Re: Free speech: Perpetually at risk

On Wed, Jun 25, 2003 at 08:58:19PM -0500, Andreas Pour wrote:
> While the interference with free speech in this case is certainly something to
> be concerned about, comparing the actual case (link in the article for the
> supreme court opinion is wrong, it should be
> http://www.courts.state.nh.us/supreme/opinions/2003/frank081.htm; the link for
> the commission opinion is correct) with the story shows the author to be quite
> inaccurate in the portrayal of what happened.

Reading that one doesn't make me happier:

"Further, while an acceptable candidate must profess a belief in God, there
is no required affiliation with any religious denomination or sect or
required participation in any particular religious practice or ritual."

According the the Supreme Court, professing a belief in God is
not a particular religious practice or ritual?

I'm starting a club where people must believe they're male; and deliver
proof of the required beliefs.

Rob
-- 
Rob Kaper     | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
[email protected] | temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
www.capsi.com | - Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE++ln6tppIl2G1SjcRArZMAJ9zuNkZNHcKCt414K09/oA/TW4lUwCgr+2U
nObRHipGvAFVVLvs6mOBJxs=
=CP4c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----