I don't demand that the more left-leaning, "progressive" members of AI justify and explain their reasons to me. To be completely honest, I couldn't care less.
Tomato, tomahto, pal.
Believe me, if I pursued and badgered the author of every kneejerk, nutball thing I've seen written on these boards and wanted to know "why...and provide links, please?", I'd never get any sleep.
She went head-to-head with the host of Hardball last night (wasn't Chris Matthews...was another guy, a substitute maybe? Matthews on vacation?) and a dark-haired lady, an editor for "The Nation", I believe.
Between the lady and the host talking over her and berating her for her opinions/beliefs, poor Ms. Coulter got out about 7 words the entire segment.
She was visible getting pissed. Which just made her that much hotter.
Exactly and referencing "God" in the Pledge doesn't not impinge on other religions nor does it promote Orthodoxy Religion to all but the blind. -snip-
What? Tyranny from your ears? By "hearing" the word "God" or "Jesus" in school does not violate your Liberty yet the revokation of this ability imposed on others DOES violate their rights. What I'm saying is that in America everything is a double edged sword..the same rights that we all enjoy can be used in ways that vex another group. That's life.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
It promotes orthodoxy in that 1) it is a view promoted by the government (it is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President and 2) it has normative content to the effect that the country is ruled by God (it doesn't matter whose god that is.) That, my dear, is why it seeks to establish an orthodoxy.
No, I am not blind. You use terms you do not understand - your posts consistently conflate religious liberty (i.e. the ability to practice religion free from state interference) and establishment of religion (i.e. the liberty of ALL the people to be free from the Government's establishment or encouragement of a specific religion or religious notion). You may practice any belief you wish, but you may not use the institutions of the state to do it. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I just think you like complain that not everyone believes like you do and refuse to separate your personal issues from the actual concrete legal issues. Your ability to worship in church or at home or even espousing your religious beliefs during a germane class discussion are not infringed by this case. And your jeremiads about persecution are positively ridiculous. Have you actually read the case or have you just read the news articles?
I suggest you read Hopwood and Barnette before you continue to make constitutional arguments. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I think you should have some grasp of the constitutional fundamentals before you argue about "rights." No, reading the 1st Amendment is not enough because there is little inherent content in those few phrases.
No, no...I was responding to pfflam's suggestion not to post at all or whatever. You'd posted yours as I wrote mine, so it looked like mine was referring to yours, not his.
I have never before in my life heard such lamentation from such a large and affluent portion of the population, acting as if something more horrible than the holocaust is being visited upon them.
I haven't met ONE person here in meat world who doesn't act like someone raped their grandparents when they hear about the decision... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Me, I think it's funny. The outrage is all the evidence needed that it's religious in nature and therefore the 1954 Act was unconstitutional.
But apparently some minds can't wrap themselves around that, so on we go...
hmurch:
[quote]Exactly and referencing "God" in the Pledge doesn't not impinge on other religions nor does it promote Orthodoxy Religion to all but the blind.<hr></blockquote>
It's the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
You are pledging allegiance with that statement, it's not like saying "Hi, how are you?" walking past someone on the street.
"I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands
one nation, under God, indivisble
with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance to a nation under the Christian god... hmmm... no, this isn't clear at all!
[quote]But that fact is our children ARE being forced to eradicate "God" "Jesus" and any other theological references.<hr></blockquote>
Run, white man, run affluent WASP, those in power are trying to get you! Oh wait... your lot are the ones in power...
[quote]Atheists get their wish but I am prevented from giving thanks to who I want. <hr></blockquote>
You are prevented from no such thing you fucking cry-baby.
Jesus, save me from your followers!
--
paul:
[quote]I said my piece (or is it peace?).<hr></blockquote>
You were right the first time, it's "piece".
[quote]What is FUD?<hr></blockquote>
Fear Uncertainty Doubt
Kind of like giving a noun to the conservative's spoken philosphy.
(Using the definition of conservative meaning "resistant to change")
[quote]But I don't owe any of them anything I don't feel like giving.<hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting notion. Usually a post saying "this is how I feel and I don't want to discuss it" is summed up with "I've said my piece" or "Those are my 2 cents."
It's certainly acceptable to not want to engage in debate, but if one chooses to engage in debate there are rules to follow. Hell, your political idealogy demands you keep the analysis to a minimum.
A. Can anyone point to evidence that suggests the government of the United States requires recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't. Hence, no government-sponsored religion.
B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't. The guy actually referred to his act of bringing this lawsuit as "cool". Typical Californian intellect at work. "Hey man, if you don't like something or somebody - SUE!" Fvcking moron.
