‘Under God’ becomes campaign issue in 4th District race

Racism? How does this incite racism? Did Betty pull out every code word she could find to demonize Collett?

Notice how the McCollum camp didn’t deny that Betty omitted the phrase – they just said that at other times, she’s said “Under God”.

I don’t mind a politician making a statement, but why not actually make it? Betty needs to admit that she omitted it, point out it was 8 years ago, and move on.

More of the same from the Republican Party. I guess Collett is getting desperate at the final hour. Very pathetic, but typical. It’s sad that this is no more than a personal attack on McCollum. A person’s faith should be a private matter; it should not be exploited in our nation which was founded on the separation of the church & state. Why people forget that, I’ll never know.

Uhm, sure Betty. So why didn’t you say it that day you led the Pledge in Congress? What was your point?

So this is a bad thing? What about the DFL bringing up DWI’s of candidates? How is this any different?

All of the theocrats who want to inject “god” into the government are opening the door wide open for anything from Sharia Law to Scientology. The people who want God put back into our politics are into earthly, and temporary power. What happens if 50 years from now we have a majority of Muslim leaders. Do we want the precedent that whoever is in power can inject their religious views?

John Adams, a founder, wrote in a treaty, “We are in no way a country founded on Christian principles” It was ratified unanimously by the Senate, many of whom were founders. It couldn’t be any clearer than that. That is wht our country was founded on. Freedom of and from religion.

People who want to put God back into government are the biggest threat to the free practice of religion. It might be your god today, but who’s god will it be tomorrow. Please study history and read the constitution.

To Mad Voter: Maybe because DWIs are crimes and not saying a couple words in the pledge is not.

Uhm, Anna, when they happen 20 years ago, who cares. Maybe when someone is a socialist, proclaims to be catholic yet denies God in front of Congress; yes that is a big deal.

Doesn’t it bother people here that Betty’s camp refuses to address why she omitted it? Shouldn’t our office holders be brave enough to explain when they are trying to make a statement?

This isn’t about injecting God into politics. This is about our representative being too cowardly to admit to something that is pretty simple.

Not really. Two little words that actually matter? How about “mission accomplished” (2003)?

This is a non issue plain and simple. I applaued McCollum for attacking back with vigor and not wavering. We need to stand up against these Tea Baggers and call them out for what they are…..un American fascists.

This is a non-issue as well for me. I always, ALWAYS omit the phrase “under god” whenever I cite the Pledge – and there’s not much anyone can do about that! Sheesh.

The “founding fathers” did not invent the pledge. It was implemented during the civil war to indoctrinate people, especially children, into supporting the “indivisible” union. The phrase “under god” what added in the 1950s by a conservative movement taking advantage of the post war increase in church membership. So, to recite the original pledge as intended by our (not founding) fathers, you should omit the phrase. Idiots.

Since the “under God” part was added in the 1950′s we can hardly say that to omit it from the POA is denying the Judeo-Christian heritage of the US. (technically if we wanted to honor the spiritual traditions of America we should pray to the white buffalo or the great sky spirit, but that’s a different argument) If anything she’s honoring the country more by reciting the pledge in its original form and not the version that has been tainted by religion.

This attack on her is transparent pandering by the religious right.

I am a man of faith, but I do not want religion mixed up in politics. I especially don’t want someone to represent me in congress who is using religion as political leverage. It’s despicable.

All we should be concerned with is the policy these representatives intend to create, destroy or support. All this talk of pledge omissions, flag pins, etc. is not important.

I omit “under God” because it was not in the original pledge. I also sing only the original Francis Scott Key lyrics to the national anthem.

I believe in conservative values, that you don’t change pledges or words of the national anthem or the Declaration of Independence just because some pissants make political hay out of it.

I’ve always eaten French fries, never a Freedom fry. I’m not a jingoistic moron coward.

Next thing you know, it will be changed to “under God but not Allah or Vishnu”.

Stay with the original. And quit putting flags at half staff every time someone dies. It used to mean something, now it means nothing.

Sick of these so-called “conservatives” who change things. It used to be that if you saw a long-haired pot-smoking bearded dirtball driving an old truck misusing the American flag colors and patterns, you’d call him a hippie. Now he’s just another redneck, doing the exact same thing they criticized before.

DWIs twenty years, ago?

Not exactly, madvoter…

How about 2006. 2X

Link: http://bit.ly/c8mlIN

Maybe people who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw God’s name around, mad voter?

One DWI can live with. Two? No. And to then try and pull the teeth out of the laws to lessen the punishments? Absolutely not. And remember, it was another Republican (Seifert) that raised this issue before the primary.

Foreclosures, unemployment, and massive deficits are apparently not as high a priority as who skipped two words in a pledge eight years ago.

“no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” – Article VI

Requiring a candidate to include “under God” in the pledge of allegiance shows contempt for, or ignorance of, the Constitution. Not the act of a patriot.

