Gunny.. this guy is an attorney and he's just looking for a claim to fame and recognition. I firmly believe that. He was never married to the "mother of his daughter" and he did not have shared custody of her. He is an atheist, but the "mother of his daughter" claims her daughter does not believe in what her father is doing - although she is only 10 years old. Either way, the guy is just looking to make a name for himself in my opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by [AK]Gunny Highway
Lets just say for the sake of argument, I'm FAR right and very Christian. Lets just say you are purely Atheist. How does YOUR right of not believing infringe on me, and vice versa? How come you being "offended" by religion supposedly being spread in the use of the word "god" in the pledge supersede me being "offended" by you forcing it to be omitted? If you don't want to participate in it, you have the right not to. BUT, if you prevent me from doing so... I have no alternative but be forced to comply with your view. So IMHO... your infringement upon my rights are by far greater than any perceived infringement I may be performing because you have the right to abstain, while I would have no choice in the matter.
In many ways, it's like any other form on censorship. If you don't want to watch "Hot & Heavy" Hour on the Spice Channel... don't watch it!! But dammit.. if I want to watch it, you have no right to tell me I can't! ;)
If the schools were saying "your child MUST say this" - then I would have a huge problem with that. That would be "government" sponsored religious support. But this is optional and you don't have to participate if you don't want to. In this case, the father wants to impose HIS views in order to stop others from acting upon theirs, but the reciprocal is NOT the case.