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.
Well spoken, Tom C!
The devil is in the details. As is the freedom...
If she were in some way forced to comply, bad thing. But, apparently she
wasn't. Stand there and don't participate should be alright with everyone.
How you'll inevitably get the purists involved, and THEY will say she
shouldn't be forced to listen to stuff she [is said to] disagree
with...and THEN the ACLU will get their [conscienceless] lawyers
involved, and make a sordid mess out of sometime that started off quite
simple.
Sighhh.
keith whaley
