QUOTE(FargoUT @ Jun 17 2004, 07:12 PM)
So it wasn't a parenting issue? Big deal. The issue is not that Michael Newdow's child was forced to recite the Pledge, but that a pledge of allegiance to our country should not contain divisive wording, particularly with reference to religious phrases. The Supreme Court took the cowardly way out by finding a technicality on which to dismiss the case. This means it will only take someone else to sue and it will start all over again.
The issue is not whether the pledge should be recited, but should it be recited with the divisive phrase "under God" (ironically preceding the word indivisible). The correct answer is no. God has no place in government. Our nation was created by those fleeing a country run by the Church of England. Of course, all these reasons have already been addresses, haven't they?

I also think this is probably the first time a man is claiming responsibility for his child and being ridiculed for it.
The problem is that Newdow approached it wrong. He said the problem was that his daughter (actually she's not) had to recite the pledge. It failed on a damn technicality although, the case is not closed, it is just postponed. The girl's real parents can take the case back up and continue where Newdow left off. Good thing is that he has talked to the parents and they are willing to continue. At least thats as of yesterday, so... let's hope that this stuff gets taken care of.
Oh yeah... I love how people try to portray this as part of our nations culture and all that, but the funny thing is, "under God" was added sometime in the 50s.