Maybe this time it will go thru - probably get summarily ignored this time

[EBSB52 0]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing. Now the US Sup Ct will have to either hear the case and adjudge its merits or summarily ignore it via refusal to certify; probably the latter. At least he's making them show their hand. He's basically my hero

[dorbie 0]

Quote

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing. Now the US Sup Ct will have to either hear the case and adjudge its merits or summarily ignore it via refusal to certify; probably the latter. At least he's making them show their hand. He's basically my hero

The mother is mortified that the guy is furthering his personal political agenda by dragging his daughter into this.

The husband should be more concerned that the child's mother and custodian is a Christian than "under God" in an oath in school. When you learn this about the child's mother and custodian your jaw just drops and that alone tells you this guy is no hero.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing. Now the US Sup Ct will have to either hear the case and adjudge its merits or summarily ignore it via refusal to certify; probably the latter. At least he's making them show their hand. He's basically my hero

The mother is mortified that the guy is furthering his personal political agenda by dragging his daughter into this.

That is her opinion of his actions. Besides, this is no different than a Christian family placing their child in a church-based school to ensure they get their religious teachings, so they would be furthering their religious/political agenda too, that is, if the former is.

The husband should be more concerned that the child's mother and custodian is a Christian than "under God" in an oath in school. When you learn this about the child's mother and custodian your jaw just drops and that alone tells you this guy is no hero.

Why does the father have a duty to the mother? Since the mother dissented, she has no duty ot the father.

I said that he was my hero, not her hero or their hero. He is dedicating his life to the separation of church and state - he's awesome. BTW, the mother is the primary custodian, not the exclusive custodian. Show me 1 case where the mother is both competent and wants the child where she is not established as the primary custodian by the court.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=533&e=3&u=/ap/20050106/ap_on_re_us/pledge_of_allegiance


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing. Now the US Sup Ct will have to either hear the case and adjudge its merits or summarily ignore it via refusal to certify; probably the latter. At least he's making them show their hand. He's basically my hero

The mother is mortified that the guy is furthering his personal political agenda by dragging his daughter into this.

That is her opinion of his actions. Besides, this is no different than a Christian family placing their child in a church-based school to ensure they get their religious teachings, so they would be furthering their religious/political agenda too, that is, if the former is.

The husband should be more concerned that the child's mother and custodian is a Christian than "under God" in an oath in school. When you learn this about the child's mother and custodian your jaw just drops and that alone tells you this guy is no hero.

Why does the father have a duty to the mother? Since the mother dissented, she has no duty ot the father.

I said that he was my hero, not her hero or their hero. He is dedicating his life to the separation of church and state - he's awesome. BTW, the mother is the primary custodian, not the exclusive custodian. Show me 1 case where the mother is both competent and wants the child where she is not established as the primary custodian by the court.

The fact that the child is being raised as a christian by the mother demonstrates that the father's objections in this case to the phrase "under god" have nothing to do with concerns w.r.t. his child. Rather than protecting his child he's using her in my opinion.

The whole situation is thoroughly ludicrous and in this case the custodial issue is significant. The child is clearly a vehicle for his political agenda, he can't stop the custodian raising the child as a christian.

It is unfortunate that this is the test case, you'd think they could find a pair of athiests with a kid in North America to bring a case, instead of this farce.

Some hero.

[Michele 1]

You call someone who victimizes his own child to prove some sort of point a hero?

I have a different definition, I guess...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You call someone who victimizes his own child to prove some sort of point a hero?

I have a different definition, I guess...

Ciels-
Michele

Err... if you're replying to me I don't think you have followed my posts. I think we agree. It's the other poster who's saying the guy is a hero.

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

You call someone who victimizes his own child to prove some sort of point a hero?

I have a different definition, I guess...

Ciels-
Michele

The Jehovahs Witnesses don't allow their kids to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance. They view it as putting something in a place of higher regard than God.

They also do not participate in any Easter, Christmas, or Valentines Day events. Most do not allow their children to have "bad associations" by joining sports teams and playing with non-JW kids.

Basically, they draw attention to the fact that they are outsiders and their children become alienated from the rest of the class.

Childhood is difficult enough without intentionally isolating your kids from the others.

[ltdiver 3]

Quote

Childhood is difficult enough without intentionally isolating your kids from the others.

Unless they're 'isolated' as a group, in their own school, from others. Then, actually, it is a more peaceful existance as they grow up.

