Supreme court decides pledge case on custody issue

[nancylebov]

A description of the decision is basically a swat at the Michael Newdow for trying to make the ultimate decision about his daughter's religious upbringing even though he's not the custodial parent.

While I'm also bemused at a society so wealthy that so much can be spent on the relatively minor decision of whether "under God" can be in the Pledge of Allegiance, I'm mostly pleased. I've heard him talk on NPR about how he's entitled to not have his religious views overriden in front of his daughter, and I'm distinctly not impressed. He also says that it's not his place to talk about his daughter's religious views in public--this is reasonable, but not good enough, imho, to make up for his arrogance in trying to make a no-official-religion bubble around her for the sake of his religious views.

As for why I think "under God" is a rather minor matter, I'm extrapolating my childhood reaction to the pledge, a purely emotional thing which roughly translates as "they're trying to bind me into a group I feel no connection to by making me say pointless words. I'm surrounded by idiots and there's no point in talking to them about it." I'm still not sure how much of that was depression and how much was good sense.

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

There seems to be some stuff missing.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It's corrected now. As might be deduced, there were errors in the html. I meant "<a href=" even if I typed "<href a=". If a human being can hardly tell the difference, shouldn't the computer have been able to figure out what I meant? Thanks for the comment. It's reassuring to know that people are reading my lj.

The pledge

[celticferret.livejournal.com]

Until the 1950's the pledge didn't have the words "under God" in it. The pledge has been through several rewrites in its life.

I'd like to see the words "under God" removed. I don't make a public fuss over it either.

KG