use it here to describe the odd disconnect between what these people say and what they mean. Seriously, if this guy thought he could interject something about the "War on Terror" he certainly would. Blech. It is at least somewhat heartening, in a cruel mean-spirited sense, to see that Mr. Olson cannot construct a complete sentence to save his life or, quite literally, his God.

In contrast, let's take a look at a question asked of Dr. Newdow, and his response:

JUSTICE KENNEDY Well, now, it -- it -- let's suppose, I thought the case turned on whether this was a religious exercise.

MR. NEWDOW I think it definitely is [a religious exercise], and it is because the two words are, under God, and I can't see of anything that's not religious, under God... It fails the endorsement test, it fails the outsider test. Imagine you're this one child with a class full of theists and you have this idea that you want to perhaps at least consider and you have everyone imposing their view on you, it fails every test this Court has ever come up with, and there's a principle here and I'm hoping the Court will uphold this principle so that we can finally go back and have every American want to stand up, face the flag, place their hand over their heart and pledge to one nation, indivisible, not divided by religion, with liberty and justice for all.

Dr. Newdow must have felt like he was shooting fish in a barrel.

Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge | NY Times
Excerpts From Arguments on the Meaning of "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance | NY Times