We’ll make a deal: we’ll stop desecrating the flag and the Pledge of Allegiance when they stop desecrating the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Star Trek pledge of allegiance gets kid suspended: “Cory Doctorow:
A young Star Trek fan was suspended from school for reciting his own version of the Pledge of Allegiance, in which he pledged to the United Federation of Planets. His mom has posted the hilarious story:‘So, anyway. What did he do?’ I picked at the hem of my sweatshirt, looked just to the right of her face. I couldn’t meet her eyes. I felt nervous. I felt underdressed. I wondered where 8 was.
So she told me what he did. And as she told me, I started to laugh. I didn’t laugh a little, either, but I belly-laughed and grabbed my stomach. My son stood with his class this morning, put small right hand over heart, faced the American flag, and recited his own personal pledge of allegiance:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United Federation of Planets, and to the galaxy for which it stands, one universe, under everybody, with liberty and justice for all species.
‘Mrs. Jaworski. This isn’t humorous. The Pledge is an extremely important and patriotic moment each morning in the classroom. I am ashamed of your son’s behavior, and I hope you are, too.’
Link“
(Via Boing Boing.)
• 
“Are you sure your own views are mainstream?”
Yes. Bush won the election.
“Look at what you’re doing: setting yourself up as better than everyone here, and ‘here’ is the web page of an author you’ve never read.”
Most people here are merely parrotting liberal talking points. It’s easy to feel superior to those whose political thoughts are usually second-hand, and can be reduced to one prhase. You guessed it: BUSH SUCKS!
And I have read Peter David’s work. His “Young Justice,” “Hulk,” etc. I view him as an “OK” comic writer. Not complete crap, like most comic writers, but far from original or ground-breaking, as are Alan Moore and Grant Morrison. By and large, David does not create afresh, he merely reworks the old characters and plots of others. But so what? Who cares if I’ve read the works of the haughty Peter David or not? Or what I think of them? How is that relevant?
“Are you thinking this behavior is ‘mainstream,” or even admirable?”
What do YOU think?
Fair questions. The answers aren’t relevant, as you’ve shown time and again. What you’re looking for (and our little tryst today was just to get your attention), is to be heard. Me too.
I was on a big metal boat, and I fixed the radar in the planes. At the time, my friends and I didn’t know how lousy the bad guy’s missiles were. We were just worried.
“Howling Mad” was sent to us by a guy’s mom. It was FUNNY. It had cool monsters in it, and hot babes, and all the stuff you like if you’re a teenager worried about missiles.
You can talk about the quality of PAD’s work, and so forth. But mostly you’re trying to screw with someone who means nothing to you, and who actually did my friends and I a good turn, distracting us from the bad guys.
I like PAD, and as a result I don’t like you. You’re getting in the face of someone who meant something to us on the stupid metal boat. Politics aren’t important here. Cool monsters are.
I won’t post anymore; I regret doing this much. I feel like I’ve upset you, and it was just to get your attention. I don’t really think you’re building a bomb.
Yeah yeah. Typical liberal (I’m really not), classic-also-funny. Man! Those really sting!
Well, maltomeal, I had the exact opposite experience experience with Ritalin. I was put on it for a year for no other reason than I didn’t “fit in” with the rest of the class. What kid in the fourth grade doesn’t have problems fitting in? The drug made me a zombie and did nothing to make me less of social outcast. All I have to say is “thank God my parents took me off it.”
“That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening.”
That people find time to be sickened by people being sickened by this picayune nonsense, is sickening. We can do this as long as you like.
Seriously, I can’t be sickened by something just because there are other things in the world that are MORE sickening? That doesn’t make any sense.
“Politics aren’t important here. Cool monsters are.”
———-
Then why are political posts made here? With HUNDREDS of responses? Sorry my friend, but it’s obvious that politics ARE important here. If you’ve noticed, I only comment on POLITICAL posts. If there were no politics here, I would not be here either.
An ignore user feature, at this point, would be great.
Alas, this is only a blog, and not actually a message board.
I suppose I’m to the point now where I don’t know why PAD continues to let the neighbor’s dog šhìŧ in his yard, although it is PAD’s yard after all.
“That people find time to be outraged by this picayune nonsense, when there are real outrages in the world, is sickening.”
