Asp Forum - trunk & llvm-gcc 4.2

Ollivier Robert

9/30/2008 10:28:00 AM

Hello,

I've been trying to compile ruby 1.9/trunk with llvm for some time
(llvm-gcc 4.2 as shipped by Apple in XCode 3.1.1) and always hit the
same problem. During the compilation, first time miniruby tries to run,
it goes into a never-ending loop.

Running Shark on the process give the following call stack (see the
linked image). -O or -O2 does not make any difference.

...
/miniruby -I../lib -I.ext/common -I./- -r../ext/purelib.rb
../enc/make_encdb.rb encdb.h.new ../enc enc
load: 1.23 cmd: miniruby 3505 running 3.64u 0.03s (after pressing ^T)
load: 1.11 cmd: miniruby 3505 running 62.80u 0.53s (^T again)

http://www.keltia.net/download/minirub...

Thanks for your attention.

MacOS 10.5.5, Xcode 3.1.1, Ruby trunk at #19642.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-....

18 Answers

Mitchell Holman

2/21/2012 2:52:00 AM

Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
news:Jason-2002121557490001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:

>
> I graduated from high school in 1970.

So did I.

Tell us how you escaped being drafted into
the Vietnam War that was going on strong
that year.

Jason

2/21/2012 6:06:00 AM

In article <Xns9FFFD3DC37796nomailcomcastnet@216.196.121.131>, Mitchell
Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:

> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> news:Jason-2002121557490001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
>
>
> >
> > I graduated from high school in 1970.
>
>
> So did I.
>
> Tell us how you escaped being drafted into
> the Vietnam War that was going on strong
> that year.

I was in college when the Viet Nam war was going on. At that time, college
students were not drafted until after they finished college. That rule
changed in 1971. They allowed us to finish college before we were drafted.
I graduated from college in 1974. The war was coming to an end at that
time so I was not drafted. I did have to take a physical exam and I passed
it. If the war had continued--I would have been drafted in 1974. I also
had an excellent draft number so it's unlikely that I would have ever been
drafted.

Jason

2/21/2012 6:08:00 AM

In article <t8o5k7h39v4848rgbvpbjvoi68nub2mmad@4ax.com>, Free Lunch
<lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:57:49 -0800, Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> alt.talk.creationism:
>
> >In article <dfritzin-922BD1.06435220022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> >> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >> > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it illegal
> >> > to pray in public schools.
> >>
> >> Sorry to respond twice to this post.
> >>
> >> It never was, and never shall be illegal to pray in public school. What
> >> is illegal, and unconstitutional, is to have teachers leading the
> >> prayers in public school. After all, would you like a teacher to lead a
> >> prayer to Allah in your local school?
> >
> >No--believe it or not--when I was in the second grade (1956) our grade
> >school teacher led us as we said the Lord's Prayer together. It was legal
> >in those days for grade school teachers to do that. The Supreme Court case
> >made it illegal for teachers to continue to it. The Supreme Court case
> >also caused every public school principal in Virginia to remove all copies
> >of the 10 commandments that were in most every classroom in Virginia.
> >
> >I graduated from high school in 1970.
>
> Yes, the people of Virginia didn't show much respect for the United
> States then. When you were a kid, they were still enforcing Jim Crow.
> Clearly they didn't give a damn what Jesus taught about how to treat
> their neighbors.

You may be referring to Alabama.

David Fritzinger

2/21/2012 11:26:00 AM

In article
<Jason-2002121557490001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-922BD1.06435220022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it illegal
> > > to pray in public schools.
> >
> > Sorry to respond twice to this post.
> >
> > It never was, and never shall be illegal to pray in public school. What
> > is illegal, and unconstitutional, is to have teachers leading the
> > prayers in public school. After all, would you like a teacher to lead a
> > prayer to Allah in your local school?
>
> No--believe it or not--when I was in the second grade (1956) our grade
> school teacher led us as we said the Lord's Prayer together. It was legal
> in those days for grade school teachers to do that. The Supreme Court case
> made it illegal for teachers to continue to it. The Supreme Court case
> also caused every public school principal in Virginia to remove all copies
> of the 10 commandments that were in most every classroom in Virginia.

You have said nothing new, nor did you answer my question. The Supremes
found as they did, based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which
says there should be no state religion. By teachers leading the class in
a prayer from a particular religion, the state is endorsing that
religion.

Now, answer my question. Would you like to see teachers leading prayers
to Allah in your schools?
>
> I graduated from high school in 1970.

