"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
