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

[gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net]

Clean it up people!

Lance
John 8:32 "You will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 23:36:25 -0700 gcfl-discuss at gcfl.net writes:
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> GCFL-discuss mailing list
> GCFL-discuss at gcfl.net
> http://gcfl.net/mailman/listinfo/gcfl-discuss
> 
>