David Fritzinger

2/21/2012 11:43:00 AM

In article
<Jason-2002121538590001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-C2CE85.06405020022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-C1574A.14391419022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article
> > > > <Jason-1902121136520001@67-150-171-59.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <Xns9FFE5FAC7368Bnomailcomcastnet@216.196.121.131>,
> > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > > > > > news:Jason-1802122346050001@66-53-217-99.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > [snip]
> > > > > > > It's my opinion that the information in the Declaration of
> > > > > > > Independence is far more important than the information in any
> of the
> > > > > > > letters that have been written by presidents. Believe it or not,
> > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > Supreme Court case was based on the information from a letter
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > written by a president. It was the case related to the separation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > Church and State.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What case was that?
> > > > >
> > > > > Separation of Church and State
> > > >
> > > > Jason, that is not a Supreme Court case. Try again.
> > >
> > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it illegal
> > > to pray in public schools.
> >
> > Look up the case. Again, I'm not going to do your work for you. Once you
> > have looked up the case, find out whether Jefferson's letter had
> > anything to do with the decision.
>
> I made a note and will try to find a website on my other computer.
>
> I found this report on my hard drive:
>
> http://pastortonysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-amendment-pa...
[snip]

The article is nothing but special pleading by a protestant pastor. It
has no basis in law, and is just asking for things to be the way they
were in the "good old days". It carries no weight whatsoever.

Jason

2/21/2012 6:24:00 PM

In article <dfritzin-C2CECE.06255921022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-2002121557490001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-922BD1.06435220022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it
illegal
> > > > to pray in public schools.
> > >
> > > Sorry to respond twice to this post.
> > >
> > > It never was, and never shall be illegal to pray in public school. What
> > > is illegal, and unconstitutional, is to have teachers leading the
> > > prayers in public school. After all, would you like a teacher to lead a
> > > prayer to Allah in your local school?
> >
> > No--believe it or not--when I was in the second grade (1956) our grade
> > school teacher led us as we said the Lord's Prayer together. It was legal
> > in those days for grade school teachers to do that. The Supreme Court case
> > made it illegal for teachers to continue to it. The Supreme Court case
> > also caused every public school principal in Virginia to remove all copies
> > of the 10 commandments that were in most every classroom in Virginia.
>
> You have said nothing new, nor did you answer my question. The Supremes
> found as they did, based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which
> says there should be no state religion. By teachers leading the class in
> a prayer from a particular religion, the state is endorsing that
> religion.
>
> Now, answer my question. Would you like to see teachers leading prayers
> to Allah in your schools?
> >
> > I graduated from high school in 1970.

No--but some schools do release Muslims from their classes so they can
engage in prayer. Is that legal under the constitution?

Jason

2/21/2012 6:32:00 PM

In article <dfritzin-5FB3AA.06423921022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-2002121538590001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-C2CE85.06405020022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <dfritzin-C1574A.14391419022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <Jason-1902121136520001@67-150-171-59.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article <Xns9FFE5FAC7368Bnomailcomcastnet@216.196.121.131>,
> > > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > > > > > > news:Jason-1802122346050001@66-53-217-99.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > It's my opinion that the information in the Declaration of
> > > > > > > > Independence is far more important than the information in any
> > of the
> > > > > > > > letters that have been written by presidents. Believe it
or not,
> > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > Supreme Court case was based on the information from a letter
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > written by a president. It was the case related to the
separation
> > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Church and State.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What case was that?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Separation of Church and State
> > > > >
> > > > > Jason, that is not a Supreme Court case. Try again.
> > > >
> > > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it
illegal
> > > > to pray in public schools.
> > >
> > > Look up the case. Again, I'm not going to do your work for you. Once you
> > > have looked up the case, find out whether Jefferson's letter had
> > > anything to do with the decision.
> >
> > I made a note and will try to find a website on my other computer.
> >
> > I found this report on my hard drive:
> >
> > http://pastortonysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-amendment-pa...
> [snip]
>
> The article is nothing but special pleading by a protestant pastor. It
> has no basis in law, and is just asking for things to be the way they
> were in the "good old days". It carries no weight whatsoever.

But he is correct. Believe it or not--in the 1700's and 1800's teachers
led students as they all said the Lord's Prayer and the founding fathers
had no problem with it. The members of the Supreme Court at that time had
no problem with it. They knew more about the constituion than current
supreme court justices since many of them helped to write it and some of
them signed the constitution.

When the constitution uses the term religion or church--they should have
said "denomination"

The founding fathers did not want any denomination (such as the Church of
England) to control the government or be taught in the public schools.
They did not have any problem with Christianity being taught--which is why
they allowed public school teachers to lead the students in the Lord's
Prayer each day.

