Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Sep 2002 16:21:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
665 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes:
> I don't think the phrase is unconstitutional--I don't think those words
> violate 'separation of church and state'--it's a pledge, a spoken pledge--if
> we want to be that picky, then by all means let's get to the point where we
> can't say the word 'Church' (and any derivitive thereof) and the word
> 'State' in the same sentence 'cause they have to be separate.
>
> Churches cannot be on the same street as a governement building! Heck,
> who's kidding who, they can't be in the same area code for if they are,
> they're not separate!!!
>
> Let's also talk about how much money, effort and time was wasted on the
> 'Under God' fiasco...
>
> And just looking at it now, it's the separation of *church* and *state*, not
> *God* and *state*... so there you are--no issue!
>
> Well, I'm stepping off my soap box now...
As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same
rights of access and same protection under the law...
Brucifer
Devil's Advocate for the Day
:-)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
