| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 01:28:58 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
but his daughter lives with her mother who happens to like the
Pledge the way it is, and who attends church on at least a semi-regular
basis, if not a regular basis.
So?
It can appear to many outside of Newdow's relationship with the mother of
his child that Newdow is mostly engaged in a pissing battle with her over
his atheism and her Christianity. It appears to many that the issue for him
might not even be the Pledge, but some attempt to get back at the mother for
some sort of slight she may have inflicted upon him.
Your speculation into matters which don't concern you is noted.
This was patently false.
What Falwell said was patently false.
While his position might be false, it is his position, and his recital of
any position he might have is not a distortion.
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in
California, she explained that her daughter actually loved to recite
the
Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian
- hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.
Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any sort,
let alone a rigid atheist.
Actually, it has been reported by the mother that Newdow has said that the
daughter is an atheist. It isn't in the court records thought, that much is
true.
Read the decision. However much it may pique your interest, the court's
decision wasn't based upon whatever "has been reported by the mother"
But the truth rarely matters to those who want to purge the public
square of time-honored religious phrases that have been embraced by
our nation's leaders throughout history.
The truth never matters to Falwell, who has no respect for the
time-honored secular pledge which served out nation well for longer than
it has contained "under god," which was put there due to anti-communism
paranoia.
Actually, this is not true at all.
The Pledge was originally written in 1892, but was not adopted as official
speech until 1942.
Was it used before then? Was it recited before then? If so, it served
the nation.
The words, under God, were inserted in 1954, and we are
in 2003 today. Technically, the time honored Pledge, and you called it, was
only in place for a scant 12 years before it was meddled with and under God
was added. It has been 49 years since the meddling, or 4 times longer than
the time honored pledge which served us well.
If it was used, if it was recited, then it was in place.
It is hard to respect people who want to force their imaginary friend on
everyone else who sees no evidence of her. It is most astounding that
grown adults get bent out of shape because not everyone sees or hears the
imaginary friend they talk to.
Where is the distortion though? You said that Fallwell is distorting the
issues, I want you to explain how he is distorting things. You might not
agree with Fallwell, but this alone is not a sign of distortion.
From: Carol Lee Smith (human@csd.uwm.edu)
Subject: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue
View: Complete Thread (16 articles)
Original Format
Newsgroups: alt.politics.usa.constitution
Date: 2003-10-17 19:32:34 PST
On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Where is Falwells' distortion? He seems to have hit the nail squarely on
the
head.
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> posted:
Falwell Confidential
Date: October 16, 2003
From: Jerry Falwell
WILL GOD BE BANNED?
One nation, under God.
http://www.falwell.com/confiden/
Incredibly, the case got so far as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals where a panel of judges actually agreed that "under God" is a
violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Only as it concerns school children being led by agents of the government.
It still astonishes me that we have arrived at a point in our nation's
history that the mere mention of God's name - something our Founders
recurrently did as they established this religiously influenced nation
- is now seen as inappropriate and downright wrong.
It is not the "mere mention of (a) God's name which is the problem. It is
governmental endorsement of monotheism--not just once, mind you, but
daily.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of Americans
that this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Where it was not put by the minister who originally wrote the pledge.
Being respectful of history would be returning it to its original form.
As I reported last year, the entire argument made by Michael Newdow -
the atheist who brought suit against the Pledge - was bogus from the
onset. Mr. Newdow claimed that his nine-year-old daughter (at the
time)
was offended because she was required to make reference to God at
school.
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was offended.
This was patently false.
What Falwell said was patently false.
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in
California, she explained that her daughter actually loved to recite
the
Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian
- hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.
Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any sort,
let alone a rigid atheist.
But the truth rarely matters to those who want to purge the public
square of time-honored religious phrases that have been embraced by
our
nation's leaders throughout history.
The truth never matters to Falwell, who has no respect for the
time-honored secular pledge which served out nation well for longer than
it has contained "under god," which was put there due to anti-communism
paranoia.