C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"? Has it occured to anyone that the sensible solution here was to have the guy simply tell his daughter "If you don't feel like reciting this, you don't have to - just stand queitly until your classmates finish. If the teacher gets angry with you, please have her call me at the office." WOULD THAT BE SO HARD / BAD???????
In other words, to all you who think this is somehow sensible, you obviously have no concept of what the term "unconstitutional" means. This is what happens when you watch too much TV, where people are constantly throwing such terms around like they don't mean anything. I'll give you a little hint: this is about a publicity-seeking, money-grubbing sack of sh*t looking for his 15 minutes of fame - not someone who is trying to defend [his constitutional rights].
I'm so tired of all these losers who think it's their God-given (har har) right to waste the court's and taxpayers' time every time they are offended by something. THATS LIFE, MORONS. Things don't always fit into your little mental frames of reference. Sometimes you have to put up with things that annoy you, OK?!!
I'll include the "two cents" tag then. Kinda short and sweet.
You know, I'm out of school and all so I don't care what kids say or don't.
Just a bit jarring that things you never saw as bad, evil or harmful to begin with come to be seen that way by a certain segment. And all these things we simply have done or accepted are now up for divisive debate and everyone's choosing corners over something that, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago, there didn't seem to be a stink about.
Does that not strike anyone else as weird or a bit unsettling? Honestly, in 10 years or so, will the playing of the national anthem before a baseball game be up for debate, because (gasp!) everyone in the stadium might not be Americans and we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
I mean, just those little things like that. I could see them happening easily at some point. I could see a certain segment or group getting upset at the American flag being flown in front of a school, for whatever stupid reason.
Yeah, laugh. But I bet, in my lifetime, there will be something like that come along. We've already seen inklings of it in other stories.
You know what? Nothing surprises me anymore. It used to, maybe 10 years ago or so. But all this stuff yesterday (and what we're talking about in this thread) comes as no big shock or surprise. I mentioned in my initial post here that I had semi-jokingly told a buddy something like this would happen.
I've got a long list of other silliness that I can imagine in the next decade. Some bothers me, some doesn't.
[quote]A. Can anyone point to evidence that suggests the government of the United States requires recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't. Hence, no government-sponsored religion.<hr></blockquote>
Recitation isn't the issue, the text of the pledge as outlined in the 1954 act is in question.
[quote]B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't.<hr></blockquote>
Well, first off, the 9th circuit has little to do with California as a state, other states are covered by it.
And every citizen has a right to redress grievances against the government. Amendment I of the constitution.
Should those who use the word "cool" not be allowed basic rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights?
He should've said "totally gnarly and hella tight" to further piss the staid populace off.
[quote]C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"?<hr></blockquote>
Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the case. Not only can she not say it, she could even speak her protest while others were saying it. But that's not the issue.
Abuse isn't a requirement for a redress of grievances or for a motion before the courts. Forcing the repetition ISN'T the issue.
[quote]In other words, to all you who think this is somehow sensible, you obviously have no concept of what the term "unconstitutional" means.<hr></blockquote>
I'm no constitutional law professor... BUT
Laws made my congress are subject to the courts (Article III, Section II) and the people are allowed a redress of grievances against the federal government (Amendment I).
Abuse of an act isn't necessary for a challenge and the people are subsequently allowed to file lawsuits against the government.
Are you sure you know what's going on here?
In 1954 congress passed an act (subject to the judicial branch!) to put the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sorry, friend, but this is a question for the courts.
<strong>Good post Moogs. It's about this guy not liking the system because it's not tailored to meet HIS NEEDS.
In other words "If I don't like what you're saying I'm going to find a way to shut you up!"
Again people GOD does not = Christianity. If it does please show me where this is stated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sort of like Kansas banning the teaching of evolution a few years ago. Yeah, that had nothing to do with trying to shout people down, but I guess that's probably different, eh?
Moogs- Yeah, I absolutely have an idea about what the Constitution means, having been through law school, graduating first in my class, clerked for a federal judge and working in the con law group of a major firm. Got clue?
Oh, and if you knew thing one about federal jurisdiction you'd know that courts have a constitutional obligation to exercise the jurisdiciton given it, so if a complaint states a claim, which this one did (legally cognizable injury which could be redressed (in short hand)), the court was without discretion to deny hearing the case. No pandering involved.
Oh, and the state sponsored part, go look at the law passed in 1954. Or, how about a school board policy requiring the teacher to lead the class in the pledge (the class of course does not have to participate)? That's state action for ya, no matter how much you'd wish it away.