That people find time to be sickened by people being sickened by this picayune nonsense, is sickening. We can do this as long as you like.
I find it sickening that people are sickened by sickening picayune people who are sickened by picayune sickening things that sicken other people who are picayune.
Or something like that.
“I don’t know why PAD continues to let the neighbor’s dog šhìŧ in his yard.”
———–
It’s DANGEROUS to disagree with people here.
First, I was told I was building a bomb, now I am dog šhìŧ.
Nice!
Is this the “civility” we are asked for?
Personally I don’t see what the big deal is about standing up in the morning at school and saying the pledge. I remeber saying it when I was in middle school, and had absolutley had no problem saying it. Oh thats right, I keep forgetting that was back in the 80’s when people actually gave a crap about there country and cry foul over every little tiny thing.
Personally I don’t see what the big deal is about standing up in the morning at school and saying the pledge.
Because the pledge is not only about patrotic indoctrination, for the last several decades it has been about religious indoctrination as well, thanks to those words “under god”.
You should say it because you want to, not because somebody forces you to. And at the age of 8, you’re not going to understand what it means anyways.
Yes! It is a continuing outrage that we acknowledge the creator of everything that exists.
We MUST find a way to keep God away from our children!
“After much bombing over night, the flag was still seen waving in the morning
So, the anthem is a theme of endurance against attackers, etc etc.”
Yeah, right…
THe fort was demolished and everybody in it was dead, but it’s great becasue the fûçkìņg FLAG was still their, screw the people, eh?
THe fort was demolished and everybody in it was dead, but it’s great becasue the fûçkìņg FLAG was still their, screw the people, eh?
No, the flag was still flying because the Americans holding the fort hadn’t surrendered. They had successfully weathered the attack through the night.
I weep for our education system.
Quoth you-know-who:
We MUST find a way to keep God away from our children!
Who said anything about that? The United States isn’t a theocracy. By implication, “under God” in context of the pledge, to some indicates a preferred religion. I mean personally, I don’t mind it so much–I am Catholic and I do worship the Judeo-Christian God. Others who practice atheism or worship other gods may be offended and feel that a particular set of religious beliefs is part and parcel of being in America and that they’re being pushed toward worship of gods they don’t believe in. (Never mind the idea that we all potentially worship aspects of essentially the same omnipotent entity, whom we imbue with certain cultural traits.)
I don’t like your implication, and once more, your closed-mindedness is showing. Are all those who don’t share your belief in the Judeo-Christian God less American than you? Less of a person than you? You seem to imply they are, just like you imply those with different political beliefs are less than you.
And that, sir, along with everything else you’ve said here, makes you the very definition of a bigot.
“What is tolerance? — it is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other’s folly — that is the first law of nature.” –Voltaire
~G.
So you want to “tolerate” those who would remove God from the public square.
Yet you do NOT want to “tolerate” my opinion that this is wrong. You call it close-minded and bigoted!
Awfully selective “tolerance” you’ve got going there, Mr. Voltaire lover.
You should say it because you want to, not because somebody forces you to. And at the age of 8, you’re not going to understand what it means anyways.
For once, I agree with you (on both issues). The second part is why I insist the kid was just showing off, not acting from any deeply-held belief.
I don’t know why PAD continues to let the neighbor’s dog šhìŧ in his yard, although it is PAD’s yard after all.
Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists, and we both believe that more speech is the answer to driving out bad speech. (Which distinguishes us from most sites on the right side of the spectrum, which deal with the issue by not allowing comments at all– usually because they’re unwilling or unable to defend their ideas in open debate. We’re a bit more supportive of our community.)
However, I do have my limits. For example, posting under numerous nicknames to try and drum up support is often enough of a reason to bounce someone, or at least highlight the fact. (Did I mention that X-Ray’s done that? No? Consider this a heads-up.)