Nevertheless, the 9th Circuit, in a shameful decision yielding to
secular social trends and political correctness, found that God has no
place in the Pledge of Allegiance. School children, the court deemed,
should function in a Godless classroom devoid of any spiritual
influence.
Those who respect the role of the Almighty in our nation's founding
are
praying that the Supreme Court will determine that this small phrase -
under God - is not found to be an establishment of religion, but
rather a
simple and respectful acknowledgment that God does indeed rule in the
affairs of men.
It is hard to respect people who want to force their imaginary friend on
everyone else who sees no evidence of her. It is most astounding that
grown adults get bent out of shape because not everyone sees or hears the
imaginary friend they talk to.
"We are committed to stand up to the outrageous decision by the Ninth
Circuit," said Brad Dacus, president of the Pacific Justice Institute,
a Citrus Heights, Calif.-based religious freedom organization, one of
many groups that will petition the Court in defense of the Pledge.
"We
are already in the process of preparing to file a brief that will make
it
very clear to the majority of the Supreme Court that the mention of
the
word 'God' in the Pledge of Allegiance is not a violation of the
Constitution."
It is not only divisive, as has been proven every time people suggest it
was fine in its original form, it is disrespectful of other people's
religion.
Jay Sekulow at the Virginia Beach-based American Center for Law and
Justice will also file a brief favoring the Pledge, representing 33
members of Congress in so doing.
Mr. Sekulow said the phrase "one nation, under God" is a
"constitutionally-protected patriotic expression - not a blatant
affirmation of a particular faith."
It is a blatant affirmation of a particular kind of religion--monotheism.
This is disrespectful to people who worship several or many gods. It is
disrespectful of pantheists who believe god is within us, not that we are
UNDER any god. And it is disrespectful to American citizens who have no
god beliefs.
He added, "The Pledge is part of an American tapestry of time-honored
and historically significant traditions that has come under attack.
What came under attack was the pre-54 pledge which was a time-honored
historic affirmation many more citizens could say than the one you think
should be forced on everyone.
<snip>
.
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 08:37:14 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was offended.
Than he has no basis for his case. As it is not he who is being forced to
say the pledge, and now you are claiming that Newdow never claimed his
daughter was offended, hence by your own admission here his suit is bogus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 09:26:39 PM |
|
|
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was offended.
Than he has no basis for his case. As it is not he who is being forced to
say the pledge, and now you are claiming that Newdow never claimed his
daughter was offended, hence by your own admission here his suit is bogus.
Wrong. The final clause of the 1st Amendment guarantees the right of the people
to petition the government for a redress of grievances. It is one of the
fundamental rights of a free society and one of the principal things which
separates us from totalitarian, dictatorial government. Newdow excercised that
right.
You would rather have that right stripped from the people so that if the State
did something that the people would just have to suck it up, just like they had
to do in Soviet Russia. That is a very Communist point of view...Comrade.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 09:32:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, dpr wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was offended.
Than [sic] he has no basis for his case.
I suppose it would all have turned out differently if you had ONLY BEEN
THERE!!!
As it is not he who is being forced to
say the pledge, and now you are claiming that Newdow never claimed his
daughter was offended, hence by your own admission here his suit is bogus.
I was making a distinction between being offended and being harmed.
Read the decision.
I don't think it was based upon offense. It was based on harm.
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 03:12:16 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious. He is not the custodial parent. His demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a child.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
but his daughter lives with her mother who happens to like the
Pledge the way it is, and who attends church on at least a semi-regular
basis, if not a regular basis.
So?
It can appear to many outside of Newdow's relationship with the mother
of
his child that Newdow is mostly engaged in a pissing battle with her
over
his atheism and her Christianity. It appears to many that the issue for
him
might not even be the Pledge, but some attempt to get back at the mother
for
some sort of slight she may have inflicted upon him.
Your speculation into matters which don't concern you is noted.
This was patently false.
What Falwell said was patently false.
While his position might be false, it is his position, and his recital
of
any position he might have is not a distortion.
