That's not the point.

Post #114,602 by inthane-chan 8/20/03 4:07:47 PM Reply	That's not the point. You've misrepresented my position. I'm not for BANNING anything - I'm just for NOT REQUIRING participation in a religious event in order to receive public funding. I'm not asking that "In god we trust" come off the dollar bill." I'm not asking people to stop praying in school. I'm asking to NOT BE SENT TO FUCKING DETENTION FOR REFUSING TO PRAY WITH THE REST OF THEM. Hope I got my point across... ;) In that final hour, when each breath is a struggle to take, and you are looking back over your life's accomplishments, which memories would you treasure? The empires you built, or the joy you spread to others? Therin lies the true measure of a man.
Post #114,604 by bepatient 8/20/03 4:14:53 PM Reply	No I got it. And I thought my first statement actually >did< agree with you ;-) If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,694 by bluke 8/21/03 4:25:40 AM Reply	However, banning is exactly what is happening Students are not allowed to lead a prayer before a football game. If the government has a voucher program that happens gives money to a religious school is that establishment of religion?
Post #114,760 by JayMehaffey 8/21/03 12:44:00 PM Reply	Re: However, banning is exactly what is happening If the government has a voucher program that happens gives money to a religious school is that establishment of religion? Yes, that is an establishment in the direct sense. It's giving tax money to support a religious organization. It could work if the rules where properly structured to seperate educational and religious money, but no plan I have seen does so. As for the prayer before football games issue, I think it falls into the too trivial to worry about category. Fairness would require that every religion represented in the school get a chance to lead the prayer occasionally, plus a certain percent with no prayer to cover the nonreligious. But the world has far more serious issues to deal with. Jay
Post #114,762 by deSitter 8/21/03 12:45:14 PM Reply	well stated -drl
Post #114,766 by Steve Lowe 8/21/03 12:58:42 PM Reply	Disagree completely. How is that action establishing a religion? If schools of any stripe participate in a voucher program, there's no support of a single religion. ----- Steve
Post #114,772 by bepatient 8/21/03 1:11:50 PM Reply	Correct... ...and the fact that the voucers are provided to the >people< to enable them to make there own choice makes >not< allowing their use for parochial schools a violation of "free exersize". People have taken the Jeffersonian translation and assume that is the way the amendment works. By singling out religion as an activity that CANNOT recieve public funds...the current translation is actually prejudicial to religious activity. In the constitutional sense, religion should not be part of the judging criteria on the award of public funds. Right now religion is used to exlude access. No better than using skin color. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,807 by Ashton 8/21/03 3:51:03 PM Reply	Threat to long-term survival. Perpetual reindoctrination of helpless children, long before their capability of discrimination can possibly be activated - into the same-old same-old Warring-Gods View of It All: Guarantees the same-old same-old Endless Warfare States, too (if a=b, b=c .^.. a=c) Ergo a secular government (as this one is, by definition -- government, not 'society'), merely for hope of long-term survival; the avoidance of the now seen to be repetitive effects of (Believers-at-War?) needs to protect future citizens from these known harmful afflictions. This is not discrimination against 'religion'; it is -nominally- protecting the innocent from zealotry, until they are Fair Game for the Zealots to try to breach their firewall of adult-level mentation. To do less? would be irresponsible of any government (constructed on the lines of this one). It could also be called: prevention of child endangerment, if not abuse. Ask any Jesuit. Ashton Save the Children from Us LLC
Post #114,811 by Steve Lowe 8/21/03 4:28:19 PM Reply	So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is? As a parent, then, I'm supposed to fall in lock-step with what the Gubmint dictates as 'good' and 'proper' doctrine for my kids to be forced upon them by the 'public' school system in the name of protecting future generations from religion. Who's going to protect them from discriminatory anti-religious zealots such as yourself? ----- Steve
