Posted on 09/14/2005 11:02:25 AM PDT by nov7freedomday
I guess it doesnt do any good for people to complain to the school about this but here is the schools involved contact info.
1.ELK GROVE UNIFIED
For general information regarding the Elk Grove Unified School District, please call:
916.686.5085.
EGUSD mailing address:
Elk Grove Unified School District
9510 Elk Grove-Florin Road
Elk Grove, CA 95624
2.Rio Linda Elementary
631 L Street
Rio Linda, CA 95673
tel: (916) 991-3182
fax: (916) 991-0204
Principal: Kelli Hanson
Hours: 7:45 – 2:15
3.Elverta Elementary School
7900 Eloise Avenue
Elverta, California 95626
Telephone: 916-991-2244
Facsimile: 916-991-0271
Where else but America can you legally burn the flag, stomp on it and be barred from displaying it? Now, you can be prohibited from pledging allegiance to it as well.
Did this moron of a judge not realize that no one is forced to recite it in the first place? SCOTUS ruled, in a ruling favoring the Jehovah's Witnesses back in the 1940s, that they may not be required to swear allegiance to it.
This goes well beyond "may not be forced," to "prohibited." Why? Because it contains the words "under God," in it. So much for Congress shall make no laws governing free speech or religion. No, just let some asshole judge and atheist decide for the rest of us.
But, let me guess. Nedrow has no problem collecting and spending currency that contains the words "under God" on it.
I agree that Weida was mistreated.
I also agree that there's no problem whatsoever with "under God" in the pledge.
It was added by Eisenhower for a secular and not a religious reason.
It will stand and this court will be overruled.
It all starts with activist judges, appoint by liberal presidents!
Karlton, Lawrence K.
Born 1935 in Brooklyn, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Eastern District of California
Nominated by Jimmy Carter
The federal judge who came up with this stuff -- do you think he works for us? It's great timing.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION PREAMBLE
We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution.
California grows more than half the nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts. In addition, it is- by itself- the 5th largest economy on the planet...and you want to give it away?
Let's find a better solution to our illegal alien problem than giving away the national agricultural engine.
"California grows more than half the nation's fruits, vegetables, and nuts. In addition, it is- by itself- the 5th largest economy on the planet...and you want to give it away?"
Ah...heck...now you're being sensible. What fun is that?
I am agnostic but I agree with the majority here at Free Republic.
This is not about the Constitution, it is about the power of a fraction of a small minority (not all atheists/agnostics support this ruling) to compel acceptance of their agenda.
In my view, the "under God" provision is simply an acknowledgement that the majority belief exists and is a significant factor in national history and culture.
It is not a demand or a coercive requirement to change one's belief.
A hypothetical example:
We present a true/false test question to public school students.
"A great majority of the American people profess a belief in a god or various gods."
Is it a coercive "establishment of religion" to present this question or require students to answer "true"?
The crucial assumption in this case is particularly insidious: that the mere acknowledgement of belief carries the full weight of official authority if it is made in an official setting.
This is a projection of the left-totalitarian view of authority, that all official pronouncements are coercive edicts to be obeyed by virtue of their official origin alone.
This is directly opposed, of course, to common-law ideas of due process and rule of law, in which an official pronouncement is worthless in and of itself.
In bringing this case at all, the Left has once again betrayed its real worldview and objectives.
Look, I've lived in the state all my life..and I think that because of its eternal liberal looniness and hopelessness due to liberal legislators, the place should fall off into the sea (after all the conservatives have left of course)
(grinning :)
Exactly. It was a *cultural* reference, not a religious one.
I'll ask it again - do you really think if the Founders had wanted to include God, they would have had to *sneak* Him in, incorporating Him by reference?
They did include God and they weren't sneaking....specifically, they included the Lord Jesus Christ.
My point is simply that the cultural context of the Constitution was Judeo-Christian and that fact is demonstrated by their dating.
(It is also demonstrated in the 1st amendment "free exercise" clause, but that would require a lesson in Christian theology.)
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Comstock laws were not a high point in American history. IMHO.
Oh, and by the way... it's a trial court case, not the Ninth. Karlton just said, "they outrank me."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.