When one of my staff members spoke with the girl's mother in
California, she explained that her daughter actually loved to
recite
the
Pledge of Allegiance in her Elk Grove school. She also said that
the
little girl was an active member of her church and a professing
Christian
- hardly the rigid atheist her father portrayed her to be.
Michael Newdow NEVER portrayed his daughter to be an atheist of any
sort,
let alone a rigid atheist.
Actually, it has been reported by the mother that Newdow has said that
the
daughter is an atheist. It isn't in the court records thought, that much
is
true.
Read the decision. However much it may pique your interest, the court's
decision wasn't based upon whatever "has been reported by the mother"
But the truth rarely matters to those who want to purge the public
square of time-honored religious phrases that have been embraced
by
our nation's leaders throughout history.
The truth never matters to Falwell, who has no respect for the
time-honored secular pledge which served out nation well for longer
than
it has contained "under god," which was put there due to
anti-communism
paranoia.
Actually, this is not true at all.
The Pledge was originally written in 1892, but was not adopted as
official
speech until 1942.
Was it used before then? Was it recited before then? If so, it served
the nation.
Not in any official capacity.
Why is the non-official use of the Pledge important when the non-custody of
a parent is a critical thing to exclude?
You seem to want to include the idea that the Pledge was fine for 50 years,
but exlcude the fact that Newdow has no custody of his child. (I -- and this
is my recollection -- have heard that Newdow doesn't even take his daughter
for weekends or summer vacations.) He takes no active participatin in the
raising of the child, yet objects to the way the mother raises the child. He
has no official standing, yet we must exclude that from the facts while the
Pledge had no official standing for 50 years, but this must not taken into
account.
The fact is, the Pledge was only official speech for 12 years before they
came along and meddled with it. Newdow appears to not be a participant in
the child rearing, except when the mother rears in a manner he objects to.
His next step in his objections to her parenting style will be to block the
mother from taking the girl to church. Then, he will fight in court the
church's participation in the marriage ceremony that the daughter might take
great enjoyment in arranging.
The words, under God, were inserted in 1954, and we are
in 2003 today. Technically, the time honored Pledge, and you called it,
was
only in place for a scant 12 years before it was meddled with and under
God
was added. It has been 49 years since the meddling, or 4 times longer
than
the time honored pledge which served us well.
If it was used, if it was recited, then it was in place.
It was not used in any official capacity.
It is hard to respect people who want to force their imaginary friend
on
everyone else who sees no evidence of her. It is most astounding that
grown adults get bent out of shape because not everyone sees or hears
the
imaginary friend they talk to.
Where is the distortion though? You said that Fallwell is distorting the
issues, I want you to explain how he is distorting things. You might not
agree with Fallwell, but this alone is not a sign of distortion.
No examples of Falwell's distortions. Hmmm ...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 09:14:06 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious. He is not the custodial parent. His demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a child.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Sorry, that isn't how the courts have ruled in cases where
the noncustodian parent argued that they had a vested interest
in their child's religious upbringing; see Khalsa v. Khalsa,
Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v. Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
....
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child." In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child, would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
....
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 05:32:09 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f953f2e$0$41284$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no
custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no
custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious. He is not the custodial parent. His
demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the
mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a
custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a child.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Sorry, that isn't how the courts have ruled in cases where
the noncustodian parent argued that they had a vested interest
in their child's religious upbringing; see Khalsa v. Khalsa,
Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v. Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
...
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child."
Precisely! There is no clear affirmative showing of harm in the instance of
Newdow, his daughter, and the daughter's mother. The daughter's mother is a
rather mainstream woman, by all accounts. She lives in suburbia, drives a
nice car, dresses the child well, puts the child in childhood activities and
clubs, generally the mother does all the things the rest of us would
consider normal. We would consider them normal because we would problably do
them ourselves, or we know people that do these things.
For the court to rule for Newdow is for the court to rule against the
child's mother. It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing. If he wanted to exert his rights, then he should have remained
connected to the family, but he chose to walk away or he refused to make
concessions that would have precluded him from being pushed out. Either way,
he made choices.