\\
BTW - Groverat - the "petition for redress" language pertains to Congress rather than the courts. Article III pertains to the courts. Congress can eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts over claims of a certain kind pretty much at a whim. A minor point, but since we're on the constitutional law thing....
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 a state or federal governing body actually mandated its use? I'm fairly certain that hasn't happened. In most cases, 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?
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. 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.
I can't stand it when people like this hide behind the constitution to solve their petty problems. 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? Do we have to screw with everyone else's existence too? What about the HUGE majority of parents who WANT their kids to recite the pledge in public schools? They don't matter?
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.
but this is fun. This is what makes America the best Country out there.
People in other Countries want to kick people out who don't support their ideas. It's a struggle but we're stronger because of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the clearest, most coherent post yet. I applaud your zeolously arguing your opinion, although I disagree with it. Of course, "fun" might be the wrong word for me. I think this an opportunity to coin a word - you know that feeling you get when you see a car accident and you just have to look even though you don't want to? There must be a word for that, and if there isn't, there should be.
[cue "God Bless Ame"...oh **** ...wait...um...I know..."America the Beaut"...dammit, THAT one mentions God too. Okay, cue "Take This Job and Shove It"...it doesn't mention God and that's something we can all probably get behind and agree on, at some point!]
Legally cognizable INJURY? THAT'S what this is about?
Please explain to me how this guy (or his daughter)was in any way shape or form,"injured." You show me that and I'll show you some modern, ultra-vague legal-speak that allows jerks like this to solve their problems in a court instead of their own home or neighborhood.
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.
Comments
Tomato, tomahto, pal.
Believe me, if I pursued and badgered the author of every kneejerk, nutball thing I've seen written on these boards and wanted to know "why...and provide links, please?", I'd never get any sleep.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
In summation. I respect your right to speak. Even if you praise Hitler. It's is the ONLY fair way people!
Between the lady and the host talking over her and berating her for her opinions/beliefs, poor Ms. Coulter got out about 7 words the entire segment.
She was visible getting pissed. Which just made her that much hotter.
here's an even more novel idea... why post at all?
[QB]
Exactly and referencing "God" in the Pledge doesn't not impinge on other religions nor does it promote Orthodoxy Religion to all but the blind. -snip-
What? Tyranny from your ears? By "hearing" the word "God" or "Jesus" in school does not violate your Liberty yet the revokation of this ability imposed on others DOES violate their rights. What I'm saying is that in America everything is a double edged sword..the same rights that we all enjoy can be used in ways that vex another group. That's life.
[QB]<hr></blockquote>
It promotes orthodoxy in that 1) it is a view promoted by the government (it is a bill passed by Congress and signed by the President and 2) it has normative content to the effect that the country is ruled by God (it doesn't matter whose god that is.) That, my dear, is why it seeks to establish an orthodoxy.
No, I am not blind. You use terms you do not understand - your posts consistently conflate religious liberty (i.e. the ability to practice religion free from state interference) and establishment of religion (i.e. the liberty of ALL the people to be free from the Government's establishment or encouragement of a specific religion or religious notion). You may practice any belief you wish, but you may not use the institutions of the state to do it. Why is this so hard to grasp?
I just think you like complain that not everyone believes like you do and refuse to separate your personal issues from the actual concrete legal issues. Your ability to worship in church or at home or even espousing your religious beliefs during a germane class discussion are not infringed by this case. And your jeremiads about persecution are positively ridiculous. Have you actually read the case or have you just read the news articles?
I suggest you read Hopwood and Barnette before you continue to make constitutional arguments. I respect your right to have an opinion, but I think you should have some grasp of the constitutional fundamentals before you argue about "rights." No, reading the 1st Amendment is not enough because there is little inherent content in those few phrases.
Have fun with the rest of this thread.
Thoth
Whether or not we feel like pursuing it over 11 pages and two weeks is a personal decision, isn't it?
Tell you what, I'll stop if you will...
NOTE: this is in response to pfflam's post...note Thoth's...sorry
[edit: removed a nasty comment...sorry again]
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</p>
<strong>Well, we're all entitled to at least one opinion.
Whether or not we feel like pursuing it over 11 pages and two weeks is a personal decision, isn't it?
Tell you what, I'll stop if you will...
NOTE: this is in response to pfflam's post...note Thoth's...sorry
[edit: removed a nasty comment...sorry again]
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: pscates ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
After reading your post, I thought that the ending of mine did have "i'm taking my ball and going home" feel to it! I just feel like a broken record.
Thoth
I haven't met ONE person here in meat world who doesn't act like someone raped their grandparents when they hear about the decision... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Me, I think it's funny. The outrage is all the evidence needed that it's religious in nature and therefore the 1954 Act was unconstitutional.
But apparently some minds can't wrap themselves around that, so on we go...
hmurch:
[quote]Exactly and referencing "God" in the Pledge doesn't not impinge on other religions nor does it promote Orthodoxy Religion to all but the blind.<hr></blockquote>
It's the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
You are pledging allegiance with that statement, it's not like saying "Hi, how are you?" walking past someone on the street.
"I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic, for which it stands
one nation, under God, indivisble
with liberty and justice for all."
I pledge allegiance to a nation under the Christian god... hmmm... no, this isn't clear at all!
[quote]But that fact is our children ARE being forced to eradicate "God" "Jesus" and any other theological references.<hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Run, white man, run affluent WASP, those in power are trying to get you! Oh wait... your lot are the ones in power...
[quote]Atheists get their wish but I am prevented from giving thanks to who I want. <hr></blockquote>
You are prevented from no such thing you fucking cry-baby.
Jesus, save me from your followers!
--
paul:
[quote]I said my piece (or is it peace?).<hr></blockquote>
You were right the first time, it's "piece".
[quote]What is FUD?<hr></blockquote>
Fear Uncertainty Doubt
Kind of like giving a noun to the conservative's spoken philosphy.
(Using the definition of conservative meaning "resistant to change")
[quote]But I don't owe any of them anything I don't feel like giving.<hr></blockquote>
That's an interesting notion. Usually a post saying "this is how I feel and I don't want to discuss it" is summed up with "I've said my piece" or "Those are my 2 cents."
It's certainly acceptable to not want to engage in debate, but if one chooses to engage in debate there are rules to follow. Hell, your political idealogy demands you keep the analysis to a minimum.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't. The guy actually referred to his act of bringing this lawsuit as "cool". Typical Californian intellect at work. "Hey man, if you don't like something or somebody - SUE!" Fvcking moron.
C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"? Has it occured to anyone that the sensible solution here was to have the guy simply tell his daughter "If you don't feel like reciting this, you don't have to - just stand queitly until your classmates finish. If the teacher gets angry with you, please have her call me at the office." WOULD THAT BE SO HARD / BAD???????
In other words, to all you who think this is somehow sensible, you obviously have no concept of what the term "unconstitutional" means. This is what happens when you watch too much TV, where people are constantly throwing such terms around like they don't mean anything. I'll give you a little hint: this is about a publicity-seeking, money-grubbing sack of sh*t looking for his 15 minutes of fame - not someone who is trying to defend [his constitutional rights].
I'm so tired of all these losers who think it's their God-given (har har) right to waste the court's and taxpayers' time every time they are offended by something. THATS LIFE, MORONS. Things don't always fit into your little mental frames of reference. Sometimes you have to put up with things that annoy you, OK?!!
Wake up, people.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
You know, I'm out of school and all so I don't care what kids say or don't.
Just a bit jarring that things you never saw as bad, evil or harmful to begin with come to be seen that way by a certain segment. And all these things we simply have done or accepted are now up for divisive debate and everyone's choosing corners over something that, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years ago, there didn't seem to be a stink about.
Does that not strike anyone else as weird or a bit unsettling? Honestly, in 10 years or so, will the playing of the national anthem before a baseball game be up for debate, because (gasp!) everyone in the stadium might not be Americans and we wouldn't want to hurt their feelings.
I mean, just those little things like that. I could see them happening easily at some point. I could see a certain segment or group getting upset at the American flag being flown in front of a school, for whatever stupid reason.
Yeah, laugh. But I bet, in my lifetime, there will be something like that come along. We've already seen inklings of it in other stories.
You know what? Nothing surprises me anymore. It used to, maybe 10 years ago or so. But all this stuff yesterday (and what we're talking about in this thread) comes as no big shock or surprise. I mentioned in my initial post here that I had semi-jokingly told a buddy something like this would happen.
I've got a long list of other silliness that I can imagine in the next decade. Some bothers me, some doesn't.
In other words "If I don't like what you're saying I'm going to find a way to shut you up!"
Again people GOD does not = Christianity. If it does please show me where this is stated.
Recitation isn't the issue, the text of the pledge as outlined in the 1954 act is in question.
[quote]B. Can anyone point to a valid reason why one of the highest courts in the state of California should pander to some half-witted, litigation-happy jagoff who is bothered that his daughter may have to recite the Pledge of Allegiance? No, you can't.<hr></blockquote>
Well, first off, the 9th circuit has little to do with California as a state, other states are covered by it.
