The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age
    MuddyPolitics's picture

    America’s Motto is Safe from the Liberal Anarchists and Atheists

    By MuddyPolitics on Fri, 11/04/2011 - 11:53pm |

     

    It’s the God-damned liberals’ fault – and by “God-damned” I mean literally, metaphorically and eschatologically.

     
     
    They’ve insulted our country enough already, what with their attacks on Christmas, their insulting claims that Jesus was a Jew, their full-throttle sabotage of the institution of marriage, their attempt to teach biology in schools, their general aim to turn our children into flaming homosexuals… This has to stop.
     
    Fresh from a week’s vacation, congressional Republicans this week took one great step for mankind toward reversing the great strides of the heathens by introducing and passing a bill to reaffirm America’s motto, “In God We Trust.”
     
    It was only a matter of time, after all, before these idolatrous perverts and bestiality professors turned our national motto into “In Dog We Thrust”; before a powerful wave of paganism, reprobation, godlessness and moral depravity washed over the pure and sinless hearts of God’s faithful children; before socialism, redistibution of wealth and free love and Birkenstocks, black magic and veganism infiltrated our societies, our communities, our schools and eventually our homes; and before the Obama/TSA Gestapo began frisking us for pocket-Bibles while we shop for patriotic, anti-Nanny State cookies at Wal-Mart.
     
    It’s a slippery slope into the fiery pits of hell when a nation’s motto is sacrificed on a wiccan alter by evil lesbian Chernobog worshippers. Alas, we are saved – for now.
     
    The Republicans have done us all a great service in defending against what would have been inevitable violations of our religious freedom.
     
     
    Don’t be fooled. Just because it wasn’t yet their No. 1 priority doesn’t mean changing our national motto wouldn’t eventually rise to the top of the list. If Barack Obama wins re-election in 2012.
     
    Just as the vice president of the NRA said that Obama’s inaction on gun regulation was proof of a “massive Obama conspiracy” to destroy the Second Amendment, so too is the liberal left’s silence about changing our nation’s motto proof that they want to change the nation’s motto.
     
    Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.)

     

    Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.), a Baptist, voiced his support of the reaffirmation measure on the House floor by pointing to the “profound significance” of the age-old question, “Is God God or is man God?”

     
    In God do we trust, or in man do we trust? I would submit to you that the answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, is one of profound significance. Indeed Christopher Columbus trusted in God and his service to God was to go out and search the world for find – find ways to do things that would honor God, and he ran into this place called America.”
     
    That’s right, folks. Gold, spices, eco-political power, the slave trade and the massive spread of disease (not to forget the eradication of native peoples) – these are all ways to do things that honor God.
     
    “If man is God, then an atheist state is as brutal as the thesis that it rests upon,” Franks continued, “and there is no longer any reason to gather here in this place. We should just let anarchy prevail, because after all we are just worm food. So indeed we have the time to reaffirm that God is God and in God do we trust.”
     
    Contrary to what those brutal anarchist atheists believe, men are not worm food. That’s impossible: we seal bodies in worm-proof caskets, for Christ’s sake! But on the bigger point here, Franks is correct. Even if liberal critics want to interpret this reaffirmation of our national motto as just another example of the Republican Party’s hilariously depressing attempt to distract the masses with faux patriotism rather than doing something (anything) to address the real economic problems in this country, the truth is that patriotism has a real, measurable affect on Americans, both psychologically and spiritually, and therefore economically.
     
    It will increase consumer confidence, because patriotism requires that whenever things get tough Americans go shopping, go to Disney Land, and invest their hard-earned dollars (or unemployment checks) in their local economies. And it will increase job prospects for the unemployed because God favors and finds jobs for those whose political leaders are willing and able to risk looking like dipshits in public for proposing bills that don’t do anything, don’t change anything, and don’t preserve anything whatsoever.

