[tallhappy]

Sue for what?

[Puppage]

An Abilene family is fighting against the Pledge of Allegiance over the phrase "under God."

Don't forget to give all your money away, what with "In God We Trust" printed on it.

[Wolfie]

Substitute teacher, or Constitutional scholar? You make the call!

[KellyAdmirer]

Pretty expensive way to get back for a casual snub to one's daughter. Guy must have money to burn.

[gore_sux]

Don't forget, we will also have to declare the U.S. Constitution unconstitutional:

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

[Bikers4Bush]

Texas family my butt. I want to know what their last name is.

[Texagirl4W]

Have you seen this? How pathetic. This father should be admonishing his daughter to be a good citizen instead of trashing the government. Wonder what rock he slid out from under.

[MineralMan]

"In February, an 11-year-old girl refused to say the pledge with the phrase in class.

A substitute teacher told the girl she'd no right to live in America. "

Wrong action on the teacher's part. Nobody is required to say the Pledge of Allegiance in the USA. That was decided back in 1948, based on a suit filed by the Jehovah's Witnesses, who object to taking all oaths, and who can point to Jesus' own words on the matter.

The "under God" phrase of the Pledge was added in 1954. I learned it the old way in 1950 while in Kindergarten and, as an atheist, have never included that phrase in my thousands of repetitions of the Pledge.

If this teacher said this in class, in public, then he/she should be dismissed. She is saying something that is simply not true.

Anyone may say the Pledge, with or without the "under God" phrase, and nobody may be required to say the Pledge at all if they object to oaths.

This sort of knee-jerk patriotism is just wrong. I defy anyone to tell me to my face that I am not a patriot, and I have never once said the Pledge using the "under God" phrase. Why? Because that would be a false oath for me. I do not swear any oaths which contain references to any deity, because I believe in no deities. As I have always done, I _affirm_ my oaths. I did that when I enlisted in the USAF in 1965, and I've done it everytime I've ever appeared as a witness or juror in court.

Nobody may insist that any US Citizen swear any oath on any deity's name. The Constitution guarantees that. This teacher was simply wrong.

[Astronaut]

Idiots like this (and the lawyer who takes their case) are determined to destroy everything this country stands for. What these folks are really suing for is the right to destroy traditional American values, one at a time. God. Marriage. Family. Duty. Honor. Patriotism. All of these are hateful values to liberals. They are just as dangerous as the Islamo-fascists in Al Qaeda and the PLO.

[Joe Hadenuf]

More lunacy from California. Uh, er never mind......

[ampat]

I only lived in Texas for 3 years but this lawsuit seems like a dangerous thing to do.

[CholeraJoe]

I hope they have good homeowners coverage. Some of the cowboys in Abilene won't like this.

[Sangria]

If we can have gay schools, why can't we have athiest schools and all the athiests can just send their little God haters there.

[MineralMan]

References to a deity in oaths in the United States has never been required. One President, Franklin Pierce, affirmed his oath, rather than swearing it. No citizen of the United States of America may be required to use the name of any deity. It's that simple. For the school to require the saying of the oath without offering an alternative to those who, by conscience, do not take oaths, is unconstitutional, and has been so found by the Supreme Court.

In most cases, people refuse due to religious beliefs. A number of Christian churches forbid their members from taking oaths using the name of the deity. They have clear support from the Bible.

In Matthew 5:33-37, Jesus' supposed words are recorded thus:

33. Again, ye have heard that it hasth been said by them of old time, Thous shalt not forswear theyself, but shall perform unto the Lord thine oaths;

34. But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by Heaven, for it is God's throne;

35. Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool; neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King.

36. Neither shalt thou swear by they head, because thou cannot make one hair white or black.

37. But let your communication be, Yea, yea, Nay nay' for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Many patriotic citizens believe this to be true, and so refuse oaths. For these citizens, and others, our official oaths may simply be affirmed.

The Pledge of Allegiance is an oath. That's plain as day. I say it proudly and frequently. I do not, however, use the words "under God" in that oath. Other Americans cannot, in good conscience, say the Pledge at all, since they believe that Jesus' words prohibit all such oaths.

