On Feb 22, 6:31 pm, "Leon" wrote:
"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in ...


...


I certainly hope that in Houston as elsewhere, no one is required
to take a religious oath prior to testimony, or for any other reason.

You mean I swear to tell the truth and the whole truth, so Help me God? Is
there any court room in the US that does not require that?


I have sat on juries in Ohio and Maryland. Neither required a
religious
oath. Any requirement that a person make a statement implying
religious belief is a clear blatant violation of the First Amendment.



Disallowing the use of religious icons to decorate a public building,
is
hardly tatamount to removing God from the building. Unless my
childhood religious education was very much in error, no earthly
power can remove God from anywhere. ISTM that if someone who
insists on conspicuous displays of their religious icons by their
government is a person who is without faith.

A constant reminder of God is no harm to anyone not is it a sign of lack of
faith.

Why does a person who has faith need a constant reminder?
and why does a person who has faith need to canstantly remind
other people?

A conspicous display of their religious icon by anyone, is not a sign of a
person who is with out faith. If you believe that, explain that to any
priest. It matters not, where the display is.


We simply disagree.


...
"Under God" is not part of the Pledge of Allegiance. It was 'added'
by a well-intentioned but ill-considered act of Congress in the 1950's.

Thats crap. The Under God IS a part of the pledge, not all the time but has
been for a very long time. If you want to argue, just say so.

The Congress didn't write the Pledge of Allegiance so it is no more
appropriate for the Congress to edit it than it is for the Congress
to
edit anyone else's writings.

What purpose is served by adding divisive language to the Pledge?

--

FF