Of course your adjectives were incorrect because they spin the facts into something other than the truth, but yes "Under God" became part of the pledge in the 50's... All that said, if anything it affirms my basic point the 1st amendment does NOT remove Religious Speech from the Public Square, but it in fact REQUIRES the allowance of Religious Speech in the Public Square... And that is contrary to the twisted notion that the "Non Establishment" clause of the same amendment is in fact NOT the "Disestablishment" clause that the Secular LW precieve it to be...
On Nov 17, 3:52 pm, Hollywood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > jgg, > > This is all really simple. Kid wants to say it fine, kid dosen't want > to say it, fine. Someone is afraid a kid might be criticized for > either saying it or not saying it, toogh shit. that's likfe. > You DO know that the phrase "under God" was not an original part of > the pledge and was adding during the 1950"s "Oh my God the commie's > are going to get us" phase, right? > > On Nov 17, 9:00 am, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Here is a current Separation where Secularist are seeking to enforce > > their ban Religion from the Public Square... The question is not > > IF but when, where, and who... A side note, isn't having the kids > > who do not wish to say "under God" stay in the classrooms while the > > rest of the students go to the gym "isolating them"??? > > >http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20081114/NEWS/81114027 > > > >>> Unlike other Pledge controversies, this one centers on how and where > > >>> schoolchildren say it, not whether they should be allowed to. > > > In 1943, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that schoolchildren can opt out > > of reciting the pledge for religious reasons. > > > Sixty-one years later, the court said a California father couldn't > > challenge the Pledge of Allegiance, reversing a lower-court decision > > saying teacher-led Pledge recitals in public schools were > > unconstitutional. That case involved an atheist who didn't want his > > third-grader to have to listen to the phrase "under God." > > > But it didn't rule on the constitutionality of compulsory recitation. > > > The brouhaha in the Vermont school began in September, when parent Ted > > Tedesco began circulating petitions calling for its return as a daily > > practice in the 19th-century schoolhouse, which has 55 children in > > grades kindergarten through six. > > > School officials agreed to resume the pledge as a daily exercise, but > > not in the classroom. > > > "We don't want to isolate children every day in their own classroom, > > or make them feel they're different," said Principal Michaela Martin. > > > Instead, starting last week, a sixth grade student was assigned to go > > around to the four classrooms before classes started, gathering up > > anyone who wanted to say it and then walking them up creaky wooden > > steps to a second-floor gymnasium, where he led them in the pledge. > > > About half the students chose to participate, according to Martin. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
