David Limbaugh Breaks Down the Argument

Once again, the esteemed David Limbaugh has produced a well-written piece regarding the Pledge case now working its way through the socialist 9th US Circuit. He makes it very clear that not only could the "Under God" phrase be ignored with a 'nuance' from the Court that the Pledge is primarily patriotic and thus such references are incidental, but also that they shouldn't have to in such a case.

The Establishment Clause was never intended to apply to such removed, indirect nods toward religion. And it does not guarantee our right not to be offended or made to feel uncomfortable.

But more importantly, it was not intended to be used as a sword against the free exercise of religion. By going out of its way to find Establishment Clause violations on such tenuous grounds, the Court deprives students who want to recite the Pledge of their free exercise rights. In this way, the religion clauses are turned on their heads to achieve a result entirely opposite from that intended by the Framers.

Those who wish to restrict freedom often make you look with blinders at whatever little part they think aids that restriction. Clauses like the State Militia or Establishment Clauses are trotted out as whole and without accompaniment, ignoring the Free Exercise and Shall Not Infringe Clauses. It makes it easier to argue if you can ignore inconvenient realities like this, and the left most certainly does. Also consider that the Bill of Rights enshrines certain rights, but was obviously never meant to be an exhaustive list or to limit what were the rights of the States or the People. And yet, the States and the People are routinely the victims of this misuse of language, as in this case of the left's ridiculous agenda.