brain sizes: Einstein's and women's

Bob LeChevalier lojbab at lojban.org
Wed Aug 28 05:40:37 EST 2002


"John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
>news:ak1omukevlv4e2ij17uvii0n7ucnl6ejpj at 4ax.com...
>> "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> wrote:
>> >Just because a feminazi and a "liberal" agree with each other that school
>> >prayer was never banned doesn't mean that school prayer was never banned:
>> >
>> >1962: Engel v. Vitale. The Court ruled that public
>> >school officials could not require pupils to recite a slate-
>>                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >composed prayer at the start of each school day, even if the
>> >prayer was nondenominational and pupils who so desired
>> >could be excused from reciting it, because such official
>> >state sanction of religious unerances was an unconsitu-
>> >tional attempt to establish religion.
>>
>> The underlined are the key words.
>>
>> >This was called "BANNING SCHOOL PRAYER".
>>
>> Then it was called that in error, because school prayer was not
>> banned.
>>
>> >It violated almost two centuries of "case law" to the contrary.
>>
>> Actually, it did not.  Several state courts had previously banned
>> school prayer, some of them over a century earlier.
>
>awwww, isn't this precious?:
>
>"school prayer was not banned"

School prayer was not banned in Engel vs. Vitale.

>and
>
>"Several state courts had previously banned school prayer"

Yes.  But state courts did not produce the 1962 decision Engel vs,
Vitale. 

>And you wonder why so many Americans detest "liberals"?
>
>Which was it?  "school prayer was *not* banned", or "school prayer ... *had*
>[been] banned"?

Two different sentences referring to two different things.  Only if
you snip the context do they seem contradictory.

>This is a keeper.

You are a loser.

lojbab



More information about the Neur-sci mailing list