Sounds like you don't understand the ruling. Congress made a law, and they shouldn't have. Or didn't you know that it was already illegal to force anyone to say the pledge since 1943? Or that Congress added "under God" in 1954, as McCarthyite ranting against the godless Red Menace? Or that it's possible to be a Christian and want government to keep themselves divorced from religion? Or that it's possible to attempt to disagree with someone without impugning their motives or making any statements whatsoever about their beliefs on issues aside from the one being discussed?
Why do the liberals always twist things around to make it out as if a disagreement with them is a "personal attack" against them? I've done no such thing. I have criticized his and the judges' stance on the "under God" phrase in the pledge. Well, I responded this way to him:
Mr. Edmonds, I do understand the ruling. I am aware of the 1943 law, forbidding the Pledge being said under force. I am also aware of the motivation behind why Congress added "under God" as a reaction to the McCarthyism that existed at that time. But the word "God" or "our Lord" can be found in numerous of our country's documents, from years before 1943 and since.
I am concerned with the promotion of the idea that "freedom of religion" should be and can be twisted into "freedom from religion." That one word changes the entire original intent and takes away the religious liberty upon which our country was founded and is based. People always have motives......good or bad. The Founding Fathers' motives were for the freedom to express, in speech and religion, whatever the form. We must look to the consequences of things either promoted or forbidden. What you promote, and what the judges of the 9th Circuit have forbidden, is not constitutional, sir. That I impugn.
I think I shall not hear another word from Mr. Edmonds.