On 6 Mar 2003 at 14:27, Richard Baker wrote: > Erik said: > > > To compare the First Amendment to a ridiculous argument about > > including the phrase "under God" in a pledge of allegiance is one of > > the most shallow and pathetic things I have heard from you, John. > > "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, > or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of > speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to > assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" > seems to me to expressly prohibit the "under God", so I think that the > First Amendment is certainly relevant. > > Rich, who supposes he should leave the Americans to debate this > himself and concentrate on the fact that his country has no separation > of church and state and indeed which has a head of state who's also > the leader of the state religion.
Actually, I'd point out that BECAUSE we don't have the seperation, Religion is something which can be discussed. The stuff about religion being "slipped in" wouldn't happen over here - everything is under the public eye. If the government funds faith schools, then you can bet that the demographics get pulled arround and suchlike... Andy Dawn Falcon _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
