Why wont they say what they believe?
Published on April 29, 2004 By greywar In Politics

            Yesterday while leading the House of Representatives in the Pledge of Allegiance Rep. Jim McDermott (Democrat – Washington State) gave the C-SPAN cameras a bit of showmanship. When McDermott got to the words “under God” in the pledge he very visibly shut has mouth and clamped his lips together, as though highlighting that he would not say that particular bit of the pledge. McDermott was in close-up for the whole pledge and was informed that it would be so prior to broadcast. For those unfamiliar with the pledge of allegiance I reprint it below :

 

I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

            While I am not a religious man and have no particular attachment to religious terminology in government, there was in fact something here that offends my sensibilities: McDermott wont admit why he did it! This I find repulsive. After the Representatives office was inundated with people disparaging him for the recital, McDermott did not say that he did so out of opposition to the words “under god” in the pledge. He did not say that he omitted the words to emphasize his opposition to anything smacking of Church and State. No, instead Rep. McDermott’s office apologist Mike DeCesare put forth the excuse the McDermott had made a mistake. He explained that McDermott had been taught the pledge as a child without the words under god (the words were not added until 1950) and simply had a mental slip. I find this to be slippery at best. 50 *years* are not enough to have re-memorized it? Please, do not insult my intelligence Mike DeCesare.

            The icing to this cake came later when Mike DeCesare changed the story! The second explanation was that McDermott was unsure if he should say the words because a recent ruling by the 9th Circuit Court was being deliberated upon by the Supreme Court and had not been resolved. He did not want to run afoul of the courts. Assuming you overlook the howling illogic between the first explanation and the second, (they both can’t be true), I still find McDermott’s response to be cowardly.

            If you hold a belief hold it. Don’t make a half-assed political grandstand play on national television and then shrink away at the first hint of criticism. Tell me what you believe Jim. I may not agree with it but I will certainly respect you a lot more for it.

            

 

 

            


Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Apr 29, 2004
personally I don't see a problem with saying the words people have been saying for eons whether or not they believe it. It's like a formality. It's not demanding people belive in God. Just say the words and it's done! Religion and politics are like oil and water. Like Canada's "we stand on guard for thee". We say it, but I don't think every person that sings the national anthem is willing to pick up a gun and fight any intruders. I would of course, on my own soil, but many, I'm sure, wouldn't. Are they guilty of lying or something? Of course not.
on Apr 29, 2004
I agree miki, I wouldn't take it out either, just wish Jim would tell us his damn opinion.
on Apr 29, 2004
I couldn't find any statements from the Congressman's office about the incident you are mentioning, but back at the beginning of March, he said:

Congressman, this Pledge of Allegiance case is coming up. In your opinion, should the Supreme Court order the word "God" be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance?

MCDERMOTT: I personally don't think it adds anything to the Pledge of Allegiance, and I personally don't say, "under God."

You just sort of pause there and let other people say it.

MCDERMOTT: Yeah. I consider it an infringement I don't like. I don't like infringements of Church and State. And so I don't know that I'm rigid, but I try to be consistent.


Looks like he's thought this out.
on Apr 29, 2004
Yes I know McDermott has been on the record *before* yesteray's business but I demand consistency. He was obviously against it before and has even *voted* against it previously, why wont he come clean about it now? Hmmm... election year? Thanks for the comment shades. I like people who bring actual content and research into the comment block. It is a nice change.
on Apr 29, 2004
Having been a Hill Staffer--sometimes what the staff is saying and what the boss is saying don't line up. DeCesare could have thought that his boss made a huge mistake and was trying to get him out of hot water. The Congressman could think that what he did was fine--but this is merely me speculating and has no foundation in reality.
on Apr 29, 2004
Hmmm... election year?


I'm not sure that this would have an effect, because since the House only has two year terms it's like they are constantly in an election year...but something's fishy...

on Apr 29, 2004
Shades - McDermott actually put this out in written prepared statements delived by Mikey.... Thanks for the insight though, I wish I had taken the opportunity to work more closely with the Legislative Branch.
on Apr 29, 2004
McDermott actually put this out in written prepared statements delived by Mikey


Really? I couldn't find it, all I saw was "spokesman, Mike DeCesare said." Well, I stand corrected...I'm not going to try to defend him any longer
on Apr 29, 2004
Yes, I agree with everyone. Consistency is vital for political image. Part of me thinks it would be better to take the unpopular choice and stick to it, then to pick the unpopular one and then give in (like he did).
on Apr 29, 2004
This is what the hometown newspaper says about McDemrmott Seattle Times
McDermott is very popular in Seattle which is a liberal city and he doesn't have to worry about re-election.
on Apr 29, 2004
just another case of political grandstanding; [pure and simple] why else would those camras be looking down his throat? I mean if they could have. Its to bad our Reps. aren't as aware as you are greywar!......charlie poore
on Apr 29, 2004
Is it fair to call Rep. McDermott a godless man? The pledge is SO vague that all it requires is that people admit that we as a nation are "under God". Wow. What a concept. How about "one nation more powerful than God" or "one nation equal to God"? If you were to poll the populace of the US with those three possibilities, which do we think would come out ahead? The only people we're offending, if they're the offendable type, are atheists, who are clearly cracked anyhow, so who cares?

Can you tell I'm in a grumpy mood tonight?
on Apr 29, 2004
Can you tell I'm in a grumpy mood tonight?


Umm....yes. What's wrong?
on Apr 29, 2004
Umm....yes. What's wrong?
I'm at my limit today. Too much to do, too little sleep. I have acute Modernlifeitus.

on Apr 29, 2004
Could be worse, you could still be living with me....
2 Pages1 2