You are correct about the redress of grievances thing, I lost the context in my brain in my indignation. Thanks for correcting me.
Don't hit me with your law books, I'm a lowly journalism student.
[quote]Can you elaborate a little further on your point about the issue being the wording of the original document? Who came up with that document? Where has any state or federal governing body mandated its use? I'm fairly certain that hasn't happened.<hr></blockquote>
Once again: Eisenhower approved a congressional act on June 14th, 1954 that added the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Pledge was first made official on June 22, 1942 when a congressional act made it part of the United States Flag Code (Title 36).
A congressional act. An act of the federal government. Under jurisdiction of the judicial branch.
[quote]The schools themselves (or their PTA boards or whoever runs the show on a local basis) has put the pledge into their activities. Therefore it's the citizens running the schools (not the government) who has mandated the pledge in those cases. No?<hr></blockquote>
They have made the mandate that the pledge be used, yes, but again, recitation of the pledge ISN'T the issue.
The text of the pledge is the issue.
*kicks dead horse square in nuts*
[quote]As for the guy who said it was "cool" to sue, my point wasn't that he should have no rights but that his choice of words in describing this whole mess are a pretty good indication the guy is basically looking for publicity / attention / money.<hr></blockquote>
Assumptions like that are flawed and pointless. And elitist.
But it's funny to make fun of him.
[quote]Hence, my ultimate point was he's solving his personal problems in a totally inappropriate way / bringing other people into it whether they want any part of it or not.<hr></blockquote>
He sees a problem and he wants to have it fixed. I don't see the problem aside from the fact that you might not think it's a problem.
[quote]I can't stand it when people like this hide behind the constitution to solve their petty problems.<hr></blockquote>
Hide behind the constitution... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
That... that's just frightening. That is a frightening attitude... hiding
for God's sake, behind the CONSTITUTION!?
[quote]Again, would it have been so horrible for him to just explain to this daughter why she shouldn't have to recite the pledge, have her do that, and just move on with life?<hr></blockquote>
Maybe not, but what does it matter?
[quote]Do we have to screw with everyone else's existence too?<hr></blockquote>
Someone get a huuuuuuuge box of kleenex, we're screwing up people's existence!
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[quote]What about the HUGE majority of parents who WANT their kids to recite the pledge in public schools? They don't matter?<hr></blockquote>
They can recite the pledge in public. To their little hearts' content they can pledge allegiance until they are blue in the face. They can even say "....under MY Christian God and all you atheists can suck my ass, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Does the fact that the majority of people in the U.S. worship the Christian God give the .gov the right to establish that God and imply subjugation to that god in the Pledge of Allegiance to the nation?
[quote]Taken to exteremes virtually ANYTHING we say or do in this country can be deemed by someone to be an abridgement of their rights. Find a good enough lawyer and there's a loophole for everything. THAT's what we're seeing here IMO.<hr></blockquote>
A loophole? The first amendment is a loophole? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
"Anything we say" isn't the issue. I'll tell you what, go to those states affected by the 9th circuit court's decision and say the pledge with "under God" over and over again, see if you get in trouble for it.
I don't think you understand what's going on.