X-Ray, you don’t want to concede any arguments here. You want to make this site your own private soapbox, and do it using the online equivalent of celebrity stalking. You’re here to win, and winning for you means relieving yourself in the pool until there’s more urine than water in it (metaphorically speaking of course). You’re not debating–you’re shoving your opinions down people’s throats (again, metaphorically). You’re the furthest thing from humble. Why do you insist on putting words into the mouths of, and belittling, those who disagree with you? You have no tolerance for those with dissenting opinions, else you’d let things go instead of childishly prattling on, taking metaphorical comments literally, etc. What makes you so angry that you have to lash out in this manner? Who taught you the best way to win a fight was to call people names and hurl insults? You’re a bigot, and you thrive on people calling you out on anything, which is why I hope everyone, and I mean everyone on this board, will just stop giving you nuggets to feed on. You may be having one hëll of a time here and on other boards where you indulge in the same behavior, but really, it drains the fun out of posting here for the rest of us–that includes those who may be on your end of the political spectrum, but who argue substantially more cogently and articulately.
This is my last post on the matter. Sometimes the best way of advocating free speech is just to let your loudest opponents yell themselves hoarse until they go away.
Nope, not Voltaire–that’s Miller.
~G., who thinks the Hulk was right when he said, “Best way to make people of one mind is to bash their heads together.”:-D
I do have a question that’s actually on topic. Many here have said that the kid in question has the right to express his own beliefs about the pledge. To make that argument, it requires assuming that the kid is old enough to make a decision about the beliefs in question. So, if this kid is old enough, wouldn’t his classmates be old enough to make their own decisions as well. Even granting that a significant portion of his classmates aren’t mature enough, at least a couple of others are making a conscious decision to say the pledge because they believe in it. So, is it proper to disrupt their saying of the pledge by making up his own? No, the punishment he initially received wasn’t appropriate, but shouldn’t the other students who also made a decision be able to say the pledge in a respectful manner? I don’t know what’s the proper way for kids who decide they don’t want to say the pledge as written to express that decision, but shouldn’t the kids who decide they want to say it be able to express that decision in a respectful setting?
I know there’s going to be a pile-on about peer pressure and how those who don’t want to say the pledge will be picked on, etc., but I know that if the rest of the kids are expected to respect a classmate’s decision not to say the pledge, then that classmate should respect those who decide to say it.
Glenn,
We know Tweedle did the fake name thing once before. How about filling us in on the names he uses other then X so that those of us who wish to skip his pointless rantings and mindless postings can do so on all his many names.
Thanks.
In response to Jason–Actually, I have no problem believing that a kid could have well formed beliefs about this issue. Most seven year olds that I know usually have a much better idea of what’s going on than the majority gives them. They don’t live in a vaccuum, guys. Honestly, I think if a few more leaders(right, left, up, down, whoever) thought a little more like kids sometimes the world would be a better place and we’d all have cookies.
Most seven year olds that I know usually have a much better idea of what’s going on than the majority gives them.
Maybe.
But the Pledge is supposed to be something to prove you’re not a Nazi, or Russian Communist, or a terrorist, etc.
Are we worried that our seven year olds are going to like Canada more than America or something?
If that’s what we’re afraid of, then maybe we should be spending more time actually improving America’s image so that the pledge isn’t necessary.
I know this is probably traitorous thinking in some quarters (such as with the Bush Administration), but there it is.
Why the “fixation” on our national symbols – it’s called branding and imaging. We may think it irrelevant, but the USA rose from nothing to SuperPower in less than 200 years. Much of that was because of our democracy, but the packaging helped a lot, too.
Do some research on the Confederacy and see how they blew a small movement into a national threat simply through image/identity branding. Fascinating study.
Side note: why should we not allow Canadian drugs in? Because they steal those drug formulas from us. A drug manufacturer who submits their product to Canada must submit the formula, then they are told they can market the drug at next to nothing or they’ll just rip off the formula and market themselves (yea, socialism). Our country says the developer of a product can charge what they market will bear. Flooding the US with Canadian drugs will severely cut into drug R&D that we do more than any other country. Medical progress would be sharply reduced.
Actually, I don’t think the pledge is the last line of defense before all of our youth defect or anything. I guess I was just wondering about the need for both sides to respect their opposite’s decision about reciting the pledge. It’s evident both sides have very strong feelings and rationales about the pledge and its connotations. I’d even accept that the kid didn’t intentionally mean any disrespect when he said his own version, so maybe if nothing else there should be some discussion on constructive ways for expressing both opinions?
Medical progress would be sharply reduced.
That R&D already comes at the expense of the lives of those who cannot afford the medicines to begin with.
