Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (16216)	6/30/2002 11:33:10 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

You can't take the two words out and not replace them or you lose the concept, of being united as one in the midst of everything. The words were put into the pledge in 1954 to destroy a concept. The concept of One Nation Indivisible. That was a phrase used since before the Civil War to establish that the question of secession was settled. The concept that you refer to is more aptly captured by the founder's motto for the country E Pluribus Unum . time.com loc.gov rainylakepuzzles.com thearclink.org Take 'em out. TP

To: one_less who wrote (16216)	7/1/2002 12:01:11 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Sorry if I misunderstood. This led me to the opposite conclusion. Laz remarked that the government could not be in line with any God, based on the constitution. I disagree and I demonstrated what I found inaccurate about his statements. I am trying to help Laz (and you I guess) gain an appreciation for what rings the alarm bell for believers. Its the government has to be anti-God rhetoric that does it. I don't consider saying that removing pro-God rhetoric from the Pledge of a nation that has the 1st Amendment as part of its fundamental law as anti-God. In my mind, it is simply fulfilling the requirement of that amendment. The simple purpose is to indicate a united stand under all that is contained in the area above and around us. Doesn't "one nation indivisible" do that? Frankly, my preferred resolution would be for the full 9th to review and reverse the decision of the 3-judge bench. And leave those two words in.