Friday, February 28, 2003
Bad News...
Appeals Court reaffirms decision of phrase "... under God..." is unconstitutional.
In the same article however, it is clearly apparents that Newdow doesn't care about his daughter reciting the pledge, he is just using his daughter as a political tool. The same article states:
The guy doesn't even have legal custody of his own child! One would think that if he is going to go to court with his child, it would be over obtaining legal custody rather than trying to rail away against two words in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yet another case of the moral bankruptcy of the atheist position. And yes, I am generalizing here... sue me.
Appeals Court reaffirms decision of phrase "... under God..." is unconstitutional.
In the same article however, it is clearly apparents that Newdow doesn't care about his daughter reciting the pledge, he is just using his daughter as a political tool. The same article states:
Newdow's lawsuit began as a challenge to a 1954 decision by Congress to add the words “under God” to the pledge. The lawsuit later sidestepped into a parental rights case over a custody dispute between Newdow and his 8-year-old child’s mother, Sandra Banning of Elk Grove.
In response to the court’s original ruling, Banning asserted that her daughter is not harmed by reciting the pledge and is not opposed to God. Banning, who now has legal custody of the child, urged the court to consider whether Newdow even had legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. The court said Newdow did have such legal standing.
The guy doesn't even have legal custody of his own child! One would think that if he is going to go to court with his child, it would be over obtaining legal custody rather than trying to rail away against two words in the Pledge of Allegiance. Yet another case of the moral bankruptcy of the atheist position. And yes, I am generalizing here... sue me.
Comments:
Post a Comment
