>they should share equal blame.Well then ok... that's the above I'm disagreeing with. I can't conceivably put a 10-year-old kid on the same level as an adult teacher. Just like asvi just said, he didn't grasp the whole meaning behind the pledge. Perhaps your kids do, but not all, as I already said. It's the teacher's role (and the parents) to explain their rights to the kids, therefore if someone is to blame here, it's more the teacher (and the parents) than the kid. In my opinion anyway. How could a kid be punished for that anyway (aside from giving him/her a long lecture on rights and the pledge) ? I find way more worrying that a teacher doesn't know he/she can't force anyone to recite the pledge than that a kid doesn't know. If the teacher doesn't know that, I don't want to think about the rest... Well that's my point anyway.BTW, I didn't mean the Consitution was badly written on that point, but I was just generalising to all texts of law. And I was more into re-writing some than changing some bad laws. Bad laws is yet another debate (oh boy, what I am starting now ? :-lol).__________________________________________________________EricList of all airlines, aircraft manufacturers and aircraft types recognised by ATC:http://www.geocities.com/eric_2203/orhttp://ftp.avsim.com/library/esearch.php?D...atID=fs2002misc

That this thread has been a right ding-dong is beyond dispute. It proves to me that the love of free speech and a concern for constitutional matters is alive and well in the US. It says much for the good folk at Avsim that they have let this thread run, for both religion and politics have featured (even the European Common Market put in an appearance at one stage).On reflection there is one contribution that worries me somewhat and it the very first one from BobP, the one that started this show. Three sentences follow each other,

''its practitioners appear in court in a state of undress (No wigs or gowns, tut-tut. LOL) and when one lawyer sets out to prove what an idiot his opponent is he does not usually address his opponent as

Hi Denis,First of all thank you my friend for the excellent civics lesson concerning the relationship of Church and State in England. I enjoyed reading your post.Second, I am not a lawyer and do not understand the legal issues concerning the US 9th District Court

>(even the European Common Market put in an >appearance at one stage).You must be ancient, if you still refer to it as the 'Common Market'... ;). >I won

BobP. Thanks for your kind words (aren

Here's what I have to say about all this:I am in high school and I was never forced to say the pledge, or otherwise do anything that I didn't want to do pretaining to my political views. I have no problem w/ the ruling, but if it does get overturned (which it probably will) I can't be made to say it anyway, so it really doesn't matter. In school, If I don't stand to say the pledge, I'm not dragged to my feet and forced to recite it. I have strong views relating to the seperation of church and state, I support it very much, I don't want to think what this country would be like if there was a bunch of state-sponsored religion running amok over here. We already have enough over-zealous religious fanatics (from all religions). I never wanted a conservative republican government anyway. All I'm saying is, what is this ruling accomplishing anyway? I do think that the pledge should be kept how it originally was, w/o the "under god" part. And, If the ruling ISN'T overturned, then how different will the US be anyway? I already have the choice to say the pledge or not, If we did't, there would be alot of protest, at least where I live... Just my views anyway. ;)