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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (426411)	10/15/2008 10:32:44 AM
From: SilentZ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574268

>"But it's different" isn't going to fly unless you clearly state how it's "different." >The 1st amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. There is no Constitutional justification for "religion-free zones." Right, but there are plenty of Supreme Court cases that have established it from the wording of the First Amendment. Having the state (in this case, a public school) participate in a particular religion's ceremony does smell of "respecting an establishment of religion." >I point out your double-standard because you said that taking kids to a gay wedding does not indoctrinate any of those kids with homosexuality. Please define "indoctrinating any of those kids with homosexuality." I want to be clear on what you mean. >So why not take those kids to a baptism? They're not going to be indoctrinated with Christianity any more than I'll be indoctrinated with Judaism if I attended someone's bahmitzvah. Public schools should not be involved with religious ceremonies, per what I said above. I don't really think they should be taking kids to weddings, either; it's not a good use of their educational time... but as it turns out, that wasn't really the case anyway. -Z