Posted by GL(ON) on July 04, 2002 at 17:42:50:
I just think it’s funny. We don’t call it The Excited States for nothing.(joke)
Happy Fourth of July to all who live under the Red White and Blue. And that is not a joke.
Pledge of allegance - Posted by Bill
Posted by Bill on July 03, 2002 at 10:15:20:
Be sure to have your speakers on when you check out this site.
Thank you, Bill. - Posted by Michigan Andy
Posted by Michigan Andy on July 03, 2002 at 20:37:33:
Happy Independence Day.
Andy
Re: Pledge of allegance question - Posted by GL(ON)
Posted by GL(ON) on July 03, 2002 at 17:42:23:
I’m glad someone brought this up.
How is it that in one state students can’t even mention “GOD” in the pledge of allegiance, because of the separation of church and state, while in others the taching of “Creationism” is mandatory and the teaching of “Evolution” is banned?
Re: Pledge of allegance question - Posted by NCPaul
Posted by NCPaul on July 03, 2002 at 21:33:48:
No offense, but the question you asked opens up a lot of political questions in the USA and I’m not sure JP want’s that big of a stink on the forum.
Basically to try and answer your question without getting things crazy it all boils down to our diverse political views, even more diverse religious views (or as the case is with the guy who brought the lawsuit, a lack thereof.), and our judicial system. Basically when different views work their way into the legal system they don’t happen all at once at the top. They start locally and work their way up. The judge’s ruling that raised the uproar happened at a high, but regional one-not national.
As for manditory creationism and banned evolution teaching depending on location, let’s leave that Pandora’s box alone on the forum. I’d check out a political forum to get more on that one if I were you. I hope this helps a little, as a Canadian I’m sure some things can get confusing looking in from the outside.
Good Luck
Re: Pledge of allegance question - Posted by GL(ON)
Posted by GL(ON) on July 04, 2002 at 05:30:51:
Confusing is right, but not the way you mean. I get American news on the TV and in the paper every day, not to mention the internet, and I know as much about what is going on in the US as most Americans.
I was only trying to point out the irony of banning “GOD” from one school and “evolution” from another. Both seem extreme to me. I don’t know which is crazier.
The issue is … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on July 04, 2002 at 11:44:24:
States rights vs. laws on the federal level.
It’s the reason doing x in state A is illegal, meanwhile across the border in state B it’s not. But if the
fed decided x was unconstitutional, then you wouldn’t
be able to do x anywhere without atleast breaking a federal law, even though you might not have broken a state law.
Things get a little blurry, to say the least.
RL
Re: The issue is … - Posted by GL(ON)
Posted by GL(ON) on July 04, 2002 at 12:03:02:
If the Constitution is federal law then how come in one state religious teaching (creationism) is mandatory and in another you can’t even mention God? How can the same thing be mandatory in one place and forbidden in another under the same law?
Re: The issue is … - Posted by Redline
Posted by Redline on July 04, 2002 at 15:19:10:
As I said, it deals with the issues of the Fed vs. States rights. This particular judgement for the Pledge is from a higher level court that deals with 9 or 10 states, so technically doesn’t affect the other states.
To explain this whole thing (which I don’t fully understand myself) would take an entire law library. We don’t have enough time or disk space here.
RL