[SpamCop-Social] Re: Defenders of "under god" are ... mislead or misleading (pick one)

[Kenneth Brody]

Sylvesterthekat wrote:
> 
> "Porpoise" <porpoise1954 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> news:dhm9hu$j52$1 at news.spamcop.net:
> 
> > Why? Has it changed since the last time I read it?
> 
> Have you actually read the whole thing? Were you raised in a religious
> environment? I can't think of too many other reasons for reading it all the
> way thru. I tried, once, but didn't even get past Genesis.
> 
> >> Very much like having a good understanding of the Constitution helps
> >> you pick
> >> apart many political arguments.
> >
> > I'll pass on that one, as the constitution of the US doesn't affect
> > me. (Not directly, anyway).
> 
> There's the British Constitution. I watched Panorama last night online and
> found it interesting that Charles's marriage to Camilla may go against what
> the Brit Constitution says (ie it's illegal because a member of the royal
> family in line for the throne may only be legally married in a church and
> you cannot marry in church if you are divorced).

Are you sure about that last part?  Wasn't the whole Church of England
set up as a split from Roman Catholicism because the king wanted to get
a divorce?  (Not all forms of Christianity listen to the Pope.)

-- 
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody        | www.hvcomputer.com |                             |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com     | #include <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsASpamTrap at gmail.com>