Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen
I would think that the silliness mentioned in the second sentence would be evident for the reasons mentioned in the first sentence.
|
I would think it was not silly at that particular time the change was made.
Quote:
|
Willful obtuseness aside, it is all part of the slow march of the right. One of their major pet projects over the last century or so is the dissolution of the barrier between church and state. The changing of the national motto, the altering of the Pledge of Allegiance, the assault on education and learning, the insistence that creation be taught alongside evolution, the redrafting of history to portray the United States as a Christian nation, the governmental financing of religious institutions; these are all signs of a singular, concerted effort. It is one of the reasons that these are dangerous, dangerous people. They're by and large out of power, at least for now. However, they'll get back into office someday. They always do. And then it starts again.
|
And willful obtuseness aside, where does the march of the left fit in? There are no dangerous, dangerous people in this group?
Takeda
Quote:
|
It was silly, unconstitutional and archaic then, and it is silly, unconstitutional and archaic now.
|
According to who?