One Nation Under God?

            Every morning around the country millions of school kid’s rise and pledge allegiance to the United States of America. The pledge of allegiance has been a longstanding tradition in many school districts, sporting events, and other public events. The pledge seems simple, a ceremonial honor to the country in which we reside. Many citizens find pride and joy in reciting the less than a minute long pledge. In recent times however, as political attitudes have shifted dramatically to the left, we find more and more people rising up calling foul because of one three letter word placed in the middle of the pledge, God. “….one nation, under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Liberals and civil rights activists claim the word God needs to be removed because there is no place for religion in the pledge. They claim it references a particular God and could offend members of other religions. They also claim its offensive to atheists. In this reflection, I will apply the legal concept of Ceremonial Deism to the word God in the pledge of allegiance to show that it in fact is constitutional and that there is no reason to remove it from the pledge.

            Navigating through the difficult area of religion can be a tricky task for the Supreme Court. It often calls on them to rely on past precedence or mere opinions to make a ruling as constitutional wording is limited. Justice O’Connor created a four prong test to determine if a something crosses the line into religious trouble, he calls it “Ceremonial Deism”. Ceremonial Deism applies to the things that have more of a historical value than they do religious. It is often applied to things like holiday displays in town centers, references to religion in school, and so on. Here, I will apply his four prong test to the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

            The first prong of Ceremonial Deism is History or Ubiquity. In order to pass the first test, there needs to be a historical significance to use of the word. The word God was introduced into the pledge in the 1950s while the US was battling the communist threat. The intention was to show that the US was the good guy, and Russia and other communists weren’t. It was meant more of a uniting term or a rallying term as opposed to a religious term. The United States Court Division in West Virginia interpreted the statement “under god” to mean that we believe in a higher meaning or a higher being. The higher meaning was the meaning of freedom, liberty, and prosperity. All three of these rights that we take for granted were threatened by the prospects of communism. For these reason I argue that the phrase under God in the pledge of allegiance has significant historical context, thus passing the first test of Ceremonial Deism.

            The second test of ceremonial deism is the absence of prayer or worship. In the context it is used within the pledge of allegiance, there is no prayer or worship. Prayer is defined as a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship. Take the Catholic prayer we call the “Lord’s Prayer”. The prayer starts out by addressing God, “Our Father Who Art in Heaven….” before going on to worship him. We could call this a prayer because prayers are intended to be a conversation between the worshiper, and the worshiped. In this case the conversation is between the Catholic and God. In the case of the Pledge of Allegiance there is no conversation. There is no one the pledge is addressed to. The pledge doesn’t worship anyone or anything; it merely recites pride and allegiance to the United States. I argue there is a clear absence of prayer or worship, and as such this passes the second test of ceremonial deism.

            The third test of ceremonial deism is the absence of reference to a particular religion. Within the pledge of allegiance, the only religious reference is the word God. Aside from that, there is no mention or reference to any particular religion. Nowhere in the pledge does the word Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Jewish, or any other religion appear. There is no reference to a Bible, or a Quran or a Torah. As far as the pledge is concerned the word God could refer to any particular being of higher power or worship. I argue that since there is an absence of reference to a particular religion, the use of the word God in the pledge of allegiance passes the third test of ceremonial deism. The fourth and final test of ceremonial deism is similar to the third, minimal religious content. As I mentioned above there is only one reference to a religious term in the pledge. The use of the word God in this case is a meaningless case. It doesn’t specify which God, and as such has no religious content. Therefore, it passes the fourth and final test of ceremonial deism.

            Despite outrage about the use of the word God in the pledge, I would argue that it has a ceremonial purpose that outweighs the potential religious content within the pledge. Since it passes Justice O’Connor’s four tests for Ceremonial Deism, the use of the word God should in fact remain within the pledge of allegiance.

Evil Never Pays

Nearly everyone by now has heard about the controversial Rolling Stone's magazine cover with the picture of the surviving marathon bombing suspect edited to look like a celebrity. The caption indicates that the article will argue that he was a normal kid until his family abandoned him and he reacted by radicalizing. Let me start of by calling this article an abomination. For the mere fact that I refuse to let this clever marketing technique of drawing emotions work, I will not share that photo.

