Re: church/state seperation

On 25 Nov 2003 04:23:06 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose
searle) wrote:

>Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>> >Bob LeChevalier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ambrose searle) wrote:
>> >> >The decision does not include the transcript. Baldwin has given at
>> >> >least a portion of the transcript.
>> >> 
>> >> Perhaps.  But nothing in the "transcripted" portion seems to be
>> >> relevant to the decision and/or its basis.
>> >
>> >That's the point. Why was he being grilled about whether he would or
>> >would not say he believes in God if it is entirely irrelevant??
>> 
>> Perhaps if we had the full transcript, we might see where this line of
>> questioning led, or wherefrom it led 
>
>That is a very good point, and it was a concern of Moore's from the
>beginning: he wanted his trial to be an open book... seen by all who
>cared, but was denied that request, which smelled fishy from the get
>go.
>

He got a public hearing.   It is your implication that he did not that
smells fishy.


None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.