** Is this IDIOT for real ** Agrees with 9th Circuit !!

Lew Rockwell and Brad Edmonds ^ | 28 June 2002 | David C. Osborne

[davidosborne]

Mr. Brad Edmonds states: Let me be among those who say that the court got this one right,...........

Lew Rockwell/Brad Edmonds Comments on the 9th Circuit Decision....

If you DISAGREE with this gentleman as I do, I suggest following the link and letting him know...

FReegards,

David C. Osborne

[middie]

It is absolutely amazing that there are still people to whom this type of foolish gibberish nonsense is their point of advocacy. These are the same specie of "geniuses" who assert with a straight face that the 14th Amendment is not the Law of the Land, that the income tax is unconstitutional, that states have the right to exercise a unilateral option to leave the Union, that there exists a sinister cabal titled the Council of Foreign Relations (there is such a benign organization) that is busily engaged in a conspiracy to unify the world under a single foreign government inimical to the interests of the United States, and other such equally idiotic views of contemporary affairs.

These kooks should repeatedly thank the Almighty for the liberties, and particularly those of religion, privacy, due process, speech and assembly, that they would deny those who disagree with their nuttiness if they, by some horrendous quirk of events, were to gain governance power.

[sport]

Amen!

[TigersEye]

GOD is not a religion it is a generic term that many religions have adopted. Religion is not just a philosophy based on theism. Atheism is one of the most dogmatic religions we have. This actually comes very close to establishing Atheism as the state religion. It sets the precedent for all references to God or Creator in government documents, from the Declaration of Independence to our money, to be ruled unconstitutional.

This makes me sick to my stomach but...you are absolutely right!

Oh well. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

[Texasforever]

Thanks.....I think.

[TigersEye]

; ) I toldja I was a conservative. We're bound to agree on somthin'.

[SBeck]

Could you please post his entire response to you? Thank you.

[Jeff Head]

Your arguemnts are without merit. Where is it required to perjure themselves? You only perjure yourself in a court of la, when supplying evidence. The pledge is not applicable in such an environment. Like I said, don't say those portions if they do not want to.

Who said anything about the pledge being a constitutionally required anything? The judge is trying to side with an activist individual and make it unconstitutional. Once again, no one is forcing anyone to say it. Just giving those the opportunity who desire to do so.

[Jeff Head]

Oops!

You only perjure yourself in a court of la, when supplying evidence.

Should be:

You only perjure yourself in a court of law, when supplying testimony. In fact I believe there is a congressional statute on record making it illegal for anyone to force someone to say the pledge.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

Perjury, like most words, has several senses. Perjury can mean what you said, but in the more general sense, it means breaching an oath.

Suppose an atheist were to pledge allegiance to a nation "under God", a God he does not believe exists. This is clearly a breach of an oath. The Pledge of Allegiance is not just something you say before the teacher calls roll. Naturalized citizens say the Pledge as their first act of citizenship. It is a sacred oath and belongs to every citizen, atheists included.

As you so charitably stated, atheists can choose not to say the Pledge, but this is no different from being forced not to say the Pledge. If they choose to say it, they will be lying, so this is not a choice at all. If the two words "under God" are taken out of the Pledge, no U.S. citizen will be committing perjury when they say the Pledge.

[nicmarlo]

Could you please post his entire response to you?

Sorry, I've deleted all emails. However, the one posted on this thread was his entire response to my e-mail. I don't believe he responded to my last e-mail.

[Jeff Head]

atheists can choose not to say the Pledge, but this is no different from being forced not to say the Pledge

Sorry, this is about as convoluted logic as I have ever seen. Do you actually believe this? That if someone has a choice to say it or not, that this is the same as them being forced to say it.

Such a position is so far out in left field that it defies reason in my opinion. It is not a "hard" pill to swallow ... in fact it cannot be swallowed because such statement and position has no throat. Force of course would mean that they have no choice.