And every citizen has a right to redress grievances against the government. Amendment I of the constitution.
Should those who use the word "cool" not be allowed basic rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights?
He should've said "totally gnarly and hella tight" to further piss the staid populace off.
[quote]C. Regarding said moron's sensibilities about his daughter - has anyone actually THREATENED to have his daughter removed from her school if she DOESN'T recite the pledge? Is the answer "Ummm, derrr...no"?<hr></blockquote>
Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with the case. Not only can she not say it, she could even speak her protest while others were saying it. But that's not the issue.
Abuse isn't a requirement for a redress of grievances or for a motion before the courts. Forcing the repetition ISN'T the issue.
[quote]In other words, to all you who think this is somehow sensible, you obviously have no concept of what the term "unconstitutional" means.<hr></blockquote>
I'm no constitutional law professor... BUT
Laws made my congress are subject to the courts (Article III, Section II) and the people are allowed a redress of grievances against the federal government (Amendment I).
Abuse of an act isn't necessary for a challenge and the people are subsequently allowed to file lawsuits against the government.
Are you sure you know what's going on here?
In 1954 congress passed an act (subject to the judicial branch!) to put the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sorry, friend, but this is a question for the courts.
I was content to just sit and read everyone else's debating until he brought it up.
<strong>Good post Moogs. It's about this guy not liking the system because it's not tailored to meet HIS NEEDS.
In other words "If I don't like what you're saying I'm going to find a way to shut you up!"
Again people GOD does not = Christianity. If it does please show me where this is stated.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sort of like Kansas banning the teaching of evolution a few years ago. Yeah, that had nothing to do with trying to shout people down, but I guess that's probably different, eh?
Moogs- Yeah, I absolutely have an idea about what the Constitution means, having been through law school, graduating first in my class, clerked for a federal judge and working in the con law group of a major firm. Got clue?
Oh, and if you knew thing one about federal jurisdiction you'd know that courts have a constitutional obligation to exercise the jurisdiciton given it, so if a complaint states a claim, which this one did (legally cognizable injury which could be redressed (in short hand)), the court was without discretion to deny hearing the case. No pandering involved.
Oh, and the state sponsored part, go look at the law passed in 1954. Or, how about a school board policy requiring the teacher to lead the class in the pledge (the class of course does not have to participate)? That's state action for ya, no matter how much you'd wish it away.
\\
BTW - Groverat - the "petition for redress" language pertains to Congress rather than the courts. Article III pertains to the courts. Congress can eliminate the jurisdiction of the federal courts over claims of a certain kind pretty much at a whim. A minor point, but since we're on the constitutional law thing....
Thoth
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 a state or federal governing body actually mandated its use? I'm fairly certain that hasn't happened. In most cases, 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?
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. 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.
I can't stand it when people like this hide behind the constitution to solve their petty problems. 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? Do we have to screw with everyone else's existence too? What about the HUGE majority of parents who WANT their kids to recite the pledge in public schools? They don't matter?
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.
[ 06-27-2002: Message edited by: Moogs ]</p>
I've been called a Cry Baby
Told to get off my high horse
but this is fun. This is what makes America the best Country out there.
People in other Countries want to kick people out who don't support their ideas. It's a struggle but we're stronger because of it.
<strong>I've been called a Troll
I've been called a Cry Baby
Told to get off my high horse
but this is fun. This is what makes America the best Country out there.
People in other Countries want to kick people out who don't support their ideas. It's a struggle but we're stronger because of it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's the clearest, most coherent post yet. I applaud your zeolously arguing your opinion, although I disagree with it. Of course, "fun" might be the wrong word for me. I think this an opportunity to coin a word - you know that feeling you get when you see a car accident and you just have to look even though you don't want to? There must be a word for that, and if there isn't, there should be.
Thoth
[cue "God Bless Ame"...oh **** ...wait...um...I know..."America the Beaut"...dammit, THAT one mentions God too. Okay, cue "Take This Job and Shove It"...it doesn't mention God and that's something we can all probably get behind and agree on, at some point!]
Legally cognizable INJURY? THAT'S what this is about?
Please explain to me how this guy (or his daughter)was in any way shape or form,"injured." You show me that and I'll show you some modern, ultra-vague legal-speak that allows jerks like this to solve their problems in a court instead of their own home or neighborhood.
Just because someone wrote a loophole for him doesn't mean he's right to jump through it. There's such a thing as abusing the legal system for one's own purposes, as opposed to using it for the benefit of the majority.