Mr. Weinstein appears on Fox

I watched a clip of Mr. Weinstein and Ms. Kelly.

Mr. Weinstein’s got a real problem. It’s very evident he cannot help listening and thinking with his mouth.

(name withheld)

Dear (name withheld)

I was equally impressed with Ms. Kelly’s journalistic integrity. I’ve heard rumors her interview style is being studied at only the preeminent schools of journalism.

Ms. Kelly integrity was on full display when she made the contention that individuals taking the oath at the Air Force Academy (among others) could simply leave ‘those words’ (So help me God) off on their own. Logically then, Ms. Kelly obviously feels those words are clearly extraneous and therefore essentially meaningless to the oath. Why are they included in the government’s oath then? Additionally, if they are meaningless, why all the worry and ‘pearl clutching’ in light of the commendable objective of limited government intrusion usually expressed by Ms. Kelly?

Now consider the reverse of what Ms. Kelly said; that individuals taking the oath could simply add ‘those words’ on their own (this was Mikey’s point to Ms. Kelly but you may have not been able to hear during the interview as Ms. Kelly continued to ‘think with her mouth’). Have individual members of the military been denied this personal ability when completing their require oaths? If you are aware of this happening, please let us know here at MRFF, we’ll jump all over that government intrusion into religious faith just a vigorously. Personally, my Christian faith in God and Jesus do not require government prompting for expression.

Now let’s consider the no harm/no foul concept while replacing ‘those words’ in a required government oath with ‘So help me Allah’. So help me Jehovah? So help me Vishnu? Buddha? Flying Spaghetti Monster?….etc. How’s your comfort level now? Any objections being included in a required government oath?

The same Constitution that gives you the right to say what you say also prohibits religious establishment and tests. When a government prompts religious expression through the use of extraneous and meaningless words in a required oath; what other purpose can it logically have than support/establish or test for a preferred religious response when there is absolutely no prohibition against an individual’s expression of religious faith after taking such oath?

You also appear to have a real problem with psychological projection of your own issues with listening or thinking.


Andy Kasehagen

Share this page:

Commenter Account Access

  • Register for a commenter account
    (Not required to post comments, but will save you time if you're a regular commenter)
  • Log in using your existing account
  • Click here to edit your profile and change your password
  • All comments are subject to our Terms of Use

No Comments

Start the ball rolling by posting a comment on this article!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *