"Under God"... should be removed from the "Pledge"

The idea of the Pledge is fascist and unAmerican. It might be a good idea because it focuses everyone's attention, especially schoolchildrens', on the doctrine that this is an unified nation based upon certain ideas irrespective of their national origins.

When you think about it other nations might benefit from similar pledges, especially those in Africa and in Asia. It will help to eliminate tribalism among their various ethnic groups.

 

He didn't say that the Bible is written into the Constitution, he said that the principles which founded the country are Christian/Biblical ones. So - once again you'll be faced with direct quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves. This will be a bit of inconvenient truth for you:

There are many more. These, however, are simply so direct as to be irrefutable:

Go ahead. Try to claim that the Constitution wasn't heavily influenced by Christianity.

Suuure you did.

Love it when liberals conflate reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to things like Nuremberg (note correct spelling). That's the height of idiocy.

Godwin's Law; violated twice. You lose, and do so badly - on every front.

 

You don't know me. I actually work relatively hard to stay balanced (between authority figures and my own ego). I want to be humble, compassionate and reasonably rugged as an individual. I do have a bit of a difficult time, when people think they can walk over me... then actually try to. I don't like being ugly, but I will defend myself. If I have to 'appeal' to authority to find an effective and peaceful solution to conflict, I surely will.

That's just an insult. And you are wrong about that.

Sorry, but if you post and express the kind of things you have already... I may surely respond, as respectfully as I tend to. If you do not want me to respond, you'll have to post where I cannot see your commentary at all.

 

My position is perfectly consistent. TJ's might not be, I've already spoken to that point. Using the House to preach sermons from makes no more sense than if it was used for Hindu, Muslim, or Pagan ceremony's. It's an endorsement of religion from the Govt, and as such, unconstitutional.

Keeping govt out of religion protects it, can you not see that? What if the Pledge was worded "...one nation, under Satan...". Would that be constitutional? I think not. I think you'd feel about the same about it as I do about the current wording.

If you think government & religion are a good fit, maybe Egypt or Pakistan would suit you better. In this country, the 1st amendment guarantees religious freedom by keeping the govt out of it. How you can spin that as "suppressing the religious rights of the rest of us" is a mystery.

"Atheism is indeed a religion" - lol. Yeah, like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

 

Are the laws we live by based upon "Christianity"?

If they are, do we create AND apply them as if they were truly biblical or Christian?

What "Christian" principles would actually apply to activity on Wall Street (for example); how would things there be done differently?

Just looking at today's politics, I know we have some Christian-hypocrites in office and running for the same... but tell me, where is the Bible or Christ in all of that?! Oh Lord... we are as SECULAR as SECULAR can be; and we have been for multiple centuries.

Now, I agree that individuals or groups of people can and should be allowed to live according to the spiritual dictates of their own hearts... but it makes no darned sense to take the power of Government and fuse it with 'religion'. That is NOTHING BUT a recipe for disaster, as history has shown us again and again...

I personally don't see any problem restoring the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the wording it had in 1923:

 

I personally don't see any problem restoring the "Pledge of Allegiance" to the wording it had in 1789:
Quote:"..."

 

You can quote mine all you want, but a cursory glance at the BoR and 10 Commandments will either show that they are incapable or irrelevant.

 

The founders were religious, okay, but I'm not seeing evidence of Christianity in the Constitution. If the influence was so strong, why is it so hard to detect? What principles are we talking about here, exactly?

Yes, I went to three TP meetings, for the comedy. (Like you, they never disappoint.) It was sort of like going to the petting zoo - lol. But honestly, the Pledge was spooky.

 

I agree. I know there is nothing wrong with citizens being influenced by religion... but having government 'favor' what is religious, violates the basic rights of many (and we know why).

The Tea Party started out wacky and they later slewed toward the extreme. Most Americans aren't drawn to such extremism.

 

Too bad America politicized it, and it became an exclusionary chant.

 

It certainly will be, the day "valid" becomes a synonym for "moronic".

The only way to make that clear would be to provide a credible rationale as to how that provision can "incorporate" another provision which confers neither a privilege nor an immunity on anyone, but is purely a restriction on Congress. The quote you provided doesn't do that, Everson doesn't do that, and every other SC opinion I've seen cited as support for incorporation of the establishment clause doesn't do that.

