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.
Suddenly Atheist 
Wouldn’t the comment about the founding father’s be in reference to the phrase “under God” and not the pledge? The founding father’s would have been very familiar with the phrase “under God.” Besides that, does the phrase “founding father’s” refer only to the nation’s leaders in the 1700’s? Why wouldn’t Abraham Lincoln be considered a “founding father?” Is the founding of a nation only the first year, the first decade? Wouldn’t you say that the Civil War and the settling of the west were significant to the founding of the nation even though they were “100 years after” the initial 13 colonies formed States?
By: Ben Maulis on September 2, 2008
at 12:30 pm
For that matter, Alaska wasn’t founded as part of the nation until 1867, as a territory in 1912 and as a State in 1959. So in fact, the part of the nation this lady was elected to represent was not founded in the 1700’s.
By: Ben Maulis on September 2, 2008
at 12:32 pm
Ben,
If her comment was about just the words ‘under god’ and not their specific place in the pledge (which I don’t think is what she meant, but I’ll go with you for sake of argument), then she’s still wrong.
The group of men known as the Founding Fathers are responsible for ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. So I don’t think they would be behind ‘under god’.
I would not consider Lincoln a ‘founding father’, unless you are using the phrase in a very eccentric way.
By: morsec0de on September 2, 2008
at 12:42 pm
If you believe the Earth was created 10,000 years ago and humans kept dinosaurs as pets, then of course you can believe that the Founding Fathers (e.g., Adams, Madison, Reagan, and Washington) inserted “Under God” into the Pledge.
By: davek on September 2, 2008
at 1:03 pm
Should have seen the rest of that questionnaire. Tons of comments on how she doesn’t agree with abortion and agrees with abstinence-only sex education.
She forgot to mention that to daughter Bristol.
By: lena on September 2, 2008
at 3:30 pm
Kind of like Obama saying he visited ALL 57 States. Did you post on that one because I would love to read it. Also could you post the actual link where this story came from? I can’t find it…all I can find is liberal blogs that are trying to attack Sarah on stupid stuff. Thanks for all the information…you seem to be on top of all this political news stuff and it seems all of these other liberal blogs are taking your lead, they are posting some of the same stuff, but they are not providing proof of their story, kind of like the story about Trig Palin being her grandchild not her baby…oops that turned out to be a lie. Hmmm.
Anyway, thanks for the information!
By: ncarnes on September 2, 2008
at 3:30 pm
Who needs attack ads when we have so many bloggers attacking so many people…I’m amazed! And slightly saddened!
By: lwayswright on September 2, 2008
at 4:20 pm
Define ‘attack’.
Is pointing out that someone said something inaccurate attacking that person?
Should we ignore when people are wrong to avoid attacking them?
By: morsec0de on September 2, 2008
at 4:40 pm
Think before you write! “The group of men known as the Founding Fathers are responsible for ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. So I don’t think they would be behind ‘under god’.”
Aren’t you attempting to wrest this ideal out of its context? For the most part, the ‘Founding Fathers’ were men of deep faith who reflected a disdain for the imposed religion of European countries. This means that there will be no national religion, not that God is uninvolved in foundations of the country. Context is everything when discussing faith.
So, since you’ve taken the time to research Palin’s faith, you have also taken to time to research Obama’s liberation theology. Will we read a post on this as well?
By: Doulos Christou on September 2, 2008
at 6:23 pm
One nation, under Obama? Does that sound better to you?
By: Mick on September 2, 2008
at 6:28 pm
“Under God” doesn’t bother me at all. I wouldn’t even vote if it was up to us to take it out of the Pledge… I don’t care that much about such an unimportant issue… neither should the ACLU. They should do something more productive, in my opinion.
That aside, this didn’t make me hate Palin. I already hated her. Who the fuck doesn’t like fucking polar bears?! But she’s a Christian Republican, what else would you expect from someone like her…?
I hope you aren’t one of those atheists who won’t vote because the candidates bring God into their speeches. I haven’t looked at the rest of your blog so I’m not going to make that assumption…. but I’m an atheist and I think not voting is fucking retarded.
By: CR on September 2, 2008
at 8:13 pm
Hey, we all love polar bears. That’s why Coke uses them in their ads.
Your god is just liberal politicians now. Isn’t Al-Gore one of your gods?
By: Mick on September 2, 2008
at 9:09 pm
Doulous:
Define “deep faith”. Some of them, no doubt, were. But most? Hardly. Most seemed to be vague deists with no belief in personal gods.
“So, since you’ve taken the time to research Palin’s faith, you have also taken to time to research Obama’s liberation theology. Will we read a post on this as well?”
Already up. Called “Godless for Obama”. He’s firmly in support of the secular nature of our country. Unless or until that changes, I don’t care what his religion is.
Mick:
“One nation, under Obama? Does that sound better to you?”
A bit nicer ring, yeah. But I prefer the original “one nation, indivisible”. Unfortunately the religious do a great deal to help keep us divided.
CR:
“but I’m an atheist and I think not voting is fucking retarded.”
Agreed. Though perhaps not in those words.
Mick:
“Your god is just liberal politicians now. Isn’t Al-Gore one of your gods?”
Just because you can’t go through life without worshiping something, don’t assume the rest of us can’t either.
By: morsec0de on September 2, 2008
at 10:13 pm
Mick the Projectionist worships Reagan and the Bushes, so he assumes we do the same.
This is beyond pretending that apples and oranges are the same thing — it’s up to armadillos and moonrocks.
By: Phoenix Woman on September 2, 2008
at 10:32 pm
Wow, the “gotcha” mentality is sickening.
Yes, morsecOde, she misspoke.
Happens to all of us.
Her intent, I am certain, was to illustrate that the founding of this country was based on certain Judeo-Christian beliefs. That fact cannot be escaped. Every work penned by the Founding Fathers was ripe with references to God.
As an American, you are free to express your thoughts and ideas without fear of persecution, but why can’t Atheists allow the overwhelming majority of US to keep standards and traditions in our country? You censor the rest of us at every turn to meet your petty and childish desires.
By: luxeman on September 3, 2008
at 5:44 am
“That fact cannot be escaped.”
Certainly it can be escaped, as it is incorrect.
“Every work penned by the Founding Fathers was ripe with references to God.”
Which doesn’t matter. The Constitution does not have any reference to god despite the date. No purely biblical laws are there, and it specifically states that no religious test will be required for office.
“but why can’t Atheists allow the overwhelming majority of US to keep standards and traditions in our country?”
Because if your standards and traditions impinge upon the rights of others, they belong on the trash heap of history.
By: morsec0de on September 3, 2008
at 7:43 am
http://healtheland.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/barack-hussein-obamas-anti-christ-universalism/#comment-32134
By: Job on September 4, 2008
at 3:58 pm
Are you telling me that Dwight D. Eisenhower was not a founding father? What good was school if I can’t even remember my American history? 😉
By: David on September 5, 2008
at 12:22 pm
ugh she is soooo blatantly stupid and i can’t believe that she still has people following her. says a lot about intellect of her followers. i guess it’s a democracy after all.
cool blog. blogrollin ya.
By: Roop Rai on September 17, 2008
at 12:54 pm