JC> Happens quite frequently. The last session of class we spent the whole 
thre
  > hours discussing "U.C. Davis v Bakke". That's the case where Bakke, a 
white
  > man, was protesting against the "Affirmative Action" policies of the
  > University of California Medical School at Davis, California. The 
pinions
  > and the decisions of the Court were far more complex than the media told
  > the public about that case.
I think that's usually the case.  The occasional time when I have rather
extensive information on something in the courts, it's almost always
more complicated than the media makes it.
JC> I agree. Tha last amendement to be ratified that affected large numbers 
f
  > people was #26 which lowered the voting age to 18. The very _last_ 
amendmen
  > that was ratified has to do with Congressional salaries. First proposed 
n
  > 1789 finally ratified in 1992. Lots of agreement there.  The last 
"biggi
Grin!  Some things take a long time to get through.
JC> That's probably true, also. But in some cases, people can _hear_ the 
ther
  > side, but still not agree. The only thing ratification of an amendment
  > requires, however, is _enough_ agreement in the legislatures in 38(?) (or
  > is it 33?) states.
That's true.  I have seen atheists who could explain Christianity very
well.  I've known Christians who seemed to have a true grasp on atheism.
Understanding and agreeing are not the same thing.
                       Sondra
-*-
 þ SLMR 2.1a þ Author's creed: where there are stamps, there is hope.
--- Opus-CBCS 1.7x via O_QWKer 1.7 
---------------