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

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

As much as I agree no-name. Lashing out won't fix anything.

Dajas

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:29:28 -0700, gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net
<gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net> wrote:
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
>