jjg, You just agreed I was correct about the "in God we trust" thing. It's the truth or it is not, how can the use of an adjective turn a truth into an untruth? Please explain.
On Nov 17, 3:49 pm, jgg1000a <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.- Hide > > > quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
