221
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 164:
Line 164: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Deceptive statement by John Calvert: new section
::Thanks for the feedback. I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
::Thanks for the feedback. I will take your feedback into consideration. Have trimmed atheism, evolution and homosexuality articles recently. I will look into your suggestion in the fall perhaps. Feel free to offer suggestions on possible trimming. I generally put the most important/interesting material closer to the top of the page plus table of contents helps. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:46, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks. It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
:::I'll look into the page and try to offer up some suggestions in the coming weeks. It's just a little intimidating coming to a page and having my scroll bar almost disappear ( I have a small screen so this is definitely partly to blame). --[[User:MRellek|MRellek]] 21:44, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
== Deceptive statement by John Calvert ==
''The Supreme Court of the United States held that corporates are persons and therefore they can marry.'' (see [[Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission]])
This is of course as wrong as the statement:
''The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school.''
In the first case there was a verdict that a corporate has to be treated like a person under the First Amendment, while in the second case it was found that ''atheism'' has to be treated like a religion, again only under the First Amendment. (See [http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=20051097419F3d678_11025.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006 KAUFMAN v. McCAUGHTRY 419 F.3d 678 (2005)])
Conservative, you can't be blamed for the deceitful reasoning of John Calvert, but you should have learned over the time that you have to be careful with second-hand quotations - you should go to the original source!
To make it as clear as possible: '''The Seventh Judicial Circuit Of the Court of Appeals of the United States said nothing about the promotion of atheism by a public school''', though this is implied by John Calvert.
Could someone remove John Calvert's deceptive statement, please?
Thanks,
[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:21, 7 August 2011 (EDT)