 

I don't think final outcomes will be determined here (despite various quotes).

Still, I am interested in the ideas/solutions that anyone would present here.

 

Would it make some of you feel better if we replaced "In God we trust" with "In the Government we trust?"

 

Be reasonable.

 

Your argument has been boiled down to being forced to defend the notion that Thomas Jefferson's positions have not been consistent.

Pardon me while I laugh you out of the thread.

You seem to require the text of the First Amendment again, so that you can be - again - reminded that there is nothing in it about 'endorsement'.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is absolutely nothing in there which discusses "endorsement", and - in fact, many if not MOST of the Founding Fathers did "endorse" Christianity.

Or did you completely ignore the content of the thoughts?

There is nothing illegal or unConstitutional about Founding Fathers, or any politician today, "endorsing" Christianity. Many Presidents did it, even Obama himself has called upon God to "bless" America.

You're so thoroughly brainwashed by what you have had pounded in your skull your whole life that it will take quite a lot to give you the pause needed for you to re-examine your views.

The First Amendment expressly forbids Congress from MAKING LAWS respecting an establishment of religion - OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF.

Including in Congress, on a boat, in a moat, with a judge, while eating fudge, during mass, after class...

...and right in the OVAL OFFICE if he or she wishes it.

No, it absolutely doesn't. What it does is suppresses it - as is OBVIOUS to anyone with even a cursory flicker of synaptic activity. There was a tapestry of a prayer hanging in a School since the late 40's - a tapestry given to the staff and students by an 8th grade student - and it was taken down because of the whiny unAmericanism of a virulent Atheist who harnessed the insipid nature of the ACLU to force a court order to remove it.

Do don't even try to tell me that what you're talking about is "protecting" religion. It isn't religion that requires protecting. What requires protection is FREE EXPRESSION.

What would make that unConstitutional? All that putting Satan in the Pledge would do is cause it to be unreflective of the wishes of the vast majority of people.

But feel free to whisper that yourself, if that's what you believe. The rest of us wish to exercise our right of free expression, and that right is lent weight when the vast majority agrees with the expression.

Clearly, I do not.

Where a country has made a religion a mandatory practice, by law? And - in particular - a religion with which I vehemently disagree? Are you even paying attention to my argument? It is plain; it is not nuanced. Your failure to understand basic Constitutional concepts is your shortcoming; not mine.

No, and it cannot be any more plain. Your addled notion of "guaranteeing religious freedom" is resulting in religious freedom being TAKEN AWAY.

Don't tell me that you are going to somehow show us all these examples of religious freedom your POV is manifesting, because it's OBVIOUS that it is doing the opposite.

Mystery? Only to the most daft imbecile. Your side:

1) Wants to remove "under God" from our Pledge;

2) Wants to remove "In God We Trust" from our money;

3) Demands no visible evidence of religious expression in Schools;

4) On any public building;

5) No Nativity Scenes in Public Parks.

Don't try to feed us the line of BS that it's a mystery. It isn't.

Non sequitur. I have a court ruling on my side, as I posted. "not" collecting stamps isn't an adequate description/analogy of Atheism. You know what is?

Working very hard to ensure that OTHER people don't collect stamps. THAT'S far more apt.

And exactly why it is a religion.

You've been defeated. Take it, and skulk away.

 

It really doesn't matter what you see. What matters is that the Founders themselves believed that they imbued the Constitution with the very precepts in question here (as the quotes so amply demonstrate).

To see the mores of Christianity within the Constitution and Bill of Rights, you'd have to understand the nature of Christianity.

And you do not. Your lack of ability to do so doesn't change the nature of the document. I will make this observation: everywhere you see a liberal contesting a Conservative on clear meanings in the Constitution, there is likely an example of Christian morality which is causing such leftist strife.

I think you swerved into an OWS rally. That is far more reflective of a petting zoo, and - as evidenced by the sheer amount of trouble associated with said rallies, describing them as animals is a wholly accurate characterization.

Which makes your position absolutely nuts to the vast majority of Americans. You are an extremist, and an enemy of my America.

 

Including forsaking your own God, in favor of some addled notion of what our Constitution actually protects.

You've been given ample evidence of what the Founding Father's intents were, Johnny-C. It is clear as day that they would never have found fault with the American Public wishing that our Nation was officially recognized as being "under God", as they themselves said it.

And prayed that same effect openly in Congress.

At this point, calling your position that of a charlatan is all that is left to say.

 

To the extent that they are based upon a morality which doesn't contradict Christianity, absolutely. Many of these morals that serve as the foundation of law and civility, however, aren't exclusive to Christianity.

There are certainly many fronts upon which wars are waged to fundamentally change what is properly morally reflected in our laws, and with great success. Roe v Wade is but one example.

We apply them as they fit our morality. What are you so worried about?

You're drifting off half-cocked. There is a difference between immoral, and illegal. Immoral is between a man and God. Illegal is between man, and other man.

Um...just the quotes I've posted alone refute that. Our country itself is not even 300 years old, so your hyperbole fails.

You also appear to fail to realize that even the most Christian amongst us sin. That there is sin does not mean that laws written to punish it have been in any way diminished, or that we shouldn't fight to correct wrongs.

But your generalizations here are quite meaningless.

This is just gobbedly-gook. The Founders expressly charged the Government with defending free expression of religion, not staying out of it (which doesn't happen when law enforcement is harnessed to REMOVE evidences of free expression)!

BS. You want disaster? Try suppressing Christian free expression of religion. Stalin attempted that, as did Pol Pot, and they killed millions of them. You want another disaster? Disasters have not happened as a result of a Christian people being able to freely express their religion. Believing otherwise is pure poppycock.

Of course you don't. You're a liberal. You have no problem removing free expressions of religion.

You keep hanging your hat on the fact that the Pledge originally had no mention of "under God" in it. What does that matter? It became a free expression of belief that the citizens of our country freely chose to adopt, and STILL SUPPORT!

But you're part of a very vocal bullying minority which is looking to suppress that free expression of belief, and you have ZERO leg to stand upon.

 

Not sure I understand this post.

 

You don't know what I believe; stop making assumptions.

I trust what people have interpreted from our Constitution, far more than than any 'religious' beliefs that you and others attempt to infuse into the same. At least we're on equal footing when a question of conflict arises. Your "addled" notion that your appeal to some higher-power should trump the rights and freedoms of others, is to me reprehensible.

And I've seen that evidence interpreted in ways which you did not. Even so, I hold firmly to my conviction (even before my God) that IMPOSING one's religious beliefs via government is essentially a bad thing. If you do not believe that, then we will just have to disagree. I created this thread and believe what I do, in good conscience.

Look... I'm not one of those who believes that the Constitution would be stuck in "time". I know we have re-interpreted and amended that document for good reason over time. Now, (to me) it is simply unjust to subject other citizens to the "Pledge" as it is written and recited daily. If you conscience is clear on that... so be it; but if I have anything to say about it, it will have that religious reference removed making it far more inclusive and fair for ALL Americans.

We'll see how that is interpreted in a court of law, which is where all of this is going, until the proper solution is determined once and for ALL.

And if that is what you must opine as your conclusion from all of what has been discussed, I'm content to let you have your say. But let it be known that we surely do not agree here. And as I have said more than a few times, I'm happy that this is presently in court and that it will revisit the same until justice is truly served.

 

That's a laugh. I obviously know what you believe on this topic; you've been filling the thread with the tripe for several pages.

You trust liberal Judges. You don't trust Conservative Judges - nor, apparently, do you trust your own eyes.

What I've posted regarding what the Founders said and believed is completely irrefutable. Only someone more in love with their liberalism than they are dedicated to their Christian faith would attempt such denial.

Just as Judas did - which is exactly why my comment utilized the word "forsake".

What "equal footing" is that?

Great. Then look in the mirror and realize that I'm not harming your right to free expression by supporting the words "under God", but you sure as hell are suppressing MY rights by wanting to CENSOR THE WORDS OUT.

Pure idiocy to have so completely deluded yourself to think otherwise.

Oh, your case is scintillating. The case I and others in this thread are making absolutely eviscerate the sad excuse you call a counterargument here.

There is no imposition here, and it's been explained to you six ways from Sunday. You're molesting the word "imposing"; frothing yourself up with feigned disgust. By your addled standard, you wouldn't even be able to support a Freeway Billboard with a Christian message on it.

Because that would be IMPOSING, wouldn't it? You'd better re-examine the irrational idiocy of the position you're espousing, because what I just repudiated your position with is irrefutable.

