[r9etb]

Well, seeing as how he's writing for LewRockwell.com, he's serious. Not to be taken seriously, of course ... but he is serious.

[davidosborne]

Passing it on.. while your at it be sure to....

SIGN PETITION HERE....

[rmlew]

There is a hate America right. See LewRockwell.com and Anti-war.com

[Texaggie79]

[OldFriend]

Why take these dolts seriously.

[livius]

Yawn. Neal Boortz (and other libertarians) also agree. Who cares? As the dissenting judge said, it may be technically unconstitutional, but it's "de minimus," which means insignificant, doesn't matter, not worth bothering with, etc.

That is, this was an accepted phrase, used with no coercion (since people cannot be forced to say any or all of the Pledge), and not establishing any particular religion.

I'm waiting to see Neal and the others out trying to scrub the offending WORD off of their currency....

[Criminal Number 18F]

David --

chill out, young sergeant. There are a handful of whackos... read the stuff on Lew Rockwell's site and tell me if you think he's going to get any traction. This guy is off the edge of his flat earth.

Someone also mention Anti-War.com which is a clown named Justin Raimondo. No one in the real physical world ever heard of these fringe loons. Look at the sites and you'll see what I mean. These guys are entitled to their opinions but they are destined to be lonely in them.

As far as emailing one of these guys, it's like trying to FReep DU, or convert a Scientologist, or talk a bum out of drinking: a good task for someone bucking for sainthood, inured to disappointment, and with no other worthwhile objectives. This doesn't describe you does it? To put in another way, if you wrestle with a pig you both wind up dirty but the pig loves it.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[borntodiefree]

To initiate an intelligent debate, forgetting about the court. What is correct or incorrect about his statements. I'd like to get past the emotion, and have an intelligent discussion before I come to a conclusion.

[Arkinsaw]

His point about pledging allegiance to the flag coz it changes when we get a new State is about the weakest argument I've ever heard for anything.

He also indicates that we are pledging allegiance to 'the government' when we pledge allegiance to the Republic. How can that be when the government 'changes every day' by adding new employees and getting rid of old ones? Sheesh.

[Sci Fi Guy]

I didn't bother to read the article, but did he actually say what religion was established by having kids say the words under God?

Or is this another one of those, I'll ignore what the constitution says.. type of articles.

[TheRedSoxWinThePennant]

DENNIS MILLER JUST HAD A GREAT LINE REGARDING THIS FIASCO "IS IT NOT FUNNY THAT THE JUDGE WHO RULED THE PLEDGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL TOOK THE OATH OF OFFICE WITH HIS HAND ON THE BIBLE JUST RENDER HIMSELF UNEMPLOYED

[Fast 1975]

I wish my fellow libertarians would get off this issue, and use their energy fighting socialism, drug and gun laws- these cooks are killing the cause. I'll stick with Cato. I have never heard Boortz suggest getting the government out of education altogher. For whatever reason, he will occasionally go on a tirade against Christian conservatives.

[Paul Atreides]

From all that I have heard, the lawsuit was a sham from the get-go. The guy claimed his daughter had been forced to recite the Pledge. Then, after the ruling, it comes out that she did so voluntarily. From everything I have read, he was doing it all for himself.

[dheretic]

While I disagree with why it was ruled unconstitutional, I hope the entire pledge is scuttled. There is a very simple reason, the pledge teaches people to be loyal to an abstract America and not its Constitution. Look at this from a broader historical perspective. Pledging loyalty to the nation, or a symbol of the nation, is a sign of nationalism, not patriotism. The nationalist, to paraphrase Orwell cannot see wrong in his country. A patriot can, he can love his country, but hate its government. That is however not the lesson of the pledge. It does not tell each generation to hold the Constitution with great esteem, respect and be willing to defend it. It glorifies America without once mentioning what it is that politically binds us together, the longest standing liberal national constitution in history. It seeks to raise kids to be nationalistic, not patriotic. Want proof? Take a look at the millions upon millions of Americans who in the War on Terrorism increasingly do not believe in the existance of a loyal, non-leftist, constitutionalist opposition to the Bush Administration. Before you criticize me, take a look at FR. How many people have been called practically traitors, not because they said Bin Laden is misunderstood, but because they do not agree with how Bush is fighting this "War on Terrorism?" A lot. If people who do not want the legal weight of the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights to exist only on paper are called traitors for such a "crime," then isn't it time to wonder what kind of country we have become?

[Grampa Dave]

Ravingnutwell.com and the other so called conservative neverwar.coms are the true laughing stock of American Politics.

Ravingnuts hate Lincoln, cheer the South, hate God and generally hate America/Americans and would like to see their buddies the Islamic Terrorists destroy this nation that they hate 24/7/365.

We have these hate America/GWers on this site. If they ever got into power, our life would be worse than living under the Nazis of pre and during WWII.

However, the good reality, is they are a very small % of Americans. I sure that post 9/11 most of their web sites are hurting severely for finances.

I don't read anything posted on this site from these civil war losers. I don't respond to their replies, and this is how they should be handled. They deserve ridicule and shunning!

[nicmarlo]

My e-mail, off this a.m.:

Mr. Edmonds:

Sorry, but I must respectfully disagree with you. You got it wrong, as did the 9th Circuit. The Bill of Rights states:

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; 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.

Saying "under God" is promoting NO religion.

re·li·gion Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.
1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Obviously, what our Founding Fathers had in mind was to prevent the institutionalization of a particular belief system in our Country. Historical documents confirm this fear. Saying "under God" is also, obviously, not "institutionalizing" any religion. The Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Mormons, Catholics, Hindus, all believe in a Higher Power/Creator/Deity, whether it be conceived as monotheistic or polytheistic.....they all believe in "God," according to their understandings or definition of "God."

What the Court did, and apparently what you think is constitutional, is to ABRIDGE the free exercise of speech concerning a belief in God and PROHIBIT the freedom of speech guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution.

Both are violations of Amendment I to the Bill of Rights. You are wrong; so are both the activist judges.

[mercy]

Neel Boortz agrees with them too.

[nicmarlo]

Mr. Edmonds replied to my e-mail:

Good try, but not quite. Reference of any kind to a supernatural being is indeed religion. Parsing "a" vs. "an" vs. "the" is not the solution. The Pledge, by being the Official Pledge (with "under God" being added by Congress in 1954), is indeed unconstitutional, and by adding "under God" Congress made a law. They shouldn't have. Even more egregious is the word "indivisible," clearly anathema to the founders. Even Lincoln agreed, before he drank of the corrupting powers of the presidency. Here's a quote of his from 1848: "Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."

My personal pledge is, "I pledge allegiance to my God and my conscience."

As to freedom of speech, people can still say anything they want. You are free to stand on your property and say "I pledge allegiance to the US, which is a nation established as under the rule of Jesus Christ as he is understood by 7th-day Adventists." But you don't have a right to make it the official pledge of the nation. Freedom is precious; you waste mine by requiring that I bow to the God you worship.

[Mo1]

WIPE THE SMILE OFF OF THIS MAN'S FACE.

VOTE THE RATS OUT!!

DONATE TONIGHT. SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD