| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Supreme Court OK's "Under God" in Pledge of Allegiance |
| 2004-06-14 |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #10 As for the case itself, I think it's just stupid. We've got Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians in this country. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would suspect that the majority of Americans have religious beliefs and affiliations. The minority should understand this, shut up, and sit down. And besides, wouldn't this actually violate that multiculturalism they hold so dear if they silence the mention of God? Also, all arguments about the difference between the Jewish/Christian God and Allah aside, "God" does nicely as a blanket name for the Almighty Being which all religions believe in. We as a nation have to stand for something, or else others will dictate what we stand for. Believing that we are ultimately judged by a God everybody believes in is going to dictate how we act, correct? Or it should, anyway. Should we forget that higher judgement and lose the moral compass which comes with it? |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-06-14 7:17:57 PM |
| #9 Mike M still works angles, heh heh, and he can make good satire songs on the side.... |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2004-06-14 7:07:19 PM |
| #8 It was most definitely Mr. Newdow I was referring to. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-14 7:00:35 PM |
| #7 Point taken, Frank. Sorry if I gave offense, TU. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-06-14 5:41:40 PM |
| #6 I think TU was referring to Michael Newdow, but I could be mistaken... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-14 5:36:00 PM |
| #5 Always working an angle aren't you, Mike. I do work angles for a living, you could say, but that's not it at all. A minor kid can't file a lawsuit by herself; her adult parent or a court-appointed guardian has to do it for her. If he's not the legal parent, and he's not appointed a guardian, he can't bring the case, period, full stop, end-of-file marker. Now, I'd also agree that it gave the court a nice way to get out of the matter without having to contribute another hundred printed pages of legalese to its already-messed-up-beyond-recognition body of work on church-state separation. Think of it as the Supreme Court's version of "buck-buck-braaawk!" |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-06-14 5:17:21 PM |
| #4 Now it's about "parental rights"? Always working an angle aren't you, Mike. |
| Posted by: tu3031 2004-06-14 3:34:19 PM |
| #3 The Court is probably right on this--as the non-custodial parent, Newdow probably doesn't have standing. That said, they're probably just as happy not to have to decide the case on the merits. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-06-14 2:50:21 PM |
| #2 "I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. With arrogance like this, it becomes easier to understand why this asshat thinks the world needs to change to accomodate him. |
| Posted by: BH 2004-06-14 2:15:10 PM |
| #1 "I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights." It'd be nice if Mr. Showboat could make up his mind. Before today it was the pledge; now it's about parental rights? WTF? |
| Posted by: Raj 2004-06-14 2:03:30 PM |