[rescue] my new sig

[Chris Hedemark]

On Thu, 2002-06-27 at 11:15, Kurt Huhn wrote:

> IANAPoliticalAnalyst, also IANALawyer.  However, I recall some writings from
> some time ago that qualified "seperation of church and state" to mean that "the
> government shall not promote any particular religion, or show preference for
> any particular religion, or establish a governmental religion" not that "the
> governament shall seperate itself completely and totally from *all* religion". 
> It's all a matter of interpretation, and finding a freindly enough court to
> hear your argument.

Actually the term "separation of church & state" does not appear in the
constitution.

This is normally a referral to the establishment clause of the
constitution, which bars the federal government from establishing a
national religion.

> Frankly, I don't think that the point is that the Pledge of Allegiance is
> unconstitutional, but rather that forcing people to participate/recite is.  In
> that vein, I think the author of the story linked above above got it all wrong.

And it was ruled a long time ago that it is unconstitutional to force
anyone to recite it.  This is a ruling that I concur with, because any
coerced pledge is meaningless.

-- 
Chris Hedemark

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to
the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under GOD, indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.