If you wish to remove "under God" from a voluntary Pledge, you'll have to make illegal Freeway Billboards with a religious message.

Oh, that we will. Of course, I will have provided the far stronger argument, while you'll have whined that "we all have our opinions".

I really don't give a crap what you think you've done in good conscience. What I care about is what truly suppresses Constitutionally guaranteed rights, as your position does. And to prove it, I'm going to force you in the same corner I neatly manuevered electron into:

Was holding Church services in the House of Representatives - an action that Jefferson supported and attended - unConstitutional?

In addition, a followup question - one I didn't ask electron:

If holding Church services in the House of Representatives was unConstitutional, WHY DID NOT ONE SINGLE FOUNDING FATHER OR OTHER POLITICIAN AT THE TIME UTILIZE THEIR POSITION TO OBJECT AND FILE A LAWSUIT?

Think very carefully before you answer. The Truth, Johnny-C, shall set you free.

Unless you're completely bullsh!tting us about your supposed Christianity.

There are no Amendments which strike down the First Amendment.

I really don't give a crap about that which you take offense. The Constitution grants you or anyone else no defense against being offended. The Constitution grants the power to me and everyone else to express my religious beliefs as we see fit.

And we most certainly see fit wrt to "under God" in our Pledge, and on our currency. And anywhere else we want.

The word "fair" is disgusting, and illegitimate. The moment you suppress free expression of religious faith, you aren't engaged in anything but jack-booted censorship.

Courts make bad law all the time. All they need is people like you on the bench.

It is folly to support a Court actually changing meaning of the words of the Constituion; that is exactly the opposite of what they are charged to do. They are supposed to DEFEND meaning.

And the meaning could not possibly be more clear. Only your leftist conditioning has you rationalizing the irrational.

Go ahead. Answer the question I put in bold. I would think those who inked the Constitution are far more qualified to understand what is correct and what is not wrt this topic.

And obviously none of them objected to Church Service in Congress.

And you cannot even bring yourself to ask why.

 

You are already incorrect. There are many laws which we have written and enforced, which DO NOT adhere strictly to biblical values. If they did, things would be a lot different in America than they are today. Not that I'm calling for that at all, because I believe those who interpret things literally from holy books are often oppressed in their minds and also willing to oppress others.

That's fine. I know that some of America's Founding Fathers were religious or went-along with those who were. That doesn't mean that from then through all time, America was to adhere or cater to the religious beliefs or sensibilities of Christians or anyone else. Again, I don't see the need to mention "God" in a "Pledge" originally meant for ALL to say. Restoring the language to the 1923 version, would indeed be appropriate in my view.

Indeed.

I've already explained my position on this matter. Even so, I don't mind repeating it for the purposes of advancing this discussion here. The wording of the "Pledge" isn't fair or right for ALL Americans (especially children, in a school setting on a daily basis). And of course, I admit others have a right to disagree with me on that. But it is a good thing we CAN (and have) taken this issue to a court of law. And I WILL abide (in proper civil order) whatever legal decisions are concluded from future court cases on the matter. All this is here, is a matter of us exercising our much-celebrated freedom to speak of such things.

I don't have predict the outcome of the current court case to communicate my views on the matter; which I've held for many years before now.

That is YOUR perception; I'm as resolute on this as one could possibly imagine. It is as WRONG to me, as it is right to you. We simply disagree about this.

Not always.

Does your belief (God) say that imposing your religion is okay? Well, mine surely does not. And I have my reasons which I have already shared with all participating here.

Good point, and that is EXACTLY what we are all under here in America; LAW which governs the affairs of men (at least on this side of reality). How else are we to resolve this, if it does not get properly heard in a COURT of "law"?? Legality is the question, right? And men are raising the question, right? Then, so be it that we must continue the debate (for now). I say it is a good and healthy thing; not meant to offend but to find better justice for ALL.

No, you have not won the complete debate. If you were correct, then there would likely not be a court case taking place as we speak. I admit I'm not an expert on Constitutional law... but I'm virtually certain that what you've pointed out here in this thread won't be overlooked as the issue is brought to trial. It will be interesting to see the professional arguments presented.

No, I realize it readily. I tend to mention that frequently, especially when "Conservatives" go off half-cocked with their holier-than-thou ranting.

