O'Connor's opinion on Church and State

[BadBoyBenny]

I lifted it from slate, thought it was worth posting. In a lot of ways it appeals to both sides to the political spectrum right now.

[ QUOTE ]
At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly.

[/ QUOTE ]

[shots]

Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[/ QUOTE ]The type of people who put "under God" into our pledge of allegiance in 1954.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/...ge.allegiance/

I long for the days of George Washington to return, when the President of our country never refers to one religion's god, but instead to "providence", as our founding fathers wished.

[shots]

Are those people still around? they must be really old by now I suggest we just wait for them to die [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
Are those people still around? they must be really old by now I suggest we just wait for them to die [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]That would almost be funny if I hadn't said "type".

[shots]

But you couldn't give any current examples of anyonye trying to that now you had to go back 50 years and dig something up isn't actually unconstitutional even if it was pointless hysteria that led to changing the pledge.

[Arnfinn Madsen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who's trying to renegotiate the constitutional boundries?

[/ QUOTE ]The type of people who put "under God" into our pledge of allegiance in 1954.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/06/...ge.allegiance/

I long for the days of George Washington to return, when the President of our country never refers to one religion's god, but instead to "providence", as our founding fathers wished.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a new government would change it to "under Allah" I guess that type of people would oppose it too. Double standards-people annoys me [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[shots]

You do know that the word Allah translates litterally to God right? If you're asking wheather we should change the language of the pledge to Arabic then I must say I'm against it.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
But you couldn't give any current examples of anyonye trying to that now you had to go back 50 years and dig something up isn't actually unconstitutional even if it was pointless hysteria that led to changing the pledge.

[/ QUOTE ]Do you live under a rock? Have you missed all this about the ten commandments (you know the "thou shalt have no other gods" stuff) in courthouses?

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
You do know that the word Allah translates litterally to God right?

[/ QUOTE ]No, it does not. It translates into Allah.

When is the last time you heard a muslim say, in english, "Praise God"?