“That R&D already comes at the expense of the lives of those who cannot afford the medicines to begin with.”
I’ll be the first to state that the life-saving alone should be enough to advance the field of medicine…if we had a state-run system. We don’t, for better or worse. The field is a for-profit industry, and medical research takes big $ and lots of time….something people must have some payout for. And while I wish altruism was enough of an incentive, it’s not. The best medical advances are had when investors recognize a a profit to be made.
If our society (and by that, I mostly mean the extremely rich in the country) would decide to fund medical research, we’d not need to rely on things like patents and market support for the extrememly expensive testing and development of new medicines.
While I’m all for cheaper medical costs, allowing Canada to see formula for drugs, which some American developer has put up the funding for, will take the support out of advancing the medical field. If I’m a potential financer, and I know that after spending $20 million to develop a new drug, only to have some Canadian lab produce it at cost the day after I release it to the Canadian market, I’m either not going to release it to Canada, or just not invest at all.
Maybe that’s the solution? Stop exporting our drugs to Canada?
Gary Miller agrees that “the Hulk was right when he said, “Best way to make people of one mind is to bash their heads together.”
———-
Yes! Now THAT is intelligent, civil discourse!
“Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists…”
—————-
Noted by WHO?
Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.
THAT’S absolute free speech?
By the way, haven’t you heard?
You’re ALL supposed to be ignoring me.
Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists, and we both believe that more speech is the answer to driving out bad speech. (Which distinguishes us from most sites on the right side of the spectrum, which deal with the issue by not allowing comments at all.)
——–
In an attempt to disparage “right side” sites, this post links to several sites, all supposedly examples of “right-side” sites that don’t allow commentary.
But let’s examine some of the supposed “right side” links in the post:
(1) INSTAPUNDIT – This is NOT a “right-side” site. It’s actually pretty pro-Democratic.
(2) JOHN ELLIS – This site states in all caps: “Ellisblog is no longer an ‘active blog.’ ” Yet you want him to have commentary on an inactive blog.
(3) ANDREW SULLIVAN – This is not a “right side” site either. Do you even know what the “right side” IS?
(4) HUGH HEWITT – Site of a radio talk show host, author. This site is not about comments, it’s about expressing one man’s opinion.
(5) REAL CLEAR POLITICS – This is a pure news site, and like all such sites, has no commentary feature.
So, as you can see, this list of evil “right-siders” who “don’t allow comment” is simply another distortion designed to make Republicans look bad.
Classic. Also Funny.
P.S. What happened to you statement that “I won’t get into either political or religious discussions or debates.”? That lasted all of two days!
(Answer: Apparently you can’t read since I did not make the above comment)
“P.S. What happened to you statement that “I won’t get into either political or religious discussions or debates.”? That lasted all of two days!”
X-Ray…I’m still ignoring the content of your posts, but since it appears Glenn can’t post at the moment, I’ll just correct you in that it was Kathleen that said she wasn’t going to become involved in political or religious debates, and so far as I can tell, she hasn’t. It was Glenn that posted the links to the sites you’re referring to, and that I’m not going to comment on.
I will offer a little advice, however. While PAD seems to be perfectly content to let you continue to embarass yourself here, I’d say that picking fights with his wife/family is real good way to get your ášš banned, free speech or not.
Whoa. Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) a Democrat? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Andrew Sullivan not on the right of the political spectrum? Aside from the fact that he’s British, that guy is about as right-wing as you get without being Ðìçk Cheney or Paul Wolfowitz. Real Clear Politics IS a news aggregator, true. But it’s a news aggregator with a right-wing bent. And Hugh Hewitt, well there you go. So far, Glenn’s 4-4.
I think you people need to make up your minds.
Are you going to ignore me or not?
As for being banned from this site … so what.
“Glenn Reynolds (aka Instapundit) a Democrat? That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day.”
Except I didn’t say he WAS a Democrat! Just that the site was pro-Democratic, which it often is.
“Andrew Sullivan not on the right of the political spectrum?”
“Again, I did not deny Sullivan himself is on the right, just that his site is not a “right side” site, by which I mean it is often pro-Democratic.
“Real Clear Politics IS a news aggregator, true. But it’s a news aggregator with a right-wing bent.”
