Sign in to follow this  
Guest

U.S. Pledge of Allegiance now illegal....

Recommended Posts

Boy.... no wonder public opinion of Lawyers and Judges is so low. That entire court should be impeached. Who appointed them ... Clinton?The Phrase "One Nation Under God" ...... is the objectionable part.What an absurd decision. "In God We Trust"..... is on our friggin money. The legal proffession is out of control, irresponsible, incapable of self regulation and just clogging up every facet of American life. The whole proffession should be regulated. BobP :(

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Maybe AVSIM should open a "Political Forum"? Timothy

Share this post


Link to post

I happen to agree with the decision. It's an Appeal's Court Decision. This one will go to the Supreme Court most likely. The phrase "under god" was added to the original pledge in 1954 by a bunch of commie fearing folks who were overreacting. Religion or even the mention of religion has no place in our public schools. After all, the establishment clause was the very first clause in the first amendment in the bill of rights. So long as the schools are being funded by taxes, they are government. Why can't folks understand that very simple very basic all important right. The problem in this case wasn't that the pledge was required to be made which has already been held to be unconstitutional; but that those that objected to reciting the pledge as worded were being chastised by other students who thought they should recite it. Typical school harrassment stuff.The Supreme Court will be deciding the school voucher issue tomorrow. That will be the one very important decision this year. Let's hope they get it right or it'll be the beginning of the end of our public school system. Finding that tax paid vouchers are constitutional would be like holding that separate but equal is constitutional. That'll end up being a gift of $5000+/- to those who decide to send their kids to a $15000 private school. Now, who'll be able to take advantage of that?? Let me guess. It'll be that young minimum wage mother who works at Walmart that'll get to take advantage of the voucher program. Yeah, right.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Mgdbottled..And as you know, this particular Court was picked for appeal because of it's extreme left wing rulings. Twenty nine of thirty 9th District Court rulings have been reversed by the Supreme Court. It is a political game sir.... and it stinks.BobP

Share this post


Link to post

Actually the Knights of Columbus, of which I am a member, is the organization that proposed the words "Under God" to be added on the pledge.As to the commie fearing, I guess we turned out to be right after all, IMHO. :-)Keep in mind the following ramifications.1) It does not take effect until 3 months, allowing for appeal2) This ruling would mean that God Bless America, and America The Beautiful will no longer be allowed to be played or sung in schools. Any song with the word God, or book, or anything will be outlawed, thus forcing censorship in the public schools.As to your comment about school vouchers, maybe it will be the beginning of CHOICE in schooling. Why should my taxes go to a system yo which I receive no benefit. But I live in Illinois, so I got back $500 from our Private School Tax Credit program as a refund of taxes I paid into the system. Thanks for the money, please send more... :-waveHere is the Good News.The biggest holders of WorldComthink the other language contained in the pledge may be more offending to some than the "under god" language. Like, "I pledge allegance to the flag of the United States of America" why???? do I have to do that to go to school or to even listen to it??? "and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all". My constitution doesn't require that I be patriotic of go pledge anything. All I need to do as a citizen is obey the laws of the land and I might add "pay my bills". I can be rude, a jerk, and a big pain to everyone I meet. That's my right. I can burn the flag if I want. That's my right. I could resent (I don't but I could resent) the fact that that pledge requires me or my children to pledge or even listen to a pledge of allegiance and patriotism to the United States. But; there's no language in the constitution that prevents the government from trying to brainwash anyone into being patriotic at an early age.

Share this post


Link to post

Gentlemen,I am reading this thread with great interest. As a Brit I don

Share this post


Link to post

This will be taken up by the ENTIRE 9th circuit where it will be struck down before having the opportunity to go to SCOTUS.My son and I have a RIGHT as you call it to say the pledge wherever we want. SCOTUS has already ruled that students in a public school can say prayers at school, and if it offends those who do not believe, I could really give a rip.You portend to have knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet you fail to understand that they were put there to keep alive the right to practice any religion freely.One need only look at the Federalist papers to understand the clarity of the establishment clause. As to the senate, yes, I agree, that was made in support holding no bearing on the Judicial Branch of Government.But if you think this will stand, I'm sorry, but IMHO, you might as well join the UN, trash the entire Government of The United States of America and start listening to Kofi A. and the rest of his malcontents.This country has problems IMHO, because of silly lawsuits just like this, and is responsible for the downfall of values, morals, right and wrong.So you think that the 9th circuit will trump SCOTUS. Sounds like FloriDuhhhh! all over again, and they let the Floridiots on their court know who interprets the Final law, and it is not the 9th.Do Atheists have a right not to practice. Yes, but it is my right to say a prayer, a pledge, or sing God Bless America, and SCOTUS has already concurred with my viewpoint, so you lose. And so does the 9th Circuit who is currently the laughing stock of this country.And you can take that one to the Federal Reserve Bank.Regards,Joe :-wavehttp://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

>Boy.... no wonder public opinion of Lawyers and Judges is so >low. That entire court should be impeached. Who appointed >them ... Clinton?Well uhh...no Bob, actually it was Richard Nixon back 1969 who appointed Goodwin. I know how tempting it is to blame Clinton for everything wrong in the world but not only did he not appoint this judge he's actually listed in the suit that this idiot in California filed against the USA. These guys are just circuit judges,this means nothing.I haven't heard or read any statement yet from Bill Clinton but I highly doubt that he'd agree with this decision. Facts should be found out first....David

Share this post


Link to post

Actually, this is the way it works. The first amendment does not contain any subclauses, therefore the list of rights contained therein must be seen as examples of the same constitutional principle, i.e. a violation of any of them constitutes a violation of the amendment. So, any rulings on any of the rights contained in the amendment should be coherent in the interpretation of the law, they can only differ on points of fact. For example, a ruling on a point of law on a matter regarding freedom to exercise religion, will automatically become a precedent on cases regarding free speech.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post

>But if you think this will stand, I'm sorry, but IMHO, you >might as well join the UN, trash the entire Government of >The United States of America and start listening to Kofi A. >and the rest of his malcontents.Doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me - maybe then Americans would realise, that they're just one nation among many, after all... >Do Atheists have a right not to practice. Yes, but it is my >right to say a prayer, a pledge, or sing God Bless America,Did the court say any different? It just ruled it unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post

''You portend to have knowledge of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, yet you fail to understand that they were put there to keep alive the right to practice any religion freely''Well, I hope I understand the constitution since I've been a lawyer for the past 16 years. Everybody in this country has the right to practice their religion whatever it may be. The government however; is not allowed by law to practice or establish a religion. Our founding fathers made that very clear. There is no mention of god anywhere in the federal constitution. None!!! Thank goodness for that. If we were to let our schools preach religion, then I'd suggest that they preach only the Muslem religion. No christian teaching allowed. Now, what do you think about that?? Maybe the schools should preach the Muslem religion on Mondays, Budism on Tuesdays, Ethieism on Wednesdays and Devil Worship on Thursdays. We'll let Fridays be a free for all for any christians who want to speak. What's wrong?? Don't agree with that??? Well, our founding fathers figured that problem out before they drafted the constitution. They learned from practical experience in England, that such an establishment clause was an absolutely necessary element in any free society that was to be successful.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi,You said:"Doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me - maybe then Americans would realise, that they're just one nation among many, after all..."We realize that we are a Republic, and we will make the laws in our own land. Gosta, I am afraid that you may not fully understand our Constitution and Our laws.You said:"Did the court say any different? It just ruled it unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge."Wrong answer my friend. Did you read the decision. It does not state that, and maybe instead of listening to some press person or TV, you will download the decision and read it. Please do your research before commenting on a subject that you may not be fully aware of.The Pledge does not mandate anyone or force anyone to say it. The Supreme Court of The United States has already ruled in this regard, like prayer which students can pray in a school if they like. They cannot however force someone to say prayer or force anyone to say the pledge.The 9th Circuit Court of appeals will be laughed out big time, I promise you that.Regards,Joe..http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

''The 9th Circuit Court of appeals will be laughed out big time, I promise you that.Regards,''Joe; I think you're right in that the Appeals Court (the full court) will reverse this decision. I think that's how the procedure works. A review by the full court. It's a bit of a stretch to say that the mere mention of a diety without being more specific by a school falls within the establishment clause. I don't think it does. Two of these three judges were appointed by Republicans. What would you expect?? hehehehe. Danged Republicans. hehehehe. But, I still agree with the decision in principle. Regardless of what the full court does, this issue will likely be addressed by the Supreme Court. And, it'll be held that it does not fall within the clause.