In response, a tactical photographer for the Massachusetts State Police released never-before-seen photos from the night the police arrested this scumbag. The photos are attached this blog post. He said that he released the photos to "right the wrong". He was referring to the magazine portraying him like a normal, brave, and sane kid. His photos show a coward who surrendered after realizing that you don't mess with the US and you certainly don't mess with Bostonians.  This officer was stripped of his badge and gun, and has been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation. He could face suspension or worse, lose his job.

Here are my thoughts.

"The police officer in question here was one of the brave officers responsible for the capture of the last surviving marathon bombing suspect. He and his fellow officers endured more that night than most people endure in their lives. Between the constant gun fire, the throwing of grenades and other explosive devises, and the long hours spent searching in constant fear for their lives and the lives of others, there is no denying that there was a substantial emotional toll on all of these officers. I can not imagine what it must have been like, nor could you, cause like me, you didn't experience it. I did, however, experience the week of stress and fear immediately following the attack and leading up to the capture. I remember being in constant fear, always looking over my shoulder. When this officer saw the Rolling Stones article, I would imagine he was brought back to that night. He felt that America and the world needed to see what the coward really looked like. He released these pictures not for money or personal gain, but for Boston. He released those photos to show that this coward may have had his picture photo-shopped and placed on a magazine, but that doesn't diminish his evil, cowardly ways. While I realize that the integrity of our Justice System relies on the ability to trust police officers, and while I acknowledge that this officer broke the rules, I pray that people think deeper about what he did. I pray that his superiors understand his way of thinking, and while I know he needs to be punished, I just hope people realize he doesn't deserve to lose his job. Instead, he deserves a round of applause for standing for something good, for putting his neck on the line to show that evil never pays."

Here are the photos. Caution, some may consider these photos to be graphic!

 

George Zimmerman: My Thoughts

Late Friday night, the jury announced the verdict in the highly publicized case of George Zimmerman. A jury of 6 women found him not guilty in the death of Trayvon Martin. From the moment the situation happened up until the last days of deliberation, the Zimmerman camp maintained that George acted in self-defense when he shot and killed the 17 year old following an altercation. Zimmerman was the neighborhood watch captain for his neighborhood and began following Trayvon when he thought he was up to no good. The liberal media which loves to incite anger and unrest has been making this case about race since day one. I, on the other hand, disagree.

Since I first posted my thoughts on the racial aspect of this case on Facebook following the verdict, I have apparently sparked some outrage and criticism from strangers and family alike. Those of you whom know me know that I am the proud nephew and cousin of several African Americans. However, you also know that since the day of my birth these family members have been just that, family members. I don't see them as any different than myself, I don't see them as anything but my family. Perhaps the reason that I hold these views is because I have grown up in a very tolerant state. As a matter of fact, I have grown up surrounded by diversity and my appreciation of that diversity has made me indifferent to race. In my eyes there are good people and there are bad people. There are not black people, or white people, or Asian people, and so on. To me, we are all equal and as such does our race matter? There is no denying that a culture of racial bias was fostered in the United States many years ago, and regrettably may still foster in the minds of some intolerant people. Despite this, I maintain that the Zimmerman case was never about race, but rather about an overzealous neighborhood watch, cop-wanna-be who put himself in a situation that scared him, and as a result caused him to overreact and take another person's life.

The media wants you to think that this is about race. They love to incite fear and anger among lowly citizens like myself. They love having the power to influence the national discussion, but better yet, they love to sensationalize. They love making stories about something that it isn't. I have yet to see any factual evidence other than a mere monologue by a highly under qualified reporter whose only intent is to increase viewership. I do not attempt to down play the racial bias that still exists in the minds of ignorant people, but I do wish to get to the heart of the Zimmerman case and leave race out of it! Zimmerman disregarded direct orders from a police dispatcher to stop following Trayvon, he did so because he was a wanna-be-cop. He wanted to feel like a hero and be important. Whether he needed to use deadly force or not, I couldn't tell you because like anyone reading this, I wasn't there that night.

As a result of the flagrantly clear violation of the public trust on the part of the media, there are race riots breaking out everywhere. This is what the media wants! They want the country to be unstable and in a place of outrage because they will have more news to cover. Here's my idea. Lets forget about the media's bologna attempt at making this about race. Lets stop calling Trayvon the "black kid", or the "African American". Lets call him what he was, a child, someone's son, someone's friend. I maintain that until we can stop identifying each other as black or Asian or white, we will continue to see prejudice and bias. I hope that this post has clarified for some of my critics my views. Since I think it warrants repeating, I do recognize that racial bias still exists in the minds of intolerant and ignorant people. I do also recognize that if we can start seeing each other as humans, and people, as I and my family and friends do, we can make serious strides in eliminating racism and achieving true equality, because until we are all "people"  and not Black or White or Asian or Hispanic
or Muslim, we are not truly equal.

