To the Death
October 6, 2004 | 23 Comments
Estes Park Town Trustee David Habecker is refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at board meetings until Congress removes “under God” from it. This stand has earned him the utmost respect and support from his colleagues and fellow Coloradans, who also want him to get the fuck out.
Trustee Lori Jeffrey-Clark, for example, declared she would commit the ultimate sacrifice on his behalf. “I will defend you to the death for your right to say and do what you please,” she said. It’s not as strong as defense it might seem, however; she agrees with her husband, who said that Habecker “does not deserve the right to sit on this board and I am sorry that he represents the people of our town, our country, and it just makes me sick.” She’s particularly offended that he failed to “lay it out on the table” before he was elected, although the board didn’t even institute the pledge until this Spring.
Townie John Cordsen also values Habecker’s freedom more than his own life. “I will defend [his] right to my last breath,” Cordsen wrote in this op-ed. But by remaining seated during the Pledge, Cordsen opines, Habecker “crosses the line.” In fact, he finds Habecker’s inaction unconstitutional:
A core argument made by Mr. Habecker is the separation of church and state as covered by the First Amendment. Most people can recite in part the first phrase of this amendment (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”) and point to it as the basis for eliminating any reference to God in government. But many forget the second phrase (“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”). The rest of the Amendment reads: “or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
By remaining seated, Mr. Habecker has drawn attention to his protest, and is exercising his right to protest, but at the same time he has disrespected those he serves with.
Or semi-constitutional. Or disrepectitutional. Anyway, there’s a petition out to recall Habecker. Andy of World Wide Rant has sent Mrs. Jeffrey-Clark an e-mail which ends “Have a wonderful day, and I look forward to your response,” because he, too, respects her to death.
(Pictures of the characters involved here).
October 6th, 2004 @ 1:37 am
ah, makes me proud to live in colorado. damn red state.
well, to be fair, he is disrespecting the rest of the people that serve with him. he has reason to, but i just keep thinking of my mom saying “there’s a time and a place…” to me when I’d try and pull this kind of stunt.
October 6th, 2004 @ 8:16 am
Wait, silently sitting out the Pledge is disrespect to those around him? Give me a break. You might as well say it’s is disrespectful for a Canadian not to stand and sing along with the US national anthem at a hockey game on our side of the border.
No, what is disrespectful is for the rest of the Trustees to demand that Mr. Habecker turn his back on what he believes (separation of church and state) and kowtow to their religious bigotry.
If he really wanted to disrespect them, he’d rip a big wet fart each time right at the “under God” line; as it stands, though, he’s simply doing the decent thing: being quiet and respectful.
October 6th, 2004 @ 10:01 am
I used to put a dollar bill in my hand when I held it over my heart during the recital of the pledge in high school. I figured that it was a cool symbolic gesture, but now I can’t exactly remeber what the hell it was supposed to symbolize. I would think that a more tactful protest would be to say the bulk of the pledge, but remain silent during the “Under God” bit.
October 6th, 2004 @ 10:44 am
i think that being “tactful” is being very disrespectful to yourself….
hey, just got a friendly visit from the jehovas’ witnesses….
and they ran…….did not take much! this is fun! i live in the country, and they found me here!
made my day.
October 6th, 2004 @ 10:59 am
This whole pledge crap makes me want to throw up. Habecker presumably already took an oath of office when he was sworn in. If there’s some genuine reason to believe that he’s not living up to that oath, then either vote him out or go through whatever process is required to remove him from office. Otherwise, leave him the fuck alone.
The hyper-patriotism bullshit gives me the creeps. These people are goddamn adults; what need is there to act like differences of opinion are tantamount to treason? Because I see no other purpose in making city councilpersons recite the pledge. The idea that the council members need to recite the pledge at every meeting to keep them from, I dunno, drifting into communism or something, is just too fucking laughable for words.
Anyway, it’s not about Habecker. It’s about the others who want to show everybody else that their own motives cannot be questioned. It’s like a church ritual: “Look at me, I’m just like you, I can be trusted because I’m reciting the correct mumbo-jumbo.” Fucking grow up.
Sorry about the rant. This one just got to me somehow.
October 6th, 2004 @ 11:18 am
My cousin is subbing in an unnamed Colorado town and does not stand during the pledge. His reasons have nothing to do with under god. Not sure exactly what he’s against, forced showing of patriotism I guess, like saluting a flag proves that. I figure if one of the kids told their parents, he’s screwed.
October 6th, 2004 @ 11:18 am
My cousin is subbing in an unnamed Colorado town and does not stand during the pledge. His reasons have nothing to do with under god. Not sure exactly what he’s against, forced showing of patriotism I guess, like saluting a flag proves that. I figure if one of the kids told their parents, he’s screwed.