And the abject hypocrisy of thinking the words "under God" imbedded in the "Pledge" is one thing I'm fighting about. I truly believe that is wrong, and understand that YOU do not.

To you, they are meaningless; not to all. And I know this is merely an exercise in discussion, whereas the court cases (present and future) are absolutely a matter of law (which shall govern us all).

You'd like to believe that is so. And while I grant that my arguments are hardly of a fully professional quality, I can guarantee you that more than a few Americans can/do agree with me and share similar convictions. We need not be historical, legal or Constitutional scholars... to have a decent opinion to share on this matter.

And there is more than enough legal precedent (settled law) to challenge those who would mistakenly assume that overreach by the "religious" (via government) is somehow fully-acceptable.

But when one's "free expression" stands upon or tramples the "freedoms" of another, then a redress of grievances is surely warranted. Thus, we take certain things to a court of law.

No, not really.

Why "Christian"? Do you want "Sharia" law to be mingled with the power of government (to any degree)? You should consider what it means, to weaken the wall of separation I'm indirectly referring to in my overall views.

I haven't and will not ever advocate for anything so heinous as what those men perpetrated. By the same token... religion acting with the power of government, has surely been a disaster MANY TIMES OVER. One need not be a historical scholar to know that.

Um... no.

That is simply ludicrous; you'd have to be ignoring a LOT of history to make that claim. Even so, I'm talking about being more inclusive, not taking away anyone's freedom of religion.

Nevertheless, I'm an American. We can disagree on the issues; so be it.

I have no problem granting freedom, liberty and equal protection under the law... including those who are religious. You may not be able to see the distinction, but I do.

Why should the "Pledge" have in it, what all Americans cannot relate to; why indoctrinate children with things they either cannot relate to or their parents would not care for them to relate to (as Americans)? I'd say that matters.

So do (as yourself) others don't (like me). I don't speak for all, but I would like to see a "Pledge" recited in schools (and elsewhere), that ALL can wholeheartedly commit to without reservation.

There is no bullying here from me. You have a keyboard, screen and the internet just as I and (at least 103 who participated in the poll) happen to possess. And yes, I am adamant about this issue; but I accept that you have a right to express your views. We vehemently disagree... but neither of us is a bully for feeling strongly about this matter.

Your accusation is baseless, as I just explained above. If you don't want to argue further (with me), I understand... but I promise that I will be no less adamant concerning this issue.

 

Um...did you miss where I said:

So just how the fock could I be incorrect? All you did was say "you're already incorrect, there are many laws which contradict the morality of Christianity". You agreed with me, not disagreed. WTF.

Who gives a crap? You act as though there is some magic in preserving the Pledge as it was originally written. The purpose of the Pledge wasn't originally to be for exclusive use of the USA regardless! What would you say had it originally contained the phrase "under God"? Now you cannot change it?

Oh, but it absolutely is. There is nothing mandatory about the Pledge. It is an appropriate expression of my personal belief, and the belief of the majority.

You've said variations of this several times. Obviously, we have a right to disagree with you. If we didn't, we'd ALL be wrong!

You only say that because the Courts have ruled in your favor. That doesn't mean they were correct - as numerous dissenters of said rulings have clearly conveyed.

Obviously, Judges are not infallible. If they were, no Judge would have cause to write a dissent.

Then you are in abrogation of your Pledge to defend this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Because - obviously - all it would take an enemy to do to infiltrate this country and render you neutered would be to win a court case.

Unless, of course, we wish to speak "under God". Then, it appears, you wish to place a ban.

You've held the incorrect view for years. I'm provided you ample and compelling evidence to cause you and anyone else to abruptly reverse your position.

Yes, always. Simply because something can be BOTH immoral and illegal does not mean that there isn't a different in terms.

Non sequitur. I'm criticizing your rape of the word "impose". You obviously do not know what it means. You have no Constitutional right to avoid exposure to my own personal religious beliefs: that's the WHOLE POINT of free expression.

What's the point of free expression if no one sees it?

I know this may come as a surprise to you, but Courts are not supposed to determine for us how to read the Constitution. They're supposed to enforce what the Constitution already says when it comes to conflicts between people.

