[GCFL-discuss] I led the pigeons...

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Do you truly ever quit being so negative? Have you considered joining
other's that hold your opinion so that we who think you're messed in the
head don't have to put up with you anymore? We either believe in our
Nation under God or not! QUIT BEING SO NEGATIVE! I'M TIRED OF YOUR WILD
OFF THE WALL COMMENTS!

=======================================================================
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be 
misquoted and used against you.
=======================================================================
On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 20:55:50 -0500 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> I haven't read the full text of this opinion yet, but I couldn't be
> happier with the result that is summarized here:
> 
> 
> CIVIL PROCEDURE, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
> 
>     ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. v. NEWDOW, No. 02-1624 (U.S.S.C. 
> June
>     14, 2004)
>     A father did not have standing to challenge the "under God" 
> portion
>     of the Pledge of Allegiance as violating the Establishment 
> Clause on
>     behalf of his daughter, because he lacked "next friend" status 
> under
>     California Law.
> 
>     To read the full text of this opinion, go to:
>     http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/us/000/021624.html
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are 
> appropriate
> in the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> The Supreme Court did not say that the words "under God" are
> inappropriate in the Pledge of Allegiance.
> 
> The Supreme Court did say "get this nonsense out of our face" by the 
> only
> legal process available: saying that the father had no standing to 
> bring
> his suit to court in the first place.
> 
> I continue to believe that it was a mistake for Congress to adopt 
> ANY
> "official" version of the Pledge in 1942, much less add words to it 
> in
> 1954 -- but there is not much the courts can do about that.
> 
> I also believe that putting the words "under God" into a 
> second-rate
> piece of secular verse defiles the Holy Name of God.
> 
> But most of all, I believe that reciting a pledge to a flag is a
> violation of the Second Commandment. That is between me and God, 
> not
> binding on anyone else, and also no business of the Supreme 
> Court's.
> 
> The court did the right thing, the common sense thing, and acted 
> with
> appropriate humility.
> 
>                                 Siarlys
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________
> The best thing to hit the Internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
> Surf the Web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
> Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!
> ______________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
>