So what? News sites don’t have comments like blogs do!
“And Hugh Hewitt, well there you go.”
Meaning what, that your twisting of my words is now complete?
4) HUGH HEWITT – Site of a radio talk show host, author. This site is not about comments, it’s about expressing one man’s opinion.
So is this one, yet you have no problem trolling here to object to one man’s opinion.
————
“P.S. What happened to you statement that “I won’t get into either political or religious discussions or debates.”? That lasted all of two days!”
Now who’s twisting words?
“Again, I did not deny Sullivan himself is on the right, just that his site is not a “right side” site, by which I mean it is often pro-Democratic.
I’m confused. Please explain this to me. If a blogger is right-wing, how their blog is often pro-Democratic. Are you saying Andrew Sullivan, though right-wing, often says pro-Democratic stuff? How about some specific instances.
Or are you saying that some of those who comment on his blog are Pro-Democratic? If that’s the case, then I guess PADs blog is also Pro-Republican at times. But that doesn’t seem to be a useful definition.
“Peter and I are both noted free-speech absolutists…” Noted by WHO?
Well, I’m looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk, presented to “a champion of free speech for their commitment to fighting the Communications Decency Act”. And Peter’s donated time, sweat, and cash to the CBLDF, just off the top of my head.
Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.
Not by me or Peter, and I’ve looked. Unless you tripped some automatic spam deletion protocol, which as we’ve noted we’ve had some problems with.
Trust me, if we alter your posts, it’ll be obvious.
Incidentally, if you still feel we’re adbridging your comments, there’s absolutely nothing stopping you from setting up a LiveJournal page or a TypePad blog and saying whatever you want, without any possibility of interference from us. Having the freedom to speak doesn’t mean we have to be the ones to give you the forum.
By the way, haven’t you heard? You’re ALL supposed to be ignoring me.
Peter said he was ignoring you. Most other people are already ignoring you. As the webmaster, I don’t have the luxury.
Maybe he means that Andrew Sullivan is actually pro-democratic values (as in pro-democracy), and that’s just plain wrong. Which seems to be the case. Glenn Reynolds, on the other hand, has no interest in democracy at all.
Well, I’m looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk,
Aww, poor Glenn. You’ve just gone and proved to The Unnamed Idiot that you work for the Devil.
Yeah, Glenn. What kind of jerk supports an organization whose sole function is to defend the Bill of Rights? Freakin’ commie…
Hello! It was my son who was suspended for reciting his own Star Trek pledge. He is such a kind and gentle boy, and his life right now is all about space and the future and wanting to be a scientist or space explorer someday. Thank you so kindly for linking to my blog, and I deeply appeciate all the wonderful comments and positive thoughts. My son, 8, is heartened to hear that others believe in a future where all species are equal.
“HUGH HEWITT’s site is … one man’s opinion. So is this one, yet you have no problem trolling here to object to one man’s opinion.”
The difference is that Hewitt’s site is factual. This one is not.
“Are you saying Andrew Sullivan, though right-wing, often says pro-Democratic stuff? How about some specific instances.”
OK! From Andrew Sullivan’s site, Saturday, June 25, 2005: “I guess some might call me an Independent, in as much as I’ve backed Democrats and Republicans in the past. Backing Reagan and the two Bushes as well as Kerry and Clinton puts me somewhere in the center, I suppose.
“ ‘Some of my posts here have been deleted or altered.’ Not by me or Peter, and I’ve looked. Unless you tripped some automatic spam deletion protocol, which as we’ve noted we’ve had some problems with.”
Two of my posts WERE deleted, days ago, but I’ll accept what you say.
“I’m looking at the ACLU Civil Liberties Award on my desk … And Peter’s donated time, sweat, and cash to the CBLDF.”
Oh, excuse me! If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK, well then I guess that’s that! As for the CBLDF, good for him. (Seriously.)
It never ceases to amaze me the lack of intelligence of people for the respect of other religions outside christianity and their obvious offspring. Does that truly make me a liberal? I don’t know…. I voted a mixed ballot of Republicans, Democrats & Libertarians during the last major national election. Actually, I prefer to think I voted for those who views were similar to my own, and not a threat to our Constitutional rights!
“If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK.”
