POLITICS -IN BEAR WE TRUST:

For those of you who actually read DPTB, you know that I am by no means a regular blogger. Why? Simple. Just like you, I have a very busy life and blogging just doesn’t always become a priority. So be it. Just let it be known that when I finally do make an entry, it’s usually for a good reason, so don’t worry about having to sift through mindless babble looking for substance.

Today’s issue is as it has been for weeks. Michael Newdow and the Pledge of Allegiance. For those of you unfortunate enough to have sat through FOX’s first broadcast of The Pulse, you probably witnessed Bill O’Reilly’s pathetic assault on Newdow and his principles. This was very well one of the most ignorant arguments against Newdow I’ve yet to witness. O’Reilly used the dictionary and the Declaration of Independence to justify using the word God in the pledge, as if the pledge were drafted and enacted by the founding fathers or God himself.

Bill O’Reilly’s thinking is unfortunately shared by a large number of Americans who believe that the separation of church and state (public schools in particular) is conceptually attractive, yet a violation of their God-fearing principles once put into action. Bill’s thoughts are so skewed by what he believes history should do for this country that he can't see straight. If this country is so heavily dictated by history and Christianity, then why move forward at all? Why not go back to the Old Testament - you know, the one that was updated to make it more palatable for the masses? You know, the one that said your hands should be cut off for touching a pig's skin and women should be locked away during menstruation? Come on, that's from the mouth of God, right? If our country is founded on and dictated by God, let's get right back to where we belong. Or wait; did God change his mind and progress with the times? Did God commission the New Testament because the old one was outdated? What? God amended his own constitution? Holy crosses, Bill! Maybe you better rethink your ignorant argument!

Oreilly states that Newdown was “…violating my rights by trying to rewrite the history of my country.” What? Does O’Reilly think that history solely defines what should and should not be? Does he think that the pledge is part of our country’s founding history? Does he know that it was part of a marketing campaign for a flag manufacturer? A campaign that never included “Under God” until 1954 and was actually augmented on at least two other occasions to fit the changing times?

O’Reilly states, “There is no question that America was set up to allow its citizens to be free because the Framers of the Constitution believed that was why God created man – to exercise free will. It is simply unconscionable for activist judges and fanatical atheists to intrude on the history of the United States.” Last time I checked, the American constitution was set up to accommodate the changing perceptions and needs of the people of this country. For O’Reilly to suggest that Newdow and the 9th District are intruding on history is as ignorant as saying that the constitution should be followed as it was originally written, minus any amendments.

O’Reilly is missing the boat here. Newdow and his constituents are exercising the government the way it was intended, to ensure equal and fair treatment for all Americans, regardless of creed, faith, or any other factor.

Cheers