Catholics have Catholic schools. Other religions have their own as well. Don't JW have that option as well if they don't like public schools?

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[Michele 1]

Nah, you were just last on the list, Dorbie...

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

He's basically my hero

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

link that works


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing.

While it's true that the case was previously dismissed due to this "technicality", and not on the merits of the case, it's no joke. It's how law is supposed to work.

IIRC, the court was concerned that taking this case would set other unanticipated precedents for parents that don't have custody.

So, while I sympathize with his case, I think the court made the right decision last time.

I hope the *substance* of his complaint will be addressed this time around.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Rather than protecting his child he's using her in my opinion.

Your take on it is possible, but by no means a foregone conclusion.

Quote

The whole situation is thoroughly ludicrous and in this case the custodial issue is significant. The child is clearly a vehicle for his political agenda, he can't stop the custodian raising the child as a christian.

I don't think it's at all ludicrous. Personally, I'm surprised it's been tolerated for so long without any serious challenge.
This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state.

I'm not understanding why the fact that the parents are divorced and have different personal beliefs has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state.

I'm not understanding why the fact that the parents are divorced and have different personal beliefs has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case.

The reason is, the father tried to use his kid as an example, saying he didn't want his kid to be forced to say "Under GOD"
The fact is the kid believes in GOD and publicly said she doesn't mind saying it!!!

So, he is trying to use his child, since he himself is in no position of force to say something he does not believe in.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

The reason is, the father tried to use his kid as an example, saying he didn't want his kid to be forced to say "Under GOD"
The fact is the kid believes in GOD and publicly said she doesn't mind saying it!!!

I don't want my children to be forced to say "under god" either.
I don't want them to be atheists or Christians for that matter.

I want my children to decide for themselves. Being forced to say "under god" from a young age decreases the likely hood that they will have an opportunity to do so.

I'd like to think that even if I were devoutly religious, I'd still oppose the inclusion of "under god" in this context.

Why? Because anything that removes personal choice from the equation weakens both faith and freedom. A religion that can stand on it's own merit not only doesn't need, but should actively avoid anything that even vaguely resembles coercion.

-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

He's basically my hero

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary?

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

You call someone who victimizes his own child to prove some sort of point a hero?

I have a different definition, I guess...

Ciels-
Michele

I don't see the victimization. However, look at half the custody/support battles and find victims I guess. It's a hard world when it comes to adults acting like kids, meaning divorce situations.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

link that works


So the father had no legl parental stnading since he was not the primary custodian. WHat a joke, he was still a parent - he should have legal standing.

-Josh

While it's true that the case was previously dismissed due to this "technicality", and not on the merits of the case, it's no joke. It's how law is supposed to work.

I see it as a duck-n-weave by the court. The dismissal was more of a ruling on legal standing. I think they're buying time because of the great conflict of interest here.

IIRC, the court was concerned that taking this case would set other unanticipated precedents for parents that don't have custody.


That's the sad thing here, the court did make a ruling that will be used as Stare Decisis has been set. In future cases involving any kind of child custody case in every state, parties will refer to the, "Under God" ruling. It could be about where to take their daughter for ballet lessons. The custodial paent could argue the ruling as them havin virtually all decision-making power over the child, so a precedent was set, just not about the pledge.

So, while I sympathize with his case, I think the court made the right decision last time.



Well, they made no decision about the pledge, but they did about child custody rights, so it's a sad thing to me.

I hope the *substance* of his complaint will be addressed this time around.

Big time, but I think they will just ignore the case and act as if they already heard it.


On another note, it's funny that the same people that endear the previous decision, generally the moral right, would be pissed if the mother discovered she was gay, kicked outthe hubby, moved in the GF and the hubby objected while the high court said, "sorry, you are not the primary custodian."

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Rather than protecting his child he's using her in my opinion.

Your take on it is possible, but by no means a foregone conclusion.

Quote

The whole situation is thoroughly ludicrous and in this case the custodial issue is significant. The child is clearly a vehicle for his political agenda, he can't stop the custodian raising the child as a christian.

I don't think it's at all ludicrous. Personally, I'm surprised it's been tolerated for so long without any serious challenge.
This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state.

I'm not understanding why the fact that the parents are divorced and have different personal beliefs has any bearing on the legitimacy of the case.
-Josh

This case has nothing to do with stopping the mother from raising her child the way she sees fit. It's about separation of church and state.


