School boards don't like to be pushed around, and the ACLU doesn't like
to back down either, the original case was taken to a Federal court,
probably because the ACLU expected to prevail in the 9th district.
Tom C wrote:
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).
--
When you're worried or in doubt,
Run in circles, (scream and shout).
