I know, I know, you don’t need another reason, and this one is admittedly not as serious as #LegitimateRape-gate, but just to add fuel to the fire…
Last summer, when NBC broadcast golf’s U.S. Open championship, the intro to the broadcast featured the American flag, and soldiers, and students reciting the Pledge of Allegiance. But the words “Under God” were omitted from the segment:
If you watch the tape, it’s pretty clear it wasn’t intentional. It’s just the way it was edited. Still, NBC later had to apologize to Congress over the “gaffe.”
At the time, Rep. Todd Akin was one of the politicians flipping out over the omission:
AKIN: This was something that was done systematically, it was done intentionally, and is tremendously corrosive in terms of all of the values and everything that’s made America unique and such a special nation.
Family Research Council’s TONY PERKINS: Why would NBC do this?
AKIN: Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of things that have been such a blessing to our country… This is a systematic effort to try to separate our faith and God, which is a source in our belief in individual liberties, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country.
Akin proposed something called the Pledge Protection Act in response to atheist Michael Newdow‘s challenge to remove “Under God” from the Pledge.
He did it in 2002:
No court established by Act of Congress shall have jurisdiction to hear or determine any claim that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, as set forth in section 4 of title 4, violates the first article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
And 2003 (though it was called the Pledge Protection Act of 2004):
No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance, as defined in section 4 of title 4, or its recitation… The limitation in this section shall not apply to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia or the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
And 2005. (Virtually the same as before with some new formatting.)
None of his bills ever got support from the Senate. It’s unconstitutional, really, to say “The courts are not allowed to determine whether or not this one thing is legal!”
Still, the man knows how to hold a grudge.
Not that you needed another reason not to support him. He’s bad for women, we know that. But he’s also bad on issues of church/state separation. Or at least he’s bad on this one issue. Repeatedly.
(via Chicago Magazine)