Justice Thomas in Newdow

[EDarr1776 at aol.com]

Yes, I understand that the right to not say the pledge was established firmly 
in 1943 -- but there is no provision in California law nor in the Elk Grove 
district rules to honor the law.

There's a difference between having a right and having that right recognized. 
 When I queried the Elk Grove folks about how a student might opt out, they 
said no student was allowed out.  The promised to get back to me on it, but 
events rather overwhelmed them, and I never got an answer.  

As with so many of these issues, I think they turn on the facts.  This 
particular fact is unclear to me.

Ed Darrell
Dallas



In a message dated 6/20/2004 5:58:58 PM Central Standard Time, 
JMHACLJ at aol.com writes:


> In a message dated 6/20/2004 12:39:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
> EDarr1776 at aol.com writes:
> 
> >> Perhaps I am wrong, but did not all the parties agree with the 
>> characterization of the circumstances in the original Newdow decision?  That is, 
>> California requires a patriotic exercise, and Elk Grove's policies require the 
>> pledge to meet that law's requirements.  
> 
> No, Ed, I think that is the state of the facts.  But that the pledge is 
> required does not mean that no provision has been made for respecting conscienti
> ous opposition to pledge recitation.  And that really was my counterpoint, 
> namely that, since Barnette, the right to decline to participate in patriotic 
> exercises on a conscientious basis has been fairly clearly established.  
>  
> Jim Henderson
> Senior Counsel
> ACLJ
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20040621/1b76e71c/attachment.html