Well, I've said my piece on this and am perfectly content to let others read it and our exchange and come to their own conclusions. Adieu.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

You left out the rest of the quote. Perhaps if you consider both sentences together, it will make more sense.

" ... atheists can choose not to say the Pledge, but this is no different from being forced not to say the Pledge. If they choose to say it, they will be lying, so this is not a choice at all. "

Atheists have the "choice" to either not say the Pledge or to state an oath which those two words render invalid. You may disagree, but I see this as a problem. When people are sworn in as naturalized U.S. citizens, they say the Pledge of Allegiance. It is the official oath of U.S. citizenship. Since 1954, every single atheist who becomes a naturalized U.S. citizen commits perjury in their first act as a U.S. citizen.

This has been a pleasant exchange. Thank you.

[Jeff Head]

By US law, circa 1940's, they cannot be "forced" to say the pledge. They can simply not say whatever part offends them. To my knowledge, they will not be docked for so doing.

Therefore, they need not either be forced to say it or lie. Very simple solution really ... it's called freedom.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

" They can simply not say whatever part offends them. "

What other parts of the Pledge is it "okay" not to say? Is it still the Pledge of Allegiance?

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

" Therefore, they need not either be forced to say it or lie. "

The point is that they can say the Pledge, but they can't mean it, unless they change their minds about their religious beliefs. Would you accept a Pledge of Allegiance that contradicted your religious beliefs?

[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

[Jeff Head]

Of course not, but if it is not required, so it does me no harm. Or, if I want to say the parts I agree with, I am free to do so.

It is not required . US Law makes this so. All of the issues you raise are therefore irrelevant as far as I am concerned and grasping at straws.

The issue here is an attempt to force people not to say it, or not to say certain parts. You are arguing the opposite side of an issue ... but that opposite does not exsist because no one has said they MUST say it and they are free to make the pledge in any way they see fit. My arguement is against people being told what they can or cannot say.

Anyhow, this is getting repetitive, each of us saying the same thing over and over. I see no point in continuing it. I am satisifed that other readers can see both points and come to their own conclusions.

I will continue to fight steadfastly, for the reasons I have given, for any move to legally force me to not say "One Nation Under God" with the pledge. Just as I would fight any effort to take "In God we Trust" from the currency, or "in God is our Trust" from the national anthem. Such a belief is a part of our national heritage and that is a fact.

With that, I will end my part of this discussion. Thanks for the reasoned discourse, even if we do disagree. Adieu.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

"The issue here is an attempt to force people not to say it, or not to say certain parts."

You are wrong, of course, but in the interest of parting gracefully as you have done, I will resist the urge to rebut directly. I would be repeating myself and I think both of us have stated our opinions clearly and in detail. Let others decide who has the right of this issue.

The Pledge is our national heritage, belonging to everyone, not just the current dominant religious group. I will continue to fight steadfastly against any religious group claiming primacy in our government. I respect your opinion and your passion regarding this issue. If we ever lock horns again, I hope it will be as pleasant and enlightening as this exchange has been. See you around.

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

" GOD is not a religion, it is a generic term that many religions have adopted. "

Then why do so many Christians seem to feel directly threatened by this issue. So far, all of the people I have seen attacking the 9th Circuit Court decision have identified themselves as Christian.


" Religion is not just a philosophy based on theism. Atheism is one of the most dogmatic religions we have. "

This is irrelevant. It would be a waste of time to start arguing over how dogmatic a particular set of religious beliefs is.


" This actually comes very close to establishing Atheism as the state religion. It sets the precedent for all references to God or Creator in government documents, from the Declaration of Independence to our money, to be ruled unconstitutional. "

Atheism was certainly not the state religion before 1954, nor was there any religious context in the Pledge. It just happens to be an atheist bringing forward the case. The government cannot endorse atheism by being silent about it, but by saying "under God" it is clearly endorsing the belief that God exists, which has NOTHING to do with being a U.S. citizen. On the other hand, the Pledge of Allegiance has EVERYTHING to do with it. It sounds to me like this is more about winning than doing what is right.