I don't expect you to agree with me or even understand what I am saying.
The reason is that due to historical revisionism--true history is no
longer being taught in the most colleges.

David Fritzinger

2/21/2012 8:51:00 PM

In article
<Jason-2102121031450001@67-150-126-192.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-5FB3AA.06423921022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-2002121538590001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-C2CE85.06405020022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article
> > > > > <dfritzin-C1574A.14391419022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <Jason-1902121136520001@67-150-171-59.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article <Xns9FFE5FAC7368Bnomailcomcastnet@216.196.121.131>,
> > > > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > > > > > > > news:Jason-1802122346050001@66-53-217-99.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > It's my opinion that the information in the Declaration of
> > > > > > > > > Independence is far more important than the information in
> > > > > > > > > any
> > > of the
> > > > > > > > > letters that have been written by presidents. Believe it
> or not,
> > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > Supreme Court case was based on the information from a letter
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > written by a president. It was the case related to the
> separation
> > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > Church and State.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What case was that?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Separation of Church and State
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jason, that is not a Supreme Court case. Try again.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it
> illegal
> > > > > to pray in public schools.
> > > >
> > > > Look up the case. Again, I'm not going to do your work for you. Once
> > > > you
> > > > have looked up the case, find out whether Jefferson's letter had
> > > > anything to do with the decision.
> > >
> > > I made a note and will try to find a website on my other computer.
> > >
> > > I found this report on my hard drive:
> > >
> > > http://pastortonysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-amendment-pa...
> > [snip]
> >
> > The article is nothing but special pleading by a protestant pastor. It
> > has no basis in law, and is just asking for things to be the way they
> > were in the "good old days". It carries no weight whatsoever.
>
> But he is correct. Believe it or not--in the 1700's and 1800's teachers
> led students as they all said the Lord's Prayer and the founding fathers
> had no problem with it. The members of the Supreme Court at that time had
> no problem with it. They knew more about the constituion than current
> supreme court justices since many of them helped to write it and some of
> them signed the constitution.

You do realize that most of the founding fathers were deists, don't you?
>
> When the constitution uses the term religion or church--they should have
> said "denomination"

No, they won't reinterpret the Constitution just to please an ignoramus
like you. They said religion, and they meant religion.
>
> The founding fathers did not want any denomination (such as the Church of
> England) to control the government or be taught in the public schools.
> They did not have any problem with Christianity being taught--which is why
> they allowed public school teachers to lead the students in the Lord's
> Prayer each day.

You forget that at the time, the US was almost entirely Christian. It is
no longer. By forcing Christian prayer on students with other religions,
you are discriminating against them.
>
> I don't expect you to agree with me or even understand what I am saying.
> The reason is that due to historical revisionism--true history is no
> longer being taught in the most colleges.

I understand what you are saying. You want to go back to the 18th
century. This isn't the 18th century, and almost everything you believe
has been shown to be wrong. That includes science, history, heck,
probably even English.

BTW, I would be willing to bet that I know far more history than you.

David Fritzinger

2/21/2012 8:52:00 PM

In article
<Jason-2102121023560001@67-150-126-192.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

> In article <dfritzin-C2CECE.06255921022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Jason-2002121557490001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <dfritzin-922BD1.06435220022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> > > > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it
> illegal
> > > > > to pray in public schools.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry to respond twice to this post.
> > > >
> > > > It never was, and never shall be illegal to pray in public school. What
> > > > is illegal, and unconstitutional, is to have teachers leading the
> > > > prayers in public school. After all, would you like a teacher to lead a
> > > > prayer to Allah in your local school?
> > >
> > > No--believe it or not--when I was in the second grade (1956) our grade
> > > school teacher led us as we said the Lord's Prayer together. It was legal
> > > in those days for grade school teachers to do that. The Supreme Court case
> > > made it illegal for teachers to continue to it. The Supreme Court case
> > > also caused every public school principal in Virginia to remove all copies
> > > of the 10 commandments that were in most every classroom in Virginia.
> >
> > You have said nothing new, nor did you answer my question. The Supremes
> > found as they did, based on the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which
> > says there should be no state religion. By teachers leading the class in
> > a prayer from a particular religion, the state is endorsing that
> > religion.
> >
> > Now, answer my question. Would you like to see teachers leading prayers
> > to Allah in your schools?
> > >
> > > I graduated from high school in 1970.
>
> No--but some schools do release Muslims from their classes so they can
> engage in prayer. Is that legal under the constitution?

Why should the Muslims be discriminated against? What you want is
unconstitutional. Deal with reality, for once in your life.