Post #114,866 by Ashton 8/22/03 1:29:29 AM Reply	Re: So who decides on what proper 'indoctrination' is? Who's going to protect them from discriminatory anti-religious zealots such as yourself? It's the perennial, "who's watching the watchers" - no? There IS no 'proper indoctrination' for tykes! - That Is/Was my Point. Besides, I am no anti-religion zealot: I am an anti-Hypocrite zealot. To assert that, "there's nothing There" is as religious a Belief as any other. (What I happen to suspect-thus-far, from experience -- is very likely quite different from what you Imagine is my POV. And, it Doesn't Matter (either) for all obv. reasons.) I will admit: what I do despise is the presentation of the mouthings, imaginations + committee-embellishments of ordinary homo-saps (modern or ancient) who pretend to have a cel-fone to The Absolute (or by anyother name as will serve). Obv then: neither would I think it appropriate in class to advocate against a/any creed, belief, whimsy Either! The point would be - that the cheeldrun are informed that various religions exist; an explanation consistent with their nascent powers of discrimination of "human psych". They bloody well need to Know that, "out there" are many conflicting views, and that Each One claims to be the Only Correct One. This alone! is valuable information in preparation for a world which will be abusing language - indefinitely. (Even if the 'armament' is just a pea-shooter against the KW megaphones) Some history of the major sects would be appropriate and as inescapable as history, anyway -- and as subject to Believers' Slant as is Ashcroft's position on law enforcement. Admins can but aspire to adequate vigilance, as always. (And I think it dead obvious that - virtually every parent will do what always they have done: indoctrinate. My experience says, in that regard: only the parents who live the principles stand A Chance, anyway! vs a kid's natural suspicion of adult spin on everything) Only.. the school May Not! do this. << Nobody ever suggested that such an aim -non-indoctrination- would be simple to achieve nor that the effect of a relatively non-biased curriculum could render the tykes impervious to the ministrations of others who deem: It's OK to brainwash kids because They Are My Kids (See.. I don't happen to believe that They Are 'Owned' - parenthood does not confer the right to maim a child's mentation / mould it into a clone either. Another volume, that) Moot anyway. This be Murica. Won't Happen. Just theoretical - people will kill to project their mindset onto "their" offspring. This stuff is for a later post-adolescent Murica. However bloody unlikely. Ashton
Post #114,885 by bepatient 8/22/03 8:02:30 AM Reply	Dear me... ...that we should be so bold as to protect children from their parents and their local areas. We must give the Federal gubmint power over this "to protect the cheeldrun". Nice try Ash. Really. A for effort. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,991 by Ashton 8/22/03 6:41:38 PM Reply	An anticipated Bowdlerization. Let me Econ- it for ya: See.. we Know that there is No Limit to the "profit percentage" an unfettered biznessman lusts after: none - More is always Better. Monopoly IS His Grail. We know this cold. Realizing this factoid about homo-sap's still-infantile mentation - we "instituted laws" to regulate the Greed-coefficient consistent to.. (at least) averting marauding bands of Armani-suited predators.. entrepreneurs.. just.. Everywhere throughout the land. (Obv these laws don't work very well, especially of late - but Law was all we thought we had. Then. And Christian-Morality-applied: led to more bizness preying than praying. And crocodile tears when caught.) Similarly - we Know that those Possessed of a Belief - know no surcease from attempting to inflict same until Perfect One-Truth Homogeneity is achieved Worldwide. We Know That. Ditto for admins, teachers etc - who are presumed mainly to be homo-sap in genetic origin. Too. And no, Beep; stop drooling over 'Guvmint Ogres' - your pants are all wet. The Government is/was us: when it is/was properly inspected, staffed and overseen by responsible Citizens of a Free Republic. OK that's changed recently too, but the idea remains within that Constitution thing everybody wants Allegiance paid-to [Talk about.. things worth conservative-ing..] ie With the usual great difficulty - yes, 'We' may indeed charge our institutions (which assuredly includes 'public schools') with behaviour to certain standards. In the present case: Thou Shalt not proselytize nor disrespect.. the many many personal-belief oddities of the milieu. Thou shalt inform about 'the situation' among the variously conflicting One Truths\ufffd, so as to prepare each nascent mind for the task as