Citing one instance from 8 years ago while ignoring several more recent instances is just plain petty.

I will be voting for Betty McCollum and the Constitution, and against Teresa Collett and the forces of theocracy.

Only with a religiously neutral, secular government is true religious freedom possible.

Newt Gingrich has an affair with a staffer and was forced to resign his office in disgrace.

Betty McCollum had an affair with a staffer, which broke up two marriages, and it doesn’t even make the press.

Why is that?

Dennis, the blog historian, writes:

“Newt Gingrich has an affair with a staffer and was forced to resign his office in disgrace.”

Here is what is in Wiki with supporting citations:

“Republicans lost five seats in the House in the 1998 midterm elections — the worst performance in 64 years for a party that didn’t hold the presidency. Polls showed that Gingrich and the Republican Party’s attempt to remove President Clinton from office was widely unpopular among Americans.[33]

Gingrich suffered much of the blame for the election loss. Facing another rebellion in the Republican caucus, he announced on November 6, 1998 that he would not only stand down as Speaker, but would leave the House as well. He had been handily reelected to an 11th term in that election, but declined to take his seat. Commenting on his departure, Gingrich said, “I’m willing to lead but I’m not willing to preside over people who are cannibals. My only fear would be that if I tried to stay, it would just overshadow whoever my successor is.”[34]”

So why no mention of the affair that caused Gingrich to “resign in disgrace”? Did Gingrich lie in his statement? Were the “cannibals” after him because of an affair he had? Had his own party rebelled twice over one affair?

I’m sure Dennis will be able to post citations that back up his statement that an affair was the cause of Gingrich’s resignation. Unless Dennis just likes to use the post hoc ergo prompter hoc logical fallacy to mislead people and make false equivalencies.

VOTE BETTY PELOSI OUT!

I am ashamed of Betty! How does a Catholic say she is a Catholic and then not say under God? Very sad.

Geez I didn’t know this either..
Now divorced. Betty McCollum had an affair with a staffer, which broke up two marriages, and it doesn’t even make the press.

Maybe Betty needs to put GOD in her life sounds like she needs it.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy, in 1892. He was a leading member of the Christian Socialist movement. One thinks that he might have put in a reference to God if he thought it important.

The words “under God” were added in the 1950s. Apparently, the Communist Party made a practice of opening its meetings with the Pledge. “Under God” was added to stop them from showing that they could be loyal Americans.

I thought Ike put that into the pledge after WWII. And I guess if Ike, who lead our armed forces through the worst fight in history to find the most horrific inhumanity inflicted on people ever found decided that God had his hand over us then the “Under God ” acknoledgement is ok with me.

Betty McCullom needs to be retired. She wants to be our representative but hides from us. She is completely unresponsive to us. She feels she is entitled to the MN4 seat – rather then it being gift from us. I didn’t know she had an affair which destroyed two families – I am going to mention it to every person I speak to from now to election day.

I hope she goes down in flames next week.

Betty,

Get a history book. “Ike” didn’t “put that in the pledge”.

But if you want to just make up stuff, that’s ok because Jesus loves people who bear false witness.

JoAnn Evans,

Perhaps you weren’t aware that believers in god divorce at higher rates than atheists:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

It’s quite possible that factors other than god belief are more strongly correlated with divorce than religious faith. But if belief in your god were the potent force of social stability that you appear to implicitly believe it is, then the fact that Catholics (and other Christians) divorce at higher rates than atheists should give you just a little pause.

Further, aren’t the major problems this country faces just a tiny bit more important than the details of McCollum’s personal life?

Catholic Marriage is in Death do us part… I am only saying that. I am sorry that was what happened to her and sorry to hear about your percentage rates.

What would the Pope say to Betty I wonder? Maybe she needs to claim your religion Eric.

Did Betty say why she said that or what she was feeling at the time she said it? Now I am sure for now on she will be forced to say it… everybody now is watching..

Like it or not, she made a statement, that a lot of Americans are offended by, period.

google Betty Mccollum most liberal in the house and sure enough a link pops right up!

JoAnn,

You claim that now “everybody now is watching.” What are they watching for exactly? That she says the pledge the “correct” way” How could this possibly have any importance whatsoever? Why place any weight on this relative to many other factors that are self-evidently more important for a legislator to have, like a good judgment relative to legislation, intelligence, rationality, etc.?

Also, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Betty McCollum is the most liberal member of the house. Why is that a bad thing?

“Different Tim,” before urging someone to get a history book and then accuse them of breaking a commandment, might want to take his own advice. In fact, “under God” was signed by Eisenhower after passing Congress in 1954, and he was among those in a D.C. congregation when it was first pitched in a sermon. This comes — surprise! — from a history book, namely pages 299-300 of Martin Marty’s “Modern American Religion.” But not only was the pledge invented in 1892 by a socialist, not only was “under God” not included until 1954 (and this was pushed by far more people than just the KofC), but the “Judeo-Christian tradition” was also not invented really until the postwar period (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2712839). In fact, it did not appear in the dictionary until 1899. So these terms — under God, heritage, Judeo-Christian — are really just political dog whistles. They aren’t even real enough to be serious comments about history, religion, or anything else.