     

    Comments

    To me, the more interesting aspect of this whole affair is not that they want to "reaffirm" the slogan of "In God We Trust", I mean, it is the Republican party for crying out loud, they're just playing to their Evangelical base.  I think the more important discussion concerns their rejection of E. Pluribus Unum; "Out of many, One."  I think to complain or fight against "In God We Trust" is a losing theme.  Instead, I believe, we should be challenging Republicans on how they feel about E. Pluribus Unum, a slogan literally chosen by our Founding Fathers to appear on the great seal of the United States.  The GOP's uneasiness with E. Pluribus Unum  is understandable in the context of their advocacy of state's rights and the '300 million individual bunkers' concept of the Tea Party, i.e., "I've got mine, screw everyone else."  

    In my opinion, Democrats need to offer an alternative that reaffirms that America is a nation, not a series of tribes.  In other words, put the 'United' back in United States.   


    by MrSmith1 on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 8:31am

    I think you've got a good point. Even I'll admit that fighting "In God We Trust" is a losing battle (and probably will remain so in my lifetime), but E. Pluribus Unum should be easy to defend, on multiple levels.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 9:55am

    I completely agree.  E Pluribus Unum is a positive message that America's strength comes from uniting our diverse groups. If there was a left-wing sludge report/faux news I think they would have slanted this as "Southern Conservatives remind minority President that America's motto is not about bringing people together"  

    I actually don't know much about the history of our motto, other then it came about in 1956. I had thought it was a response to the godless Soviet threat, but I am now speculating that it might also be partly in response to the Civil rights movement, perhaps another of those southern code things. I could certainly see why they would have displesure with the motto on our national seal. 


    by Saladin on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:54pm

    Nice post, MP. I wonder if we'll have any drive-by commenters who won't realize it's satire? (It's happened before, and on pieces that we're just as obviously satire as this one.)


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 9:57am

    Either you spoke exactly 15 minutes too soon, or I'm six for six in face-palm posts.


    by MuddyPolitics on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 3:31pm

    I'm quite certain that Oxy Mora knew it was satire.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 8:15pm

    Maybe she did know. Or, as I stated, maybe I really suck at making a point. Either way, she's comparing my writing to her writing.


    by MuddyPolitics on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:38pm

    Muddy, I want to like your posts, I really do. I think you are well intentioned. I'm just not getting them.

    In my own posts I mostly fail to achieve my objective and I do a lot of post-post editing. My posts are many times internally inconsistent, strive for humor when there is none, have embedded oxymora, and trade too much on  down home droll. But I try to maintain a thread and concentrate more on the actual writing that trying to force feed my ideas.

    I say this to try to be helpful. What I'm getting from your posts is a strong flavor of the hard sell, some pretty questionable. graphics and a wandering thread. The main thing is I'm not learning anything and I have no sense of a personality emerging from the fog.

    I am writing this because I want to like your stuff but I'm not getting it. So maybe I'm obtuse and intrusive and way out of line.   I wouldn't even make these comments if I didn't see the potential in what you write and respect the underlying fire in the belly. I'm sorry, friend, I'm still seeing this as rant and cant. I think you can better represent yourself because I see the good and intelligent intent. 

    So call me chicken, I'm headed out for the weekend in the country to feed them and run my trusty dog, and wish I hadn't written this.  

     


    by Oxy Mora on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:12am

    FWIW, I didn't find the graphics on this post in any way questionable. I thought the thread was reasonably direct and not atypical from some of the other satirical posts that Genghis or Wolfrum (where'd he go, btw?) have written. (I feel sort of lawyerly there, citing precedent. Now I need to go take a shower. wink)

    That said, constructive criticism is never out of place, nor is it atypical of you to be polite and constructive. If I could offer some constructive criticism of my own, perhaps your criticism here could be more precise. I do understand that sometimes it's hard to nail down what strikes one the wrong way, but if possible, it usually makes the criticism more helpful. It's also nice when you mix praise in with the criticism, as you've done here.


    by Verified Atheist on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:18am

    Muddy, I apologize for the hit and run. In truth my partner was dragging me out the door as we were late. But that is no excuse. I should just have deleted my comments.

    Overnight I did think about my reaction. I  had heard this story before. On it's face it is a caricature. I read your post looking for an insight or angle I had missed. Mostly, I think focusing on the event again renewed my disgust for the action and I transferred that onto your post. That covers 80% of it.

