syntax252

Well, first of all, I would say that your daughter displayed the very principals that I have been saying that kids are quite capable of--she resisted something that she considered to be wrong. Secondly, how is it that you were so inaware of this situation where your daughter was diciplined for 3 months and you didn't know about it? Are you going to tell us that the same daughter who stood her ground before her teacher was somehow too intimidated to even tell her dad about it? Third, the problem was with the teacher, not with the color of the frog. According to the logic that you are attempting to promote here, the way to solve the issue would be to outlaw blue frogs in S. America. Is that what you want? forth, teachers are indeed powerful forces in children's lives, but if their parents are paying attention, they should be able to intervene into such nonsense as you discribe before any harm is done. I will not ask why you failed on this occasion, but clearly, you did.

Fo you even know who Senator McCarthy was?

I changed your argument?

Well you better get used to it because so far, the constitution provides for "free exercise" of religion and as long as no one is forced to participate, I don't expect that to change.

Not saying "under God" is anti-atheist and bigoted?

That is not both. That is oneway. The Atheist way.

But no one is singleing out anybody. All that is happening is that religious people who are not opposed to taking the pledge, are saying that the USA is under God. That does not single out anybody. Who, after all, is so sensitive that he can't stand to hear something said that he himself doesn't believe?

How could it be both?

You don't think it is voluntary?

I think it is indeed harmless. Explain how a child would suffer from being inside a classroom and hearing the words "under God" said out loud in the pledge of allegience?

One might ask why should a person who wishes to say "under God" be prevented from doing so? If there is trouble over it, why is that the fault of the religious person? Why is it the the religious person must be the one to make the sacrifice, and not the Athiest?

If it is voluntary, how could it violate the Constitution?

But the amount of force holding you against the wall was equal or in excess of the force of gravity.

As I understand GPS, the clocks in the units are constantly reset from atomic clocks in the satellites in order that they might be able to know the exact position of the satellite, not because of any difference in how fast time passes between the two. Am I wrong about that?

Of course, and I think that it does that rather nicely, thank you. But so far, it has not been established that a voluntary pledge of allegience, notwithstanding the referrence to "God" is in any way unconstitutional.

I think that is baloney! I went to school with Amish kids, black kids and Italian kids, some of whom could hardly speak english. They all had their own problems, and they all learned to cope with them. Believe me, "God" or the utterance of his name, was the least of their worries.

I don't care if they are in kindergarden. The learning process begins whenever something occures that requires judgement. If these kids were as helpless as you make them out to be, they wouldn't have their shoes on the right feet.

Again, no student is required to recite the pledge. And an athiest does not have to say "under God." Are you saying that the pledge is coerced from the students? If that is the case, then bring suit to have that stopped. You would probably win that one. Any student who knows God by another name can insert any name he wishes. Any student who does not know God, can say nothing. Ant student who doesn't believe in pledges (as is the case with many Christians) can refuse to take the pledge. What could be more fair? No, not at all. I am saying that certainly there are a lot of parents who don't believe in the schools teaching sex education to their kids. Probably more that there are who are offended by "God", so why are their sensibilities so much less important than an athiests?

Oh, I think you underestimate kid's ability to resist peer pressure. Resistence to peer pressure is why all of our kids don't get into the same kind of trouble. If kids didn't have enough sense of individuality to opt out of something like what we are discussing, then I would say that what they need is more experience in exercising that right, not to be protected from the necessity of using their judgement. Which is precisely why it would be a mistake to yeild to this misconception that the "G" word is somehow going to cause our kids some sort of harm. They can! There is no school rule, nor can there be a rule that says that kids cannot substitute any phrase they want to instead of "under God." They cannot even compelled to say any part of the pledge in the first place. Kids know better than to get into a car with a stranger, why wouldn't they know that they can say no to the pledge, or to "under God" if that is their desire? But the context is not a requirement. That is the whole point. Kids need to learn that if anyone suggests something to them that they think is wrong, they do not have to comply. It is called using their judgement. That is why we have schools in the first place.

Giving in to terrorist demands would guarantee that they will kidnap and behead more people. We cannot negotiate with terrorists.

As I understand the post by 5614, it would take a pretty fast rotation to simulate gravity by spinning a wheel as large as the Earth in diameter. Something like a surface speed of 24 times the speed of sound. Did I get that right? I recall that when they were training astranouts they used to put them through a certrafuge device where they spun them around in a chair on the end of an arm about 30 ft. long, and the got them up to several Gs and it looked like they were going around about 1 revolution pr. second, or 69 RPM. I still say theres something wrong with them figgers.

Well I don't recall reading anything about any such experiments in the papers.