In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child, would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
...
Again, the court ought not engage in parental rights arguments where the
custodial parent wishes to raise the child in a manner the non-custodial
parent objects to. the child is in no danger, the court should stand back.
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
In the Newdow case, the court is doing exactly that, they are favoring the
rights of the non-custodial parent by allowing that parent to have standing
in a court case that the custodial parent does not even want to be a party
to.
The custodial parent has made certain decisions that the custodial parent is
expected to make everyday. The non-custodial parent objects to one or more
of those decisions, and because of the nature of the decisions involved, he
is able to drag this simple custody dispute through to the United States
Supreme Court under the guise of an Establishment Clause violation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 06:32:14 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f953f2e$0$41284$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no
custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no
custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious. He is not the custodial parent. His
demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the
mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a
custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a child.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Sorry, that isn't how the courts have ruled in cases where
the noncustodian parent argued that they had a vested interest
in their child's religious upbringing; see Khalsa v. Khalsa,
Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v. Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
...
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child."
Precisely! There is no clear affirmative showing of harm in the instance of
Newdow, his daughter, and the daughter's mother.
Sure there is; the state is taking sides by having a god-soaked
loyalty oath ceremony every morning in school.
The daughter's mother is a
rather mainstream woman, by all accounts. She lives in suburbia, drives a
nice car, dresses the child well, puts the child in childhood activities and
clubs, generally the mother does all the things the rest of us would
consider normal. We would consider them normal because we would problably do
them ourselves, or we know people that do these things.
For the court to rule for Newdow is for the court to rule against the
child's mother.
No, it will make the state behave NEUTRALLY instead of
biased towards theists.
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
If he wanted to exert his rights, then he should have remained
connected to the family, but he chose to walk away or he refused to make
concessions that would have precluded him from being pushed out. Either way,
he made choices.
In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child, would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
...
Again, the court ought not engage in parental rights arguments where the
custodial parent wishes to raise the child in a manner the non-custodial
parent objects to. the child is in no danger, the court should stand back.
The SCHOOL should stand back, and not carry out a religious loyalty
oath every morning that drives home the point that good, patriotic
children "ought" to believe in god.
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
In the Newdow case, the court is doing exactly that, they are favoring the
rights of the non-custodial parent by allowing that parent to have standing
in a court case that the custodial parent does not even want to be a party
to.
No, you illiterate fuckhead.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:01:35 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f95c1fe$0$75894$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f953f2e$0$41284$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020132020.24021E-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is
not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no
custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might
have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no
custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious. He is not the custodial parent. His
demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the
mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a
custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a
child.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue,
it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Sorry, that isn't how the courts have ruled in cases where
the noncustodian parent argued that they had a vested interest
in their child's religious upbringing; see Khalsa v. Khalsa,
Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v. Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
...
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent
from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one
of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child."
Precisely! There is no clear affirmative showing of harm in the instance
of
Newdow, his daughter, and the daughter's mother.
Sure there is; the state is taking sides by having a god-soaked
loyalty oath ceremony every morning in school.
The state is not taking any sides with your alleged loyalty oath BS,
hence there is no harm.
The daughter's mother is a
rather mainstream woman, by all accounts. She lives in suburbia, drives a
nice car, dresses the child well, puts the child in childhood activities
and
clubs, generally the mother does all the things the rest of us would
consider normal. We would consider them normal because we would problably
do
them ourselves, or we know people that do these things.
For the court to rule for Newdow is for the court to rule against the
child's mother.
No, it will make the state behave NEUTRALLY instead of
biased towards theists.
No, if the Court rules for Newdow it does not stay neutral, instead it takes
sides. Newdow is not the legal guardian, he has no basis for his claim.
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON
He is not the legal guardian, he has no basis for his alleged harm to his
daughter.
If he wanted to exert his rights, then he should have remained
connected to the family, but he chose to walk away or he refused to make
concessions that would have precluded him from being pushed out. Either
way,
he made choices.