    Having my comment out there, Atheist is right in generously suggesting that I need to add specifics.

    Picture. I assumed that because of this man's disfigurement you had put the picture in for schock value. Re reading it I see he is germane and that I was wrong.

    Editing. I think the piece would have been stronger if it had been shorter.

    Voice. The hardest thing for any writer to do is to find an authentic voice. e.e. cummings said, if effect, that when you look at a sentence and know it could only have been written by you, you know you have found voice. A word like "dipshit" is someone else's word, not yours. It weakens the entire piece, in my estimation.

    Balance. I think even a piece like this needs to reveal that the writer can see the other viewpoint. I can't explain why but I think, forgotten his name, Trent?, is the essence of the story, not the superficial stuff, but why this guy, personally, was so invested in this action--as, in his case, it wasn't for "show" in the way it was for so many of the others. Or maybe it was "show" for him also.  That's the story.


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:52pm

    Now that's good criticism. In fact, I think it's some of the best criticism I've seen here at dagblog, and that's a pretty high bar.


    by Verified Atheist on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:18pm

    I should add that on Friday my dog got a bad report card from Doggy Day Care. Seems she is getting territorial and giving the other dogs a bad time. My partner just told me that she thinks she knows where it's coming from.

     


    by Oxy Mora on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 1:23pm

    Oxy Mora, I'm glad you realized that Trent's "disfigurement," as you put it, wasn't germane. On "Editing," thank you for that input. When I'm having fun with something, I let it ride, but I'll keep your thoughts in mind next time. On "Voice,"this piece is satirical, and the word "dipshit" is in fact mine; I use it daily, and not only when I read news about Republican Party antics. On "Balance," again, this piece was satire, and objectivity isn't usually a requisite for satirical pieces -- nor do I believe it's a requisite for anything published on dag.

    That said, I appreciate that you gave it a second read. Sorry about your doggy drama. Thanks for the writing lessons.

     

    N
     


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 7:48pm

    Thanks for pointing out the latest absurdity on which the Republicans in Congress are wasting their time and the nation's time.

    For those who don't watch this sort of crap covered and punditized  24/7 on TeeVee News presenting it here can be helpful. On googling this subject to see if it in fact was not a joke, I noted an editorial mentioned, titled GOP: In Slogans We Trust. The sad fact is slogans, and a wallet fat with free speech, are both necessary fundamentals to elective office in the US.


    by NCD on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 2:43pm

    Junk politics will rot your mind.  Sex scandals, symbolic cultural wars, partisan bitch-fests, cable TV pseudo-stories: just say "no".

     


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 6:54pm

    Without junk politics, sex scandals, symbolic culture wars, partisan bitch-fests and cable TV pseudo-stories, politics would be completely ignored.


    by MuddyPolitics on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:10pm

    Only by the shallow.  And if they stopped paying attention, that wouldn't be so bad.


    by Dan Kervick on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:17pm

    But if the shallow don't vote, then the die-hard radicals determine elections. What then?


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:13am

    May the best radicals win.


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:18am

    Like in 2010...


    by MuddyPolitics on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:21am

    I voted for all of my Democratic candidates in 2010.  Some people didn't.  Maybe if Obama would get on their side, he would give them more of a reason to vote.  But he's too busy sucking up to Wall Street while sending his people to attack the left.  So I can see why  they would tell him to stick it..


    by Dan Kervick on Sun, 11/06/2011 - 12:27am

    See I think you have upon my problem.

    I mean I am not that far from death; I mean chronologically.

    But I HATE THESE PEOPLE.

    What is the matter with me?

    I hate them.

    In god we trust.

    What the fuck is that?

    Which god?

    Thor or Zeus or Jesus (who is just a son of man anyway?)

    Fuck all of you.

    That is a terrible sentiment, is it not?

     


    by Richard Day on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 10:30pm

    Is there a god who throws racist imbeciles to the lions? 

    What about the one that made rich people pass throw the eye of camel or something like that, what would he say about the unemployment issue that our motto is here to fix? 


    by Saladin on Sat, 11/05/2011 - 11:02pm