Exactly, well put in the entire post. See, what you've done is to separate the elements rather than just convolute them all. Reminds me of the recent football stadium tax measure - the proponents made it about football when in reality it was about tax..... the local idiots voted it in and then whined about the tax increase.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

He's basically my hero

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary?

That was not (and is not) a personal attack. I apologize for the confusion if you took it as one, but the statement stands.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He's basically my hero

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary?

That was not (and is not) a personal attack. I apologize for the confusion if you took it as one, but the statement stands.

It IS an attack, as the word, "Your" makes it personal. I'm not butt-hurt, but my response would make many cry foul, so I think we need to draw the line of acceptable/not acceptable.... Moderators???

Your apology of confusion defers nothing but to reiterate the personal attack.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

He's basically my hero

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

See, and with all of this talk of personal attacks, is this neccessary?

That was not (and is not) a personal attack. I apologize for the confusion if you took it as one, but the statement stands.

It IS an attack, as the word, "Your" makes it personal. I'm not butt-hurt, but my response would make many cry foul, so I think we need to draw the line of acceptable/not acceptable.... Moderators???

Your apology of confusion defers nothing but to reiterate the personal attack.

How is stating that you are not understanding a concept correctly a personal attack?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[3ringheathen 0]

Quote

Your understanding of the concept of "separation of church and state" is flawed.

That was not (and is not) a personal attack. I apologize for the confusion if you took it as one, but the statement stands.

I don't see it as a personal attack, it's just not a particularly constructive post.

Other than stating an opinion that is clearly open to debate, it does nothing.
There's no supporting argument, the basis for the statement is left to speculation. Those that agree already agree, and those that don't have been given no reason to reconsider.
-Josh

If you have time to panic, you have time to do something more productive. -Me*
*Ron has accused me of plagiarizing this quote. He attributes it to Douglas Adams.

[billvon 2,453]

>How is stating that you are not understanding a concept
>correctly a personal attack?

It is not a personal attack by a strict interpretation of the rules, but posts that say (essentially) "you're wrong, you just don't understand at all" are not constructive and serve little purpose other than belligerence. A post along the lines of "I disagree, I think that . . ." is a lot more constructive and will not be taken as an attack.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

>How is stating that you are not understanding a concept
>correctly a personal attack?

It is not a personal attack by a strict interpretation of the rules, but posts that say (essentially) "you're wrong, you just don't understand at all" are not constructive and serve little purpose other than belligerence. A post along the lines of "I disagree, I think that . . ." is a lot more constructive and will not be taken as an attack.

Thanks for answering - I'm just looking for parameters. So it is acceptable to state that a person essentially has no clue in regard to an issue, topic or interpretation? As I said, I'm not hurt, but my reaction would be as nice as his and then snowball into a messy situation. I was suspended for 2 weeks for a comment about like that one, so I'm looking for guidlines. Either it's appropriate or not.....

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

>How is stating that you are not understanding a concept
>correctly a personal attack?

It is not a personal attack by a strict interpretation of the rules, but posts that say (essentially) "you're wrong, you just don't understand at all" are not constructive and serve little purpose other than belligerence. A post along the lines of "I disagree, I think that . . ." is a lot more constructive and will not be taken as an attack.

Thanks for answering - I'm just looking for parameters. So it is acceptable to state that a person essentially has no clue in regard to an issue, topic or interpretation? As I said, I'm not hurt, but my reaction would be as nice as his and then snowball into a messy situation. I was suspended for 2 weeks for a comment about like that one, so I'm looking for guidlines. Either it's appropriate or not.....

Lemme give it a shot with two examples:

Quote

I say old chap, your perception of the events in question is somewhat skewed, don't you think?

That's not a personal attack but it isn't helpful unless followed up by some reasonings as to how those events were misunderstood.

Quote

God, you really don't have a clue about this, do you?

While essentially expressing the same sentiment as the first case but in stronger terms, this one is most definitely a personal attack. Even following it up with an explanation would not mitigate the fact that it is a personal attack.

Note that both of the above statements can be reasonably seen as ad hominem (defined by M/W as marked by an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made). They just differ in terms of degree. Which, among other things, is why it's so difficult to provide a precise definition of what is and is not a personal attack.

And without a precise definition, we're basically left with an "I know one when I see one" caculation.

Wayne