It is wrong for any school to require anyone to say any oath or pledge that goes against the religious beliefs of any citizen. That's quite clear.

This teacher was horribly wrong to chide this student, who, for whatever reason, believes that he/she should not say the Pledge of Allegiance.

Support for the student's position can be found in our Constitution and in the Bible, as quoted above.

[Live free or die]

I thought the defenition of court standing meant some physical or financial hurt being inflicted on someone. Where's the hurt? Who's it hurting?

[cardinal4]

A substitute teacher told the girl she'd no right to live in America.

And she right in my book. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. Anyone who doesnt like it can go live in Godless countries like China, DPRK, and Cuba..

[deport]

The teach should have kept his/her mouth shut as the Legislation clearly gives the student the right
not to participate...... see section in red ....

Underline = additions to exiting code
Strike throught = removal from exisitng code.

AN ACT

relating to pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas 
flags and to observance of one minute of silence in public schools.
	BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:                        
	SECTION 1.  The heading to Section 25.082, Education Code, 
is amended to read as follows:
	Sec. 25.082.  SCHOOL DAY; PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE; MINUTE OF 
SILENCE.   
	SECTION 2.  Section 25.082, Education Code, is amended by 
amending Subsection (b) and adding Subsections (c) and (d) to read 
as follows:
	(b)  The board of trustees of each school district shall 
require students, once during each school day at each school in the 
district, to recite:
		(1)  the pledge of allegiance to the United States flag 
in accordance with 4 U.S.C. Section 4, and its subsequent 
amendments; and
		(2)  the pledge of allegiance to the state flag in 
accordance with Subchapter C, Chapter 3100, Government Code.
	(c)  On written request from a student's parent or guardian, 
a school district shall excuse the student from reciting a pledge of 
allegiance under Subsection (b).
	(d)  The board of trustees of each [A] school district shall
[may] provide for the observance of one minute [a period] of silence 
at each school in the district following the recitation of the 
pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas flags under 
Subsection (b).  During the one-minute period, each student may, as 
the student chooses, [the beginning of the first class of each 
school day during which a student may] reflect, pray, [or] 
meditate, or engage in any other silent activity that is not likely 
to interfere with or distract another student.  Each teacher or 
other school employee in charge of students during that period 
shall ensure that each of those students remains silent and does not 
act in a manner that is likely to interfere with or distract another 
student.
	SECTION 3.  This Act applies beginning with the 2003-2004 
school year.       
	SECTION 4.  This Act takes effect immediately if it receives 
a vote of two-thirds of all the members elected to each house, as 
provided by Section 39, Article III, Texas Constitution.  If this 
Act does not receive the vote necessary for immediate effect, this 
Act takes effect September 1, 2003.

[MEGoody]

While I think the lawsuit is silly, if the sub said what is claimed, she handled it wrong. She should have just let the kid not say the pledge.

Having said that, I'm doubting the teacher actually did what is claimed.

[My back yard]

Stupid parent wanting to sue. He's an idiot. but so is this substitute teacher imo.

She has no right to make the child feel less American for not wanting to say 'under God'. It is people like her that are aiding the problem on the other side. The whole point is that I may say it 'under God', but you don't have to! Since the majority of people are christians in this country, they should be allowed to express their christianity without fear of a governement penalty for it.

If any given community is predominatly christian, they should be allowed to post the ten commandments if they wish, in a courthouse, schoolyard, park or anywhere else their children might go. But if you are athiest, you shouldn't have to suffer a county employee's penalty either, for not participating in a prayer, or the words 'under God'.

I'm almost suspecting this substitute is working for the side of the American Athiests Assoc.

[Melas]

Several things. First of all, why the hell is President Bush named in the suit? I've even thought it over for a few minutes to make sure I didn't miss anything, and nope, I still can't think of a good reason to name the President in the suit.

Why congress? Read above.

As an atheist, this is just silly. It's a nuisance suit.

However, the parent should have rode the school to ensure that the substitute never substituted again. That was a totally uncalled for verbal attack on an 11 year old girl by an adult. ...but the sub isn't named on the suit? This smacks of agenda.

Now back to countering jerks who claim I have no right to be here.