Just about everything excludes somebody, right? This isn't about inclusion
or exclusion. It's about recognizing that I can't always have it my way ALL
the time and you can't always have it your way ALL the time.
I was just holding this case up as an example. Personally I wouldn't pledge
my allegiance to a government. If one doesn't believe in something, don't
participate in it, but don't go and expect the world to change for you (not
you personally).
Tom C.
From: "Tom Reese" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: More Texas Photo Issues
Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:22:08 -0400
Tom C wrote:
> Let's take one case the ACLU is involved with... to the best of my
> recollection. The case in California (I believe... I'm typing from
memory
> not the transcript), where an athiest has sued a school district because
> his elementary school age daughter is made to feel uncomfortable when the
> Pledge of Alegiance is said because it contains the phrase 'under God'.
That phrase is objectionable to a lot of people and should be eliminated
IMO. Suppose all the atheists recited the line as "one nation, there is no
god". Can you see the possibility of that becoming a problem? How about if
one group tried to shout their phrase louder than the other group?
The phrase does not belong in an oath to government allegiance. It excludes
people who believe do not believe that there is a god.
Tom Reese