Share this post


Link to post

. :-beerchugYou said:"Well, I hope I understand the constitution since I've been a lawyer for the past 16 years."Whatever your name is, you think because you have the title of Lawyer that you know the laws any better than I. Please, maybe you are impressed by stating a title, but I am not.As a Lawyer, which part of this do you not understand. Why did you feel the need to state that. Lawyers don't hold the monopoly in this country on the reading of laws, or do they in your opinion."Amendment ICongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERSISE THEREOF" "OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH"Hello, Amendment #1. It may not say God, but it says religion, and if you think the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance establishes religion, you are in the absolute minority on that one. Here is a poll that that indicate how far you are really out of reality on this one.Fox news: 89% say the 9th is WRONG on this onehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56312,00.htmlOh, I know maybe our friend zogby will poll some non-citizens who just happen to have their phone numbers published to state they dissagree.Here is another Gem. The two Judges in this case should be impeached of their duties by The Congress of The United States which as a Lawyer, you know has the power to remove Judges.Furthermore, they would not have had to pull a judge out of retirement on this circuit if daschle and his ill gotten, IMHO, senate committee had allowed Judge Recommendations to be sent to the floor of the whole Senate for a vote. This one is going to be huge in the November Election, so I say maybe some good will come of this afterall, and the Citizens of The United States will realize just how daschle is circumventing the Executive Branch Powers of the Constitution Of The United States. I think we need a Constitutional Amendment stating that leadership of the Senate or House does not change until that Senator whose party he/she ran on in the Election they were elected serves out their term.Common Sense will prevail, not stupidity and circumvention of the Constitution.Regards,Joe :-wave PS - With regards to the word God, we used that in The Declaration of Independence which proves that it was a consideration of our founding fathers and I will let their words state it here:"The Declaration of Independence: A TranscriptionIN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

>We realize that we are a Republic, and we will make the laws >in our own land. Gosta, I am afraid that you may not fully >understand our Constitution and Our laws.I think you may have misread my comment - I did not refer to your constitution, or your laws, but mainly to foreign policy and the US' continous disregard for international law. It's off-topic, though. ;) >You said: >"Did the court say any different? It just ruled it >unconstitutional to mandate anyone to say the pledge." >>Wrong answer my friend. Did you read the decision. Yes, I did. Here are some of the relevant points:Rather, he claims that his daughter is injuredwhen she is compelled to "watch and listen as her stateemployedteacher in her state-run school leads her classmatesin a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic]is `one nation under God.' [10] In conclusion, we hold that (1) the 1954 Act addingthe words "under God" to the Pledge, and (2) EGUSD's policyand practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge, withthe added words included, violate the Establishment Clause.The judgment of dismissal is vacated with respect to thesetwo claims, and the cause is remanded for further proceedingsconsistent with our holding. Plaintiff is to recover costs onthis appeal.It quite clearly objects to the policy and practice of reciting the pledge. Anything further would have been outside the court's scope, as the plaintiff's original complaint was about the mere fact that his daughter was 'compelled' to listen to the pledge. A minor change in the school's policy, namely to offer the choice for those wishing not to participate in the recital of the pledge to assemble in a different room, would ensure full compliance with the ruling.Therefore, it does not really venture any further than previous Supreme Court rulings, it just adds clarification.Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Again,You forgot to add:"Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge"You also need to read further down about West Virginia State Board of Education vs. Barnette, where it stated that no one is compelled to recite the pledge. Compel in our legal system is a very strong word. I see where you are coming from and I understand your interpretation.But remember, this will be overturned, so I really don't care too much about what they wrote because they are wrong in their interpretation, and it will be as if this case never came to be after the full 9th or Scotus is done with them.There are no requirements forcing her to recite it. I think there should be a pledge to the Constitution, maybe something like this."I Pledge allegence to the Constitution of The United States, especially The Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Regards,Joe.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

>But remember, this will be overturned,That's a bit presumptious, isn't it? :) >"I Pledge allegence to the Constitution of The United >States, especially The Bill of Rights. Congress shall make >no law respecting an establishment of religion, or >prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the >freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the >people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government >for a redress of grievances. Now there's an idea - why don't you lobby your congressman to introduce a bill to that effect?Cheers,Gosta.

Share this post


Link to post

>You forgot to add: >>"Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or >school district requires his daughter to participate in >reciting the Pledge" >>You also need to read further down about West Virginia State >Board of Education vs. Barnette, where it stated that no one >is compelled to recite the pledge. Compel in our legal >system is a very strong word. Yes, I know - I wanted to include a lot more, but then I would have ended up posting the entire decision minus the obiter dicta. Somehow, I don't think that would have gone down too well with the forum administrators...;). Particularly interesting is the reasoning regarding the plaintiff's standing.So, for those who are interested, here's the link to the ruling:http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelementCheers,Gosta.EDIT: P.S.: The link opens a .pdf file in your browser, so make sure you have Acrobat Reader installed.

