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.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (13173)	10/20/2003 10:51:35 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793955

I understand that the point is very important to some. I expect a win/win of sorts on this from the SC. The court has ruled before that some religious expressions are really just ceremonial and therefore essentially meaningless so they don't violate anything. They could very easily do the same with this case. It's obvious to me that including God in the pledge and then reciting it in public schools is a violation if the language has the meaning the conservative Christians think it does. If the SC rules that it is meaningless, then those who care about it can attribute whatever meaning they want to it and the rest of us can just mumble the words. As compromises go, that one is not as ugly as most. IMO, we'd all be better off with the language out of there. The Pledge is a pledge to country and there's no added value to citizenship of cluttering the simple meaning of it. But I definitely recognize the minefield. I think it's an unreasonable minefield, but it's a cherished and popular one. We fail to recognize that at our peril.