Ok, I admit I read the whole 9th Circuit opinion that you posted, and again I came up with the same point. The simple fact that;
1. It is an opinion, in fact many. I understand that our judicial system is all about opinions, so it is hard to disagree. However, when the Supreme Court takes this case, and again overturns it, will you believe that opinion?
2. The lawsuit was frivilous in the first place. First of all, Dr Newdow is a career protester. He has had many, many lawsuits thrown out of courts. Second, he had no right to bring this lawsuit into court as he was previously deemed unfit to parent by a California custody court. In fact, the parent with sole custody tried to take her daughters name off the crazy lawsuit, but that court is so screwed up, they didn't respect the rights of the parent. This court would hear the arguments of dead-beat dads, if it meant they could promote their liberal and socialistic opinions, oh, wait they did with Dr. Newdow. As I said, they have had 85% of their cases overturned by the Supreme Court, and this will be no different.
3. The state of California has a right to make a law stating that children must do a patriotic act each school day. If the child chooses to say the pledge sans "under God", he/she has fulfilled that obligation. To possibly claim that the simple phrase "under God" has "INJURED" Dr. Newdow's non-custodial child is quite ridiculous. As I stated earlier, the custodial parent had no problems with it. It seems that Dr. Newdow is hell bent on taking God out, period (good luck sir), so much so that he will involve his daughter since all his other lawsuits have been canned.
4. For the other post, how is it abusive to notify parents that thier child isn't including "under God"? They are not punished by the teacher/school. One of two possibilities here. First, the teacher calls home, and the parents say, "that's right, we are raising our child to be atheistic in belief until they can choose for themselves." Case closed, the parent's rights have been respected, and the child continues to leave out "under God." Second case, "He/she is not!!! Thank you for calling, and I will talk to my child immediately as we have raised them better than that." Case closed, the parent's rights have been respected and THEY punish the child as THEY see fit. You have to let parents be parents.
I hope that this has clarified my feelings on this topic too. All I am asking for is a bit of intellectual follow-through and logical thinking. Enjoy the weekend when it comes, as I will be gone all day friday and won't post.
P.S.- Notice that the ACLU lawsuit was initiated without even talking to students. It was based on hearsay, and the school Super set the record straight. Haha, the ACLU is a radical secularist joke. Let me see them defend somebodies second amendment right or a first amendment right to public outspoken prayer
, not likely, but I am sure I could find a case if I looked hard enough.
