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.

Technology Stocks : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wanna_bmw who wrote (167541)	7/8/2002 12:54:11 PM
From: Windsock	Respond to of 186894

You are missing the point of the the decision of the 9th Circuit on the Pledge of Allegiance. The phrase Under God was the reason that the requirement was void. The First Amendment contains the non-establishment clause as well as the freedom of exercise for religion. The idea that the government can require a religious observance is prohibited by the non-establishment. The path for those of religious faith is more religious observance at home and in places of worship. Not a government edict that you shall observe one form or any form of religion. Expanding on Tim May's concept, what if the Pledge required the statement Under No God or Under Jesus Christ? That would offend many people's beliefs and the non-establishment clause. Both examples were used by the 9th Circuit.