Remind me again. Who said you have the right to preach on every street-corner? Who fought in Las Vegas to allow preachers on The Strip? Oh, yeah, the ACLU. And you said that you have no problems with blatent religious references? ok, but to make it fair….we will represent every religion. So in the courthouses, and every government building we will have: a Cross, a Star of David, A statue of the Bhudda, a statue of Shiva, a Cresecent, a Pentacle, and anyother religious symbols I might have missed.
Alternatly, we could accept that, as a nation, we embrace people of every creed, and their right to practice any religion, while at the same time not accepting any National religion. How could you hope for a truely unbiased judgement as a Muslim, under a Christian nation, a Christian, under a Bhuddist nation, or any other combination? The only combination is any religion, under a nation that embraces no religion. That is the great thing abut America. You can be whatever religion you like, but you are not judged under any of them. In inflicting religion on the government, you take the first step in forcing bigotry and religious contreversy on it too. Is religion automatically biased? No, but religious people can be. Not most, but some. Like the “Christian” fundamentalists who; whenever they hear about a gay person, drive miles and picket outside their house, or the “Muslim” fundamentalists who drive planes into buildings. That is what happens when you let religion take over a country. Methinks you would not be so up in arms if the ACLU was trying to remove a Pentacle, or statue of Shiva. You can’t simply say: “My religion can have it’s symbols everywhere in government!!” becasue, if you want to honor one religion, you have to honor them all. I doubt you will respond to any of the issues raised in this post, or you will misquote me. This is for all the sane people out there.
“Oh, excuse me! If a liberal organization dedicated to removing God from the public square say you’re OK, well then I guess that’s that!”
Actually, that’s not what the ACLU is all about, but clearly you’re not interested in learning what they are about. The First Amendment wasn’t written to eliminate God from the public square. The First Amendment was written to ensure the American people did not have government sanctioned enforcement of one specific religion over another. Meaning, yes, Islam should get just as much time in the public square as Christianity. I wouldn’t have any problem with them installing the Ten Commandments if they included the Islamic counterpart, as well as that of Judaism (and whatever else you might consider a mainstream religion). But that doesn’t happen, and that probably will never happen. Until it does, the Ten Commandments need to stay away from the public square. The argument is frequently made that “We’re a Christian nation.” Well, only those truly ignorant of the Continental Congress and the birth of our nation would argue that.
Further, the ACLU is dedicated to defending the Bill of Rights. If that means defending the Klan to their right to free speech, then they will do so. If that means defending the NRA, they will do so (although I daresay the NRA can afford their own lawyers). If that means defending an Athiest who is forced to pray at a public school, they will do so.
Whew. Now that I’ve spent so much time twisting your words, I need a beer.
Ðámņ. You beat me to it, James. Curses.
Aww, poor Glenn. You’ve just gone and proved to The Unnamed Idiot that you work for the Devil.
Ah, but I got the award by suing Janet Reno to overturn a law signed by Bill Clinton. And Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed with my side. So that will really confuse him.
Actually, Knuckles, as I understand it, the Book of Exodus is pretty much the same in both the Biblical Old Testament and the Torah – thus, the Ten Commandments of Christianity are also the first ten commandments of Judaism (Avram Davidson tells us that orthodox Jews acknowledge over six hundred commandments in toto). I have no idea what the Qu’ran has to say on the topic, as I haven’t read it yet – there’s no Islamic equivalent of the Gideon Society running around, hiding the suras in motel rooms…
Wicca and Neopaganism seem to share the Rede and the Threefold Law (respectively, “Do as you will, if it harm none,” and “All that you do, for good or ill, will return to you threefold”).
I don’t know if Buddhism has any central tenets like that.
Jonathan (the other one):
There are at least 3 versions of the 10 Commandments: Jewish, Catholic & Protestant. They can be seen side by side here:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm
Also, while Islam doesn’t have the 10 Commandmants, there are equalivent passages, as seen here:
http://islam-usa.com/e70.htm
Ah, but I got the award by suing Janet Reno to overturn a law signed by Bill Clinton. And Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas agreed with my side
Details please? Just curious.
Thanks.
“Actually, that’s not what the ACLU is all about, but clearly you’re not interested in learning what they are about.”
————
Well, at least SOMEONE here is paying attention!