In this case, if you attempt to suppress my desire to express my religious beliefs, SCOTUS is supposed to point out to you that the First Amendment guarantees that. Liberals always get (intentionally) confused on this point. They actually think that judges are supposed to interpret the Constitution.

As several Founders have said: if Judges were allowed to do that, there is no point to the Constitution at all: the Judges would have elevated themselves to the level of KING.

That there is a Court case challenging this has nothing to do with whether I've won this debate. A Court case simply is evidence of an agenda at work.

Why do you think SCOTUS rulings are usually predictable, and break along party lines?

No, it won't. SCOTUS has simply become a political agency. It has abrogated its responsibility, and become a legislator.

You recognize Conservative sin extremely easily. So easily, in fact, that you invent it.

How can that possibly be wrong, if it accurately represents what the Founders of this country thought of this country themselves?????

 

I see you think you fathom my every thought. That's okay. At least you know I mean every word I'm saying.

Do you trust conservative judges?

But YOUR interpretation thereof, likely is not "irrefutable". You aren't the last word on this matter and neither am I (as I suggested before).

Oh, that I were as devoutly "Christian" or whatever... as YOU. (Sigh.)

Watch yourself; you are as flawed as anyone; and I don't have to see your life to know that.

Are we not all equals (according to this nation's Supreme Law)?? Is it right/good to promote favoritism, simply because you can?

There will be no "censoring". In fact, you and other believers can do as some have mandated unbelievers do: Take the 1923 version of the "Pledge", and insert "under God" (silently) where you see fit.

And YOUR mind is so perfectly clear and all knowing. Got it.

Your mistake is that I don't claim to be presenting any professional legal argument here. I'm just a layman, one American citizen expressing (adamantly so) my opinion on this matter. I'm absolutely certain that you won't so easily "eviscerate" the professional legal arguments in the current and future court cases about this issue. I know that much for sure.

Time for number 7 then.

No, I'm as sincere as can be, though you view me as being 'wrong'. You see "froth", I call it resolve. Even so, I have been respectful and courteous overall. So, don't exaggerate what you think I'm doing here; that is unbecoming.

You don't know what you're talking about there. (Talk about "addled".) You are just plain wrong.

You should be able to figure out the distinction between a "billboard" and a "classroom".

See you in court; we disagree on that.

Again, there is a reason this is in court; I wait the related outcomes.

Okay. Still, I hold to my views on the matter. You have your convictions and I have mine.

Okay.

I disagree.

I already addressed that. I'm not going to jump to any conclusion in addressing that. I cannot see how the pending court case would overlooked something you seem to think applies and is so apparently so obvious. For now, it seems your interpretation of that suits your position.

In addition, a followup question - one I didn't ask electron:

(See the above.)

You should consider that there is more to consider than what YOU already have.

Again, I'm not here to compare our levels of devotion to our respective 'beliefs'; that is not quantifiable and means nothing to anyone but yourself. You are free to judge, but that would make it right to do. In any case, suit yourself.

Show exactly where I made such a claim.

Okay.

I would agree. Even so, if my rights are infringed upon, that is something different. And perhaps this current court case will address that more appropriately than before.

You have limits (as we all do); that is, the point where your freedoms infringe upon another's (for example, "honor killing", or 'stoning a child to death... etc.), isn't left up to what you view as being "fit". Your religion does not trump the law (or rights of others) in every possible way.

The issue is in court for good reason.

Why would you say that? You are human aren't you? Do YOU expect to be treated fairly, or expect others to TRY and do so?

It is "free", as long as it is not determined to step on or trample the freedoms of another human being.

No. Some laws are very good. You are exaggerating here.

And your tenure as judge in some court would benefit Americans in what particular way(s)?

Restoring the "Pledge" to its 1923 version, would not change the U.S. Constitution.

You are clearly biased against those on the Left. So be it.

I'm not questioning 'them', I'm skeptical of YOUR interpretation of what they said. Get it? (You need to.)

And we'll see if that is discussed in the current court case.

Well, there are a LOT of things I have asked myself about this. Even so, I'm pretty clear in my mind about what I think is right, wrong and fair about it. My position may lose in court, and I'll have to live with whatever they conclude; that is reality.

 

You can be wrong, because you are human.

I won't go any further with you on this; we disagree and there is no need to go further.

Let's see what the court case rules in the coming weeks. It should be interesting.