The Oath-Keepers: 10 Orders We Won't Obey!

[aquatus1]

That seems an odd analysis.

It is a matter of perspective.

Though I understand the question of 'feeling', having brought up the subject of morale, this is more about principle than feelings.

Not really, no. To the person taking an oath to uphold the constitution, the matter of principles has already been decided. Either they intend to keep their oath, or they do not. Taking a second oath from a third-party isn't going to affect the principles one way or another.

Further, could you clarify just who it is that might show automatic suspicion of those who do not join Oathkeepers?

People who's first reaction to criticism of the Oathkeepers is commenting that they may be part of the enemy camp. This not only shows pre-emptive suspicion of intent, it also shows judgement on another person's thoughts.

Also, people who believe that not taking this oath is tantamount to intending to willfully violate it. Asides from the obvious false logic like the above, you also have the insinuation that the Oathkeeper oath is superior to any other oath someone may have taken, which is, on its face, a rather arrogant thing to imply.

Indeed, even people who insist on referring to taking the Oathkeeper oath as a benign and relatively insignificant ritual, comparing it to wedding vow renewal, are doing so (intentionally or subconsciously) for the purpose of contrasting the difference between an argument of opposition and the relatively low importance of it; the suggestion, of course, being that it is suspicious that one would spend such an inordinate amount of energy protesting such a harmless, whimsical, thing.

The way I understand the Oath-Keepers Oath, is that the ten specific points zero in on the specifics of the USA Constitution, and citizens who do take that oath affirm that they understand the "finer details" involved in up-keeping their original generic oath, which does not go into any specific details.

See, this here is precisely what the Oathkeeper Oath was initial meant to support. This is exactly what Mr. Rhodes intended from the very beginning; nothing more than a reminder and further focus from the people in the field as to what they, individually, are fighting for. This is also precisely why Mr. Rhodes was also looking for intelligent, reasoned, thinkers to work alongside him. He understood that this sort of thing was just begging to be corrupted. And corruption starts very early, and it starts with the very best of intentions, from within.

An oath is meant to be entered freely and of one's own will, not out of shame, not out of suspicion, and certainly not because people do not believe you meant it when you already made an oath. To me, all the arguments that are focused on reasons why people should take the oath and insinuations as to why people would not take the oath, not only miss the point, but they also create a very bad sort of mindset. A divisive set of beliefs that, taken to its extremes, serves to foment suspicion, mistrust, and superiority complexes.

The only person here so far who has actually made reference to Mr. Rhodes original arguments for the oath is Karlis, and as he correctly points out, the purpose of the Oathkeepers is not to take the oath; the purpose of the Oathkeepers is to educate people about the finer points of the oath they already took. The purpose of the Oath itself is a truism; done to underscore and emphasize the importance of what seems obvious, but is actually fundamental.

Unfortunately, there will be too many people who will agree with this without fully understanding it, but I am afraid that I am out of time, both for this and for quite some time to come. I will be taking a sabbatical shortly, likely starting tomorrow morning, so I am unlikely to be responding anymore.

[preacherman76]

Which is already covered in the original military oath and military regulations, thus making this new oath pointless.

Oh there is a point. Its to send a message to the hire ups that they will not be used as thier tool to inflict tyranny.

[Babe Ruth]

Aquatus

Good point about oaths being taken voluntarily--I agree completely.

This one is just a reminder, to reinforce the thought that the citizen is protected by the law, which the enforcer is sworn to uphold.

And the subject of moral decisions and matters of principle, many are made in crisis situations, rather under duress. Hopefully the oath will come to the fore in helping that forced decision.