Share this post


Link to post

">But remember, this will be overturned,That's a bit presumptious, isn't it?"Nahhh, It is so utterly silly that it is a no brainer. I have been blessed by God with having a little common sense and this one reeks of common sense, and decisions that SCOTUS makes will trump this one like they have many other decisions that have come out of the 9th."Now there's an idea - why don't you lobby your congressman to introduce a bill to that effect?"Maybe I will, maybe I have... You'll have to buy my book for my full opinions. :-)(Still in my head of course, but getting closer to starting it.)BTW - Thanks for posting the link, we should of listed that one earlier. :-)regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

''Whatever your name is, you think because you have the title of Lawyer that you know the laws any better than I. Please, maybe you are impressed by stating a title, but I am not.''Answer: Yes, I think lawyers know the laws much better than lay persons. I'm not a constitutional expert; but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the language therein.''As a Lawyer, which part of this do you not understand. Why did you feel the need to state that. Lawyers don't hold the monopoly in this country on the reading of laws, or do they in your opinion.''Answer: Yes, lawyers protect the people from their government. Or didn't you know that. Without lawyers, you wouldn't live in this wonderful free society. Lawyers are the defenders of freedom. Think about that. Who would you call if a cop throws your butt in jail?? A politician??? I kinda doubt that. The only person other than yourself that can represent you in a court is a licensed lawyer. So yes, I suppose lawyers do hold a monopoly of a sort in this country. The courts interpret the law. No one else. ''"Amendment I''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.""OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXCERSISE THEREOF" "OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH"''Answer: Neither the exercise of religion or free speech have anything to do with this case. The only relevant portion of the first amendment is the establishment clause. Nobody is debating their free speech right or their free exercise of religion right. The case deals with the right of the government to establish religion period. Nothing else.''Hello, Amendment #1. It may not say God, but it says religion, and if you think the mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance establishes religion, you are in the absolute minority on that one. Here is a poll that that indicate how far you are really out of reality on this one.Fox news: 89% say the 9th is WRONG on this onehttp://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,56312,00.html''Answer; The courts unlike politicians could care less about polls. The courts base their decisions on the law. Period. End of story. The courts interpret the law. The legislatures make the law. Politics and religion and opinion polls are left outside the courtroom on the front steps. Thank goodness for that or we'd really have a mess.Oh, I know maybe our friend zogby will poll some non-citizens who just happen to have their phone numbers published to state they dissagree.''Here is another Gem. The two Judges in this case should be impeached of their duties by The Congress of The United States which as a Lawyer, you know has the power to remove Judges.''Answer: We don't impeach judges just because we happen to disagree with their decisions. We appeal their decisions to higher courts. That's how the system works.''Furthermore, they would not have had to pull a judge out of retirement on this circuit if daschle and his ill gotten, IMHO, senate committee had allowed Judge Recommendations to be sent to the floor of the whole Senate for a vote. This one is going to be huge in the November Election, so I say maybe some good will come of this afterall, and the Citizens of The United States will realize just how daschle is circumventing the Executive Branch Powers of the Constitution Of The United States.'' Answer: Two of these judges were appointed by Republicans. Daschle disagrees with the decision. I don't understand your logic.''I think we need a Constitutional Amendment stating that leadership of the Senate or House does not change until that Senator whose party he/she ran on in the Election they were elected serves out their term.''Answer; No we don't. Common Sense will prevail, not stupidity and circumvention of the Constitution.Answer: No circumvention of the constitution. Just an interpretation.Regards,Joe ''PS - With regards to the word God, we used that in The Declaration of Independence which proves that it was a consideration of our founding fathers and I will let their words state it here:''"The Declaration of Independence: A TranscriptionIN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.''The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,''When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.''Answer: The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Notice how the founding fathers intentionally left all that colorful language out of the constitution.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Elrond,It's pretty simple, actually. I believe a person has a right to believe anything they want to. So if someone does not believe in God, that's ok with me. But they should not intrude on my rights to freely express it.It is a bit different than let's say second-hand smoke where someone can show an injury or get cancer.You can't get cancer from listening to the Pledge or reciting it.. i think.. :-hmmm :-lol :-lolI just feel my right to freely express trumps their CHOICE to not have to listen.Remember, California is a state that requires recitation, but SCOTUS already stated in prior decisions that you cannot compel someoen to recite.Now Do I have a problem with someone not reciting the pledge. On a Moral ground, yes, but not on a legal ground as I respect their decision to not recite.Remember, and let me be clear on this for our good friends that are not United States Citizens. When listening to your press or reading your paper, there is no law that COMPELS or REQUIRES or MANDATES someone to recite the Pledge. This was already settled in a case by The Supreme Court of The United States of America prior to the 1954 addition of the "Under God" wording.So if someone teels you this girl was forced to recite, they are wrong and so is the press if that is what they are reporting.Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

