Before moving on to another topic, I have one more comment to make about Sarah Palin.
I have to thank the Friendly Atheist for bringing this to my attention:
In 2006, a questionnaire was sent to all candidates for the gubernatorial race in Alaska.
One of the questions was this:
11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
Here is Sarah Palin’s answer:
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
Now, for me, the issue of ‘under god’ in the pledge is no big deal. I’d rather it not be there, and if we voted I’d be against it, but it’s not something I’m going to go to rallies and protest about.
My issue here is the ignorance of the Vice Presidential candidate.
It is one thing to be in favor of having the words “Under God” in the pledge. It is quite another to either misrepresent or be ignorant of the history of what you’re talking about.
If you have no idea what I’m talking about, let me explain.
The pledge was written in 1892. That’s over 100 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence by our Founding Fathers. The Founding Fathers weren’t even alive when the pledge was written to give it their endorsement.
But I understand. The 1800s and 1700s get a bit confused in my head, so I can give her a bit of a pass on the dates.
Unfortunately, I can’t give her a pass on the pledge itself. You see, the words “Under God” were not in the original version. Those words, in fact, were not added officially until 1954.
So suggesting that the Founding Fathers were somehow in favor of those words, which weren’t in a pledge that was written decades after they had died, is at the least ignorant and at the worst deceptive.
I have no problem when people disagree with me on issues. But if we’re going to disagree, at least get your facts straight.