Yeah, that is pretty bad. So why, in your opinion, was a 'federal' case
made out of it?
Tom C.
From: "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:37:38 -0400
The facts in the case were even worse than that, the father was divorced
from the mother of the child, the mother had custody, both mother and child
believe in God, and had no problem with the words "under God" in the pledge.
The courts eventually ruled that the father had no standing. This would
not have benefited the little girl in any way.
Tom C wrote:
I agree with your statement Frank, it's a technicality but it's missing the
point, I believe. I know someone will likely beg to differ.
Let's take one case the ACLU is involved with... to the best of my
recollection. The case in California (I believe... I'm typing from memory
not the transcript), where an athiest has sued a school district because
his elementary school age daughter is made to feel uncomfortable when the
Pledge of Alegiance is said because it contains the phrase 'under God'.
Now the way I see it, no one is forcing the child to say the 'pledge'. No
one is forcing the child to put her hand over her heart. No one is forcing
her to believe in God. No one is forcing the child to accept a particular
doctrinal point of view or put her name on a church enrollment.
Why should the majority be forced to change for this one little girl? Is
this the only and last time in life she will be confornted with views or
actions that are at odd with her own beliefs. It's laughable. Should
everyone be forced to conform to to this one child's (likely father's)
sensitivities?
It's an example of how wrong-headed and upside down things have become.
Tolerance is supposed to work in both directions, isn't it?
Tom C.
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:17:06 -0400
On 10/17/05, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yeah, it could be argued... From where I sit, it's the people that want
'no
> rules whatsoever', that always argue their rights are being violated,
when
> in fact they are violating the rights of the majority. The ACLU is a
prime
> example of an organization that tramples on the rights of the majority.
> Yes, I believe minorities have rights...
in a free and democratic society, the "majority" (whoever they may be
and however they may be ascertained) can have no rights.
only individuals have rights.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