You said:"Answer: Yes, I think lawyers know the laws much better than lay persons. I'm not a constitutional expert; but I think I have a pretty good understanding of the language therein."Well, I think I know more than a lot of Attorneys I know. :-)You said:"Answer: Yes, lawyers protect the people from their government. Or didn't you know that. Without lawyers, you wouldn't live in this wonderful free society. Lawyers are the defenders of freedom. Think about that. Who would you call if a cop throws your butt in jail?? A politician??? I kinda doubt that. The only person other than yourself that can represent you in a court is a licensed lawyer. So yes, I suppose lawyers do hold a monopoly of a sort in this country. The courts interpret the law. No one else."You think Lawyers protect the people from Government. I disagree, as I believe the people hold the power, not some lawyers. That is about the silliest statement you have made today. Without lawyers, I wouldn't have the freedoms we have..... Please..... I diasgree with that one too. That position is pretty sad, I think.The People are the defenders of Freedom, not lawyers. Now, I have quite a few close friends who are Attorney's, and I think that your statements above are absolutely silly, IMHO.Do you think people should be allowed to represent themselves?You said:"Answer: Two of these judges were appointed by Republicans. Daschle disagrees with the decision. I don't understand your logic."Simple, Judges have come out of retirement because of UNFULFILLED VACANCIES. Fernandez dissented and was appointed by Bush Sr. There are vacancies because daschel refuses to send the proposed Judges to the floor for a full vote. Are you telling me, as a Lawyer, you cannot undestand that one. Ummmm, ok, I guess... And Goodwin, please.... That guy should have been in a home for retired Judges a while ago. With regard to God,You Said:"Answer: The Declaration of Independence is not law. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Notice how the founding fathers intentionally left all that colorful language out of the constitution."They didn't leave it out, they called it the right to freely express religion which is in the Constitution. You just don't want to acknowledge that right. Joe.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

"But they should not intrude on my rights to freely express it."And they are doing that how? How are you stopped from visiting your place of worship anytime you feel like it? Or saying your prayers at night? Or etc, etc, etc? You are advocating forcing your beliefs on someone else - plain and simple. You are still free to express your beliefs in any non-government building you wish. In any (legal) way you see fit. At any time of day or night. 365 days a year."It is a bit different than let's say second-hand smoke where someone can show an injury or get cancer."I completely beg to differ. If you don't think emotional stress, public peer pressure, religious persecution (even when your religion is "none"... Probably even more so), etc, etc, etc isn't an injury, you are sadly mistaken. Its called Mental "Health" for a reason, Joe."I just feel my right to freely express trumps their CHOICE to not have to listen."Express all you want till you're blue in the face. Outside a government building! No one in their right mind is stopping you. Lets get real here."So if someone teels you this girl was forced to recite, they are wrong and so is the press if that is what they are reporting."That has absolutely nothing in the world to do with it. Its separation of Church and State: plain and simple. Confuse it up with moral ambiguity all you wish - but the facts and this issue is simple.Separation of Church and State.Take care,http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/elrondlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Ok here goes...When this is so easily overturned, what will you say then. Will you come back and say I was right.This is a no-brainer. You said:"I completely beg to differ. If you don't think emotional stress, public peer pressure, religious persecution (even when your religion is "none"... Probably even more so), etc, etc, etc isn't an injury, you are sadly mistaken. Its called Mental "Health", Joe."I just disagree with your analogy that they are being persecuted or experiencing injury. To me, that is simply absurd. They have a CHOICE to not recite. That was already upheld, and again, This decision will be reversed, or I'm buying the beer. :-) <-----Cut and Paste that one :-beerchugElrond, you said:"You are still free to express your beliefs in any non-government building you wish. In any (legal) way you see fit. At any time of day or night. 365 days a year."I have to clarify here that our Courts have also upheld my Right to freely express my religion on Public Property as well. And that means I can say prayers in any GOVERNMENT building I like., That is the law in this land, and it is rooted in precedent. Please don't think that I do not have a right to express my beliefs in a government building, because I do have that right.I apologize for stating this, but I don't necessarilly go around talking about laws I have not researched as they apply to Canada, Mexico, The UK, or any other country. Unless I have researched them.Now if someone wants to dispute United States laws, and they are not Citizens, they should at least give me the courtesy of doing some research on our laws and that means understanding prior Supreme Court Decisions.Regards,Joe :-wave.http://home.attbi.com/~jranos/mysig.jpg http://avsim.com/hangar/air/bfu/logo70.gif

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this