Jason

2/21/2012 9:35:00 PM

In article <dfritzin-625191.15512821022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:

> In article
> <Jason-2102121031450001@67-150-126-192.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> > In article <dfritzin-5FB3AA.06423921022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <Jason-2002121538590001@67-150-168-157.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <dfritzin-C2CE85.06405020022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <Jason-1902122357180001@66.53.221.239>,
> > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > <dfritzin-C1574A.14391419022012@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > > > > > David Fritzinger <dfritzin@nospamtome.hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > <Jason-1902121136520001@67-150-171-59.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com>,
> > > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In article <Xns9FFE5FAC7368Bnomailcomcastnet@216.196.121.131>,
> > > > > > > > Mitchell
> > > > > > > > Holman <nomailcomcast.net> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote in
> > > > > > > > >
news:Jason-1802122346050001@66-53-217-99.lsan.mdsg-pacwest.com:
> > > > > [snip]
> > > > > > > > > > It's my opinion that the information in the Declaration of
> > > > > > > > > > Independence is far more important than the information in
> > > > > > > > > > any
> > > > of the
> > > > > > > > > > letters that have been written by presidents. Believe it
> > or not,
> > > > > > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > > > Supreme Court case was based on the information from a
letter
> > > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > > written by a president. It was the case related to the
> > separation
> > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > Church and State.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What case was that?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Separation of Church and State
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jason, that is not a Supreme Court case. Try again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a Supreme Court Case related to this issue that made it
> > illegal
> > > > > > to pray in public schools.
> > > > >
> > > > > Look up the case. Again, I'm not going to do your work for you. Once
> > > > > you
> > > > > have looked up the case, find out whether Jefferson's letter had
> > > > > anything to do with the decision.
> > > >
> > > > I made a note and will try to find a website on my other computer.
> > > >
> > > > I found this report on my hard drive:
> > > >
> > > > http://pastortonysblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/first-amendment-pa...
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > The article is nothing but special pleading by a protestant pastor. It
> > > has no basis in law, and is just asking for things to be the way they
> > > were in the "good old days". It carries no weight whatsoever.
> >
> > But he is correct. Believe it or not--in the 1700's and 1800's teachers
> > led students as they all said the Lord's Prayer and the founding fathers
> > had no problem with it. The members of the Supreme Court at that time had
> > no problem with it. They knew more about the constituion than current
> > supreme court justices since many of them helped to write it and some of
> > them signed the constitution.
>
> You do realize that most of the founding fathers were deists, don't you?
> >
> > When the constitution uses the term religion or church--they should have
> > said "denomination"
>
> No, they won't reinterpret the Constitution just to please an ignoramus
> like you. They said religion, and they meant religion.
> >
> > The founding fathers did not want any denomination (such as the Church of
> > England) to control the government or be taught in the public schools.
> > They did not have any problem with Christianity being taught--which is why
> > they allowed public school teachers to lead the students in the Lord's
> > Prayer each day.
>
> You forget that at the time, the US was almost entirely Christian. It is
> no longer. By forcing Christian prayer on students with other religions,
> you are discriminating against them.
> >
> > I don't expect you to agree with me or even understand what I am saying.
> > The reason is that due to historical revisionism--true history is no
> > longer being taught in the most colleges.
>
> I understand what you are saying. You want to go back to the 18th
> century. This isn't the 18th century, and almost everything you believe
> has been shown to be wrong. That includes science, history, heck,
> probably even English.
>
> BTW, I would be willing to bet that I know far more history than you.

That may be correct but I doubt that you know the history behind 1st
Ammendment.
The people that wrote it did not want the same thing to happen in America
that had happened in England. The Church of England was part of that
government. They did not want any denomination as part of the American
government. That was the reason behind the 1st Ammendment. They did NOT
have any problems at that time with Christiany being taught in the public
school system.

You don't understand the above history. If you re-read the first
ammendment--you will realize that was the intention. In Murray vs.
Curlett--the supreme court justices that ruled in that case totally
ignored the history of the 1st Ammendment. It was clearly a political
decision. They probably knew that history but chose to ignore it in regard
to the Murray vs. Curlett related briefs.

Many justices and judges refer to the constitution as a "living document"
that can be changed to comply with current beliefs. That is what happened
in this case and the Roe vs. Wade decision

comp.lang.ruby

trunk & llvm-gcc 4.2

Ollivier Robert

Mitchell Holman

Jason

Jason

David Fritzinger

David Fritzinger

Jason

Jason

David Fritzinger

David Fritzinger

Jason

x Login to ForumsZone