Hyacinthus said:
What kind of lesson is it for her to learn, that a federal court has decided that she doesn't even have to _hear_ something she doesn't like, or that her father doesn't like?
I'm reminded of the imbroglio in San Diego a few years ago, when some atheist group or other tried to get the Mt. Soledad cross torn down. I could respect their arguments, and yet still think, "What a bunch of yahoos! It's a cross. There are lots of crosses around. Deal with it."
For anyone who missed it, here's
the story on the Mt. Soledad cross.
Crosses on your own land, your own neck, your own clothes, your own schools -- fine. Crosses on public land maintained at taxpayer expense --
MY expense -- not fine at all. Not constitutional, either.
As to the argument that Newdow's daughter should get used to being forced to listen to other children dutifully praying a government prayer by government order -- oh? you weren't thinking of it like that? Please do.
Then you'll see why Newdow objects to her being an unwilling audience as the other kids drone through this formal declaration of religious belief led and supervised at public expense in a schoolroom financed at public expense, when all of them -- Newdow's daughter included -- should be learning something worthwhile out of the public education curriculum instead of whatever it is forced prayer is supposed to teach.
The lesson Newdow's daughter should get from the court decision is that there
is still hope for religious freedom in this country, even though you often have to fight for it. The lesson is that patriotism
isn't demonstrated by forced and phony public prayers. When you use the tools the founders gave us to preserve the rights they guaranteed us,
that is defending your country.
That is patriotism. That's what young Ms. Newdow knows about her dad now.