Don,

Thank you for the information.

Betty wrote “I thought Ike put that into the pledge after WWII”"

That is the point I contest. Ike didn’t “put that into the pledge”. Congress produced a bill. Ike signed it.

If “Ike” had issued an executive order, or a presidential proclamation, if he had campaigned to have the words added, that would be different. But he didn’t. He didn’t author the bill. He didn’t write the words. He signed a bill from Congress. .

If we want to be sloppy, then let’s all agree that “Ike built the interstate highway system”. Apparently, all by himself.

Different Tim,
He did in fact campaign about it. The evening after the famous sermon by Rev. Docherty suggesting “under God” in the pledge (which he attended), he went on the radio with Protestant, Catholic and Jewish clerics to say “we are all one,” in explicit support of the “Judeo-Christian” political movement happening. He was certainly part of the civic religion of the times. But I agree Congress passing something and the president signing it are distinct things, and he certainly was not alone or even the sole catalyst for it happening.
And I disagree with all of Betty’s other comments, from giving Ike sole credit for WWII, to being OK with a nondemocratic fiat if that were to happen from a military leader, to gleefully spreading gossip about someone’s supposed extramarital affairs.

As a Minnesotan in the 4th district, I deeply respect our heritage of religious freedom that derives from the separation of church and state.

What I do not respect is the revisionist history of theocrats. I’ll be sticking with democracy and the Constitution, thank you.

“…the care of souls is not committed to the civil magistrate, any more than to other men. It is not committed unto him, I say, by God; because it appears not that God has ever given any such authority to one man over another as to compel anyone to his religion. Nor can any such power be vested in the magistrate by the consent of the people, because no man can so far abandon the care of his own salvation as blindly to leave to the choice of any other, whether prince or subject, to prescribe to him what faith or worship he shall embrace. For no man can, if he would, conform his faith to the dictates of another. All the life and power of true religion consist in the inward and full persuasion of the mind; and faith is not faith without believing. Whatever profession we make, to whatever outward worship we conform, if we are not fully satisfied in our own mind that the one is true and the other well pleasing unto God, such profession and such practice, far from being any furtherance, are indeed great obstacles to our salvation. For in this manner, instead of expiating other sins by the exercise of religion, I say, in offering thus unto God Almighty such a worship as we esteem to be displeasing unto Him, we add unto the number of our other sins those also of hypocrisy and contempt of His Divine Majesty.”

A Letter Concerning Toleration, by John Locke, 1689
Translated by William Popple
http://www.constitution.org/jl/tolerati.htm

Good on her! The United States should be subservient to no hostile foreign power no matter how vigorous its trolls may be.

That’s hilarious, Little Debbie!

This is one of those hot topics that distracts everyone from the other topics and only focus on this when others may actually be just as important

Unpatriotic, unAmerican, and generally despicable.

She is so DUMB is why she left it out. Details, which she defines broadly, don’t bother Betty. She sort of knows she’s dumb but she can’t admit it because she has no character.
But seriously, don’t tell me you haven’t heard her hilarious malaprops in testimony, interviews and ANY off the cuff public comments. Her qualifications for the office: job history: minimum wage retail store clerk, do-nothing state legislator (unless you count affairs) and now, Congresswoman-for-Life because that’s the way the fourth district works.

ps no offense to the profession of retail clerks is intended.

Shut off your brain and “Vote Betty!”

“…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

“Collett says the video shows McCollum omitting the phrase “under God” from the pledge”

Hey writers, how about issuing a statement of fact, rather than “Collett says” in order to cast aspersions on the truth of the video? That video does INDEED show Betty omitting the words “Under God”. And I do believe the only reason why she has videos from later years with her saying those words is because someone whispered in her ear that she can’t be so brazen about her socialist leanings.

And can someone tell me why Betty is using taxpayer funds to stream those C-SPAN videos from her GOVERNMENT website? This was an issue in the CAMPAIGN, and she should respond through her campaign. Why the heck do I have to pay for it? How do you file an ethics complaint?

Hey Frodo, “Under God” was not an original part of the pledge. It was added in 1954
after a pressure campaign from the Knight of Columbus, a Roman Catholic
fraternal organization. Many of us omit the fundamentalist language, and that has nothing to do with being “socialist.” Collett is a christo-fascist for slammin all of us who have eveolved passed beyond a blind and bronze-age understanding of our heritage and christianity.

ah yes, the desperation of losers in the final hours of a campaign against obama’s/mccollum’s enemies………… the American people

How does not including “Under God” once in the pledge, that was originally written without it, affect the job that Betty McCollum has done? I will vote for her because she has worked hard for the district.

If we get rid of “”Under God”" from EVERYTHING!! this country would be better off..