Re: "Under God"
I agree, JB.<br /><br />There is no way the phrase "under god" can be interpreted in any way other than a religious one, and therefore ought to be unconstitutional.<br /><br />I find it curious that the justification for it rests not on constitutional grounds, but rather pretty much on other examples of religion creeping into our government.<br /><br />Or that the majority think it is ok. The courts, and the bill of rights, specifically were designed to prevent the sort of tyranny of the majority. There are countless examples of the majority being wrong in this country, and I am thankful the founding fathers designed the courts to correct these wrongs.<br /><br />FTR, I believe the court will cave on this one, in some way--probably by deciding that the father does not have custody of the child, and therefore has no standing to bring the matter to court in the first place---thereby avoiding making a decision.<br /><br />As far as what the mother and child really think, who really knows? Can you imagine what the religious right would do to that child if the mother and child came out in favor of this action? And what mother would possibly wish that on her child? If you were that child's mother, what would you say--whatever you believed in?<br /><br />Which is precisely why this court decision should be upheld.