Monday, September 01, 2008

Palin thinks Pledge of Allegiance was around during our nation's founding

Sarah Palin, who for some strange reason is McCain's choice for vice-president, has some of the usual right-wing alternate reality problem when it comes to American history. Specifically, she thinks that the phrase "under God", in the pledge of allegiance, was good enough for the Founding Fathers of our nation. Eagle Forum Alaska in 2006 sent out a questionnaire to the various gubernatorial candidates. Here's question #11 and Sarah Palin's response:
11. Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
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.
(HT: JLFinch on DailyKos.) I'm sure the readers of Internal Monologue already know that the Pledge of Allegiance was authored by a Christian Socialist in 1892. And that by 1892, anyone with the remotest claim to the title of "Founding Father" of the United States had long since decomposed. Furthermore, the phrase "under God" was only shoehorned into the loyalty oath in the 1950's, by which time all but the most durable portions of the Founding Fathers would have been recycled back into the ecosystem.

I doubt the revelation of this misapprehension will sway anyone. Those predisposed to favor Sarah Palin are not likely to be much offended by her back-dating the Pledge of Allegiance by over a century. And those of us who care about these things are already appalled by her creationist sympathies and forced pregnancy views (even in the cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother).

But just in case that there were some people out there who thought she might somehow be free of wingnuttery, I offer this example to show that she's as steeped in delusional reality as the rest of Christianists.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Internal Monologue home