In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child,
would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
...
Again, the court ought not engage in parental rights arguments where the
custodial parent wishes to raise the child in a manner the non-custodial
parent objects to. the child is in no danger, the court should stand
back.
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
In the Newdow case, the court is doing exactly that, they are favoring
the
rights of the non-custodial parent by allowing that parent to have
standing
in a court case that the custodial parent does not even want to be a
party
to.
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:46:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, dpr wrote:
No, if the Court rules for Newdow it does not stay neutral, instead it takes
sides. Newdow is not the legal guardian, he has no basis for his claim.
http://snurl.com/2r41
He is not the legal guardian, he has no basis for his alleged harm to his
daughter.
http://snurl.com/2r41
"All religions are founded on the fear of the many and the cleverness of
the few." -- Marie Henri Beyle (Stendhal)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 02:34:16 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|
:|For the court to rule for Newdow is for the court to rule against the
:|child's mother.
Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene (December 4, 2002)
(Found Newdow had standing)
http://snurl.com/23h
:|It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
:|rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
:|rearing.
Excerpt from
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/14/scotus.pledge.of.allegiance/index.html
Newdow was stripped of custody in February 2002, but a judge two weeks ago
restored partial custody, boosting the chances the court would accept the
case for review.
:|If he wanted to exert his rights, then he should have remained
:|connected to the family, but he chose to walk away or he refused to make
:|concessions that would have precluded him from being pushed out. Either way,
:|he made choices.
**************************************
M. Newdow has said:
(After all he does know more about the facts than you do
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
[ok moving along here]
The Virginian-Pilot, Nation &World, Monday September 29, 2003, P. A3
HIGH COURT TO HEAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPEAL
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
[I said to him]
Now, I can always scan the article and send it to you.
[he replied]
I read it. Here's what I wrote to Mr. Savage.
[Savage had written in his article]
Last year, Michael A. Newdow, an unemployed emergency room physician ...
[Newdow]
I suppose that's technically correct. However, the implication is hardly
accurate. I'm a physician who has given up his livelihood to fight a system
of laws that - with no valid justification - rips children from perfectly
fit parents on a daily basis.
Along the same lines, I have had shared physical custody of my child since
birth, and we have an extremely close relationship. On more than half of
all weekends, she's with me, and sleeps in her own room in our house. I go
to all her soccer games, we travel together frequently and we speak with
each almost every day. In fact, I would guess that I spend more time with
my daughter than most working parents in intact families, which is hardly
the impression left by your article.
The only reasons this issue has arisen are (i) the State of California has
set up a system that grossly violates numerous constitutional mandates and
rewards certain parents for infringing upon the time the children and the
other parent are supposedly guaranteed together, and (ii) certain
individuals choose to take advantage of that unconstitutional system.
Please do the story on the family law!! ... it is without doubt - and
without hyperbole - the most destructive, unjustifiable and harmful system
of laws this country has had in place since slavery.
- Mike Newdow
**************************************************
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 04:54:27 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Michael Newdow NEVER claimed that his nine-year-old daughter was
offended.
This, it appears, might actually be true, the offended party is not
Newdow's
daughter, but rather Newdow himself. Newdow, a man that has no custody
rights over his daughter, by a judge's order. That is, he might have
partial
custody,
Well, which is it. You claim in one breath that Michael has "no custody
rights."
In the next breath you say "he might have partial custody."
So which is it?
If you wold refrain from cuting a sentence in half, the answer to your
question would become obvious.
It matters not where I put my comment. In the middle of your case, or at
the end of it.
It remains a fact that you claimed two contradictory positions.
Make up your mind.
He is not the custodial parent. His demands
are contradictory to those of the custodial parent, in this case the mother.
The court, ESPECIALLY the Supreme Court ought not be thrust into a custodial
dispute between two adults that have diffeerent views on raising a child.
Read the decision.
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Read the decision.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/usconstitution/a/pledgehist.htm
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