For those who haven't seen it, here is the status that caused so much outrage:

"Seriously disgusted with the media and anyone who feels the need to identify persons in this case by race as if to inflate racial tensions. We are not white people, or black people, or colored people, or Asian people or Spanish people. We are one people. We are Americans. Until people recognize this, there is bound to be racial tension."

Deceiver In Chief

Just a little over four years ago, President Barack Obama and members of the Democratic party hailed success with the passage of their highly socialistic healthcare law known as "ObamaCare". They called it a victory for America. They told the American public it would make healthcare cheaper, and more reliable. They said businesses and people who already have coverage wouldn't be affected. But most importantly President Obama swore it wasn't another tax! Lets be clear, the Supreme Court has since declared it a tax. This is just one of the lies that has earned Obama the title "Deceiver- In- Chief"

Parts of the law have already gone into affect, but one element of the law is now being delayed by the Obama administration, and I can tell you why. The element in question is a provision requiring large businesses to provide health care coverage to all employees or pay a fine. This is perhaps the most controversial part of the law, and had business owners everywhere crying foul. Well President Obama recently announced that his administration would delay the implementation of this provision until at least 2015. Now him and his minions in the Democrat controlled Senate say they are trying to be flexible with business owners, and address some concerns with reporting regulations. However, us common sense Americans (Conservatives) know that there is a darker motive to this scheme.

In 2014, Americans will go to the polls in the midterm elections. Up for grabs is control of the House, and most importantly of the Senate. The Dems currently enjoy a majority in the Senate, but there is plenty of room for Republicans to swipe away the spotlight on Capitol Hill. Knowing this full well, President Obama made a political calculation to delay until after Americans cast their votes. That's because he knows that requiring businesses to provide health care coverage will cause lay offs, and increase unemployment. As a matter of fact, the CEO of Papa John's pizza chain has already come out publicly along with many corporations to say they would be forced to lay off, or cut hours of employees if this provision goes into effect.

President Obama knew he would have political troubles should this law pass. In fact, most Americans actually oppose ObamaCare now that they know what it requires. We all knew it would be trouble when then Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D) told us "We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". Now Americans are finding out, and despite this delay, will certainly take out their frustration in the poll booths come 2014.

#RepealObamaCare

Welcome!

I want to take a minute to welcome everyone to my new blog! Many of you followed my previous blog, A Conservative Take, and I am glad you have followed my thoughts and I to our new home, Dracut Conservative.

For those of you who are new, my name is Colin Loiselle. I am 19 year old sophomore at Suffolk University in Boston, MA. I am from Dracut, MA, and that's where the title comes from. I am studying political science, and have had the pleasure of working for both Scott Brown and Mitt Romney's campaigns during the most recent election. I also have had the pleasure of interning for Senate Minority Leader, Bruce Tarr (R) at the Massachusetts State House. I am a proud member of the Suffolk University GOP, and am a registered Republican. I currently serve as a Senator to Suffolk University's Student Government Association, where I represent the class of 2016.

I would say that I am your average conservative if I was to pick a spot on the political spectrum. I believe in fiscal responsibility, free market, limited government, and am staunchly pro-life. Perhaps my only "liberal", if you will, belief is that the government has no place determining what constitutes a marriage, and as such I support the rights of all couples, straight or gay, to be married free of judgement from the government or fellow citizens.

I will use this platform to advocate for issues that I support, and share my thoughts on current issues and debates within the United States. I will very rarely comment on foreign affairs, however I may dabble in it from time to time. I understand that there are opposing views, and respect everyone's opinions. I simply ask that you respect mine as well. There will be no tolerance for derogatory language, hate speech, or violent threats on this page. All other comments are welcome, and I would love to spark a healthy, informed, and honest debate. Please shoot me an email if you have any questions, comments, suggestions, or concerns. I am very open to suggestions for posts, and will answer any and all questions.

Thanks for visiting for the page, and enjoy!