The Kelly File appearance of 23 October, 2013

Mikey –

Your arguments on The Kelly File on 23 October do not stand up. Show a little respect to those whom have volunteered to uphold The Constitution of this great nation. The phrase “so help me God” IS Constitutional. There is no harm in saying them and abiding by those words.

You really need to focus your personal issues on a cause that is good and meaningful instead of demeaning others, and demeaning the foundation of our great nation. For example, why don’t you steer your efforts to determining what happened in Benghazi, hold former Secretary of State Ms. Hilary Clinton, Mr. Barrack Hussein Obama, and others accountable for their mismanagement and lack of leadership.

You claim to be a USAF Academy graduate. You claim to be a registered Republican. You claim to have been legal counsel in the Reagan Administration. Yet, you clearly do not live your life as a Republican, or conservative, or Christian. The First Amendment, and Article VI clearly do not speak to the use of “so help me God” in the military. Lastly, when Jefferson wrote, “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”, it clearly has been accepted to mean our government shall not order us to be Methodist, Catholic, Pentecostal, etc.

The same Constitution gives you the right to say what you say, but do not drag others into your pathetic, stupid, petty rant.

Find out where the buck stops with respect to Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, Solyndra, Obama-care and numerous other scandals – make something of yourself.

(Name withheld)

---

Dear (name withheld),

Mikey has read your email and asked me to respond on his and MRFF behalf.

I am a Christian (Episcopalian in fact) who fully supports Mikey’s and MRFF’s attempt to protect members of the U.S. Military from unconstitutional religious influence in relation to their training, assignment, advancement and retention. In supporting MRFF’s efforts, I defend both my Christian faith and my Constitution proudly and equally. I simply don’t feel compelled defend one at the expense of the other.

Your regurgitation of the statement “the phrase ‘so help me God’ IS Constitutional” carries the same validity as Jay Sekulow’s comments on ‘The Kelly File’…none. Although, I must admit, you almost swayed me with the all-caps ‘IS’.

Let’s address your contention that “There is no harm in saying them and abiding by those words.” Ms. Kelly, and others, contend that individuals taking the oath could simply leave ‘those words’ 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 so 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). 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?

Being cute or clever regarding your ultimate goal in needlessly entangling government in religion does not make an action Constitutional.

Sincerely,

Andy Kasehagen

---

Andy,
Let’s make a few things perfectly clear. I am not speaking for Ms. Kelly. The comments stated in my emails are purely my own, and directed at little Mikey. I do not believe I stated the words “are meaningless”.

If you knew your history, which you clearly do not, these are the very words, “In God We Trust” for example, and principles our great country is founded on. I would venture to guess that “you” (little Mikey) are making the senseless, baseless statements to draw attention to yourselves. Further degrading, deteriorating, and disrespecting the very foundation.

I suspect that if we were to actually interview the very service men and women you claim are offended, they would disagree with your position.

Fact – separation of church and state does not mean – freedom from religion, rather freedom of religion.

This paragraph tipifies your stupidity and ignorance: “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 fact of the matter is that oath is “so help me God”. Period. Remember?

This, too, is a stupid statement “Being cute or clever regarding your ultimate goal in needlessly entangling government in religion does not make an action Constitutional.”. There is no ultimate goal, just show a little respect to the founding positions, and get along. Hold our government to the standards of the Constitution. Simple isn’t it. There is no entanglement other than those dopes that choose to make it entangled.

Give up this silly entangling battle, and join the real war in keeping our government accountable for their actions (or inaction in the case of Benghazi, or any of the current event issues). Help to reduce the massive size of our government. Read our Constitution. Come out of the dark side and may the force be with you.

Regards,
(name withheld)