October 6th, 2004 @ 11:34 am
Erik — you and I agree on this one (except for it being like church “mumbo-jumbo”). Personally, I don’t like the whole concept of a pledge of allegiance. Swearing blind loyalty to the state runs contrary to this country’s foundation. Those guys did not lend blind loyalty to a country. They were loyal to a set of principles and were willing to defy their country when it violated those principles. If the dude in Colorado swore in his oath of office to always say the pledge then he is in violation of his sworn duties. However, I find such an oath highly unlikely. One would presume, as you stated, that these people are adults. Would that they’d act like it.
October 6th, 2004 @ 12:36 pm
In “The End Of Faith”, Sam Harris suggests showing some intolerance for religious fantasy, as he did with O’Reilly by referring to the Christ Cracker. That must have created a gasp heard around the world! Harris suggests that substituting any ancient god’s name for “God” helps to sharpen the ridicule. Should we say “under Popocatepetl” in the Pledge? Or “one nation under the Yankees”? (I know Popo is not a god but a volcano; I’m not sure about the Yankees
It has become a social meme to be polite and respectful. We have been so immunized by a steady drip of religious poison that we no longer react to it. We live now in a kindergarten of babbling children, where it is rude to reveal that it’s really uncle Henry in that Santa suit. Before you know it, you have judges dragging stone tablets into our courts, Congress castrating our judges, and (coming soon) hanging trees for heretics.
If you think I exaggerate, click to http://objective.jesussave.us/godlyflag.html
to see a proposed design for a new U.S. flag.
October 6th, 2004 @ 12:41 pm
June,
I dont know whats scarier. A proposed jesus flag, or the fact that my work internet connection blocked your link because it came up as “category: sex”
October 6th, 2004 @ 1:01 pm
June,
Objective Ministries is a very funny parody site. Check out their Dawkins watch, Christian Science Fair entries, Ruby Matrimony thong, Bazooka Jesus, Zounds Christian Youth Rock music etc etc.
I think I’ll order a Mr. Gruff the Atheist mug for all my coffeee drinking. Where’s Mrs Gruff?
October 6th, 2004 @ 1:40 pm
How can you tell the real nonsense from the religious?
I suppose hurricanes are NOT caused by God, as in http://bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=19136
So many toilets to clean; so little time.
October 6th, 2004 @ 3:19 pm
seems a few folks would like to dump “under god”, while quite a few more would like to dump “for all”…
gimmie back my pledge!!!
http://65.18.154.108/
Be Well
October 6th, 2004 @ 4:52 pm
Erik: Considering that the pledge was originally written by an avowed socialist, it just might not be the best thing to keep the board from drifting into communism…
October 6th, 2004 @ 7:20 pm
that socialist that wrote the pledge was also a man of the cloth.
October 6th, 2004 @ 8:21 pm
Ak is right… and needless to say, ‘under god’ was added during the McCarthy period, for the express purpose of rooting out godless communists.
October 7th, 2004 @ 2:41 am
Debbie wrote: Objective Ministries is a very funny parody site. Check out their Dawkins watch, Christian Science Fair entries, Ruby Matrimony thong, Bazooka Jesus, Zounds Christian Youth Rock music etc etc.
Just a couple brief words of advice for the unwary like June:
You can usually tell when a web page is really a lampoon site simply by the sheer absurdity of the content as opposed to the content from a legitimate one, no matter how goofy the real people being parodied are. For example, over at the parody site of Ask the White House, we can see that…
…would be a bit of poking fun at the real Jim Towey because the real one would be impartial toward most religions, and everybody knows that the fringe groups ain’t a gonna lose interest in some free cash from the government.
And we would know that…
…would simply be some ridiculous piece of sarcasm because a real life government official of an high authority would surely know the meaning of the word “miracle”, and he would know exactly what in the hell poor Miller from Tennessee was talking about.
October 7th, 2004 @ 12:00 pm
Maybe he could recite the original, godless pledge instead.
October 7th, 2004 @ 4:50 pm
The whole idea of a pledge is obnoxious, regardless of whether or not it mentions God. And every line of our pledge is, at best, debatable. I’m with Frank, and furthermore Frank, I don’t see how any Christian can support the pledge when the first line goes: “I pledge allegiance to THE FLAG….” How “Christian” is it to pledge allegiance to a multi-colored piece of cloth? “To the Republic….” –is this really still a “Republic?”–most everybody calls it a “democracy.” And “one nation, indivisible –really, “one” nation”? debatable on a number of fronts, and “indivisible”? –clearly not intended by the Founders. Then we have “under God,” also debatable on a number of different fronts. And finally, “with liberty and justice for all” oh please, since when? Perhaps we should suspend recitiation until it’s all true, or a least close to the truth, or change the words around –at least be honest enough to say “liberty and justice for many” instead of the patently absurd “all.” Maybe we should hire Monty Python to write a new pledge.
Come on people, a pledge is for Nazis, commies, and other authoritarians. It has no place in a “free” society except when it is voluntary and spontaneous. The whole purpose of reciting a pledge of any kind is to promote conformity by habit of mind, and subservience through public exposure and repetition. Whether in school or at a city council meeting, it serves to identify the “dissenters” so they can be weeded out, just like they are doing with this guy in Colorado (also, btw, a function of prayer in school). As an act, the pledge is on the same intellectual level as “Heil Hitler! ,” with the object being the State itself instead of an individual. If it is patriotic to support what America is supposed to stand for, as apart from what is actually does, then reciting the pledge is not “patriotism” but something more like its opposite. The pledge commands unquestioning obediance, which should be obvious from what is said by people who advocate the pledge and their agitation whenever anyone refuses to go along with the show. And being unquestioningly obedient is about as unAmerican as one can be.
October 7th, 2004 @ 5:22 pm
Hey 386sx, this is a fun game! I spotted some hilarious satire on that site also:
This of course is an example of gallows humor whereby God speaks to the privileged through the puppet-like bodies of the disadvantaged humans that He himself is responsible for keeping in their pathetic state! Good stuff. The REAL Director of Faith Based and Community Inititatives must be pissed at having been spoofed to seem so irrational!
October 13th, 2004 @ 9:46 am
andy says, “Wait, silently sitting out the Pledge is disrespect to those around him? Give me a break. You might as well say it’s is disrespectful for a Canadian not to stand and sing along with the US national anthem at a hockey game on our side of the border.”
No. Canadians aren’t Americans. They don’t pledge loyalty to the United States and shouldn’t be expected to.
“No, what is disrespectful is for the rest of the Trustees to demand that Mr. Habecker turn his back on what he believes (separation of church and state) and kowtow to their religious bigotry.”
Where’s the church? Saying “under God” is now violating “separation of church and state”? Give me a break. And where’s the “religious bigotry”? I see no religion mentioned. I don’t know if this is the Buddah God, the Christian God, or if it is the Christian God, which one it is. Again: where’s the “religious bigotry”? Do you just like claiming that?
“If he really wanted to disrespect them, he’d rip a big wet fart each time right at the “under God” line; as it stands, though, he’s simply doing the decent thing: being quiet and respectful.”
Naw…he’s just being anal. Life is too short. Don’t let this small stupid shit bother you. Especially when there’s no identifiable “religious bigotry” or “separation of church and state” grounds to argue on.
October 13th, 2004 @ 11:37 am
likwidshoe,
If you care to familiarize yourself with the history of the phrase “under God”, you will come to the inescapable conclusion that it is religious bigotry of a serious order. The intent was to, and here I am paraphrasing Eisenhower’s remarks when he signed the thing into law, remind our schoolchildren that they live in a society in which cherishes a relationship with god. The implication was clear — the USSR (atheism) is bad, the USA (god-belief) is good. It may not have constituted bigotry in the sense of favoring Christianity over Islam, but it clearly favored god-belief over atheism. And that is religious bigotry whether you want to call it that or not.
As far as not knowing which god was intended, just put yourself back in 1954 America. American blacks who converted to Islam were considered dangerous if not loony, and Jews were regularly excluded from country club membership (and other stuff, too). Buddhists don’t have a god. Now tell me whether “under God” is supposed to refer to some amorphous idea.
For some people, this just isn’t small stupid shit. The idea of the state forcing their children to say something they don’t believe is distressing. And if it was such small stupid shit, why did Eisenhower bother to make a speech about it?
February 3rd, 2005 @ 8:52 pm
Erik said, “The intent was to, and here I am paraphrasing Eisenhower’s remarks when he signed the thing into law, remind our schoolchildren that they live in a society in which cherishes a relationship with god.”
So what? How is that “bigotry”?
It may not have constituted bigotry in the sense of favoring Christianity over Islam, but it clearly favored god-belief over atheism. And that is religious bigotry whether you want to call it that or not.
No it’s not. It’s simply recognizing that we live in a society that largely recognizes the existence of God. It also serves the benefit of having a power that is higher than the government. There are some rights that can not be taken away because they don’t decend from government; rather they decend from a higher power, or God, if you will.
For some people, this just isn’t small stupid shit. The idea of the state forcing their children to say something they don’t believe is distressing.
And you want to force the religion of atheism onto the populace. That’s distressing to this agnostic.