THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (15924)	6/28/2002 11:39:19 PM
From: Michael M	Read Replies (1) of 21057

First, citizens are not REQUIRED to say the pledge. Second, I think the pledge describes a nation (rather accurately, in the context of its founding) - not any individual relationship with "God". I believe the ruling on Wednesday relies on an extreme and flawed interpretation of the Constitution and I believe it will be overturned. I'm not aware of the "under God" phrase being the cause of any citizen being bothered by the government. If this is really such a small and simple thing why was the issue brought in the first place? One thing I've been wondering about since this came up - I've seen those who cheered the decision refer to children who would no longer feel excluded or confused or offended and to parents who would be free of unwanted influence on their children. I wonder what views those people have about public school systems that mandate teaching things about sexuality that contradict deeply held family views and values. Those children are not simply exposed to the material, they're expected to pay attention. I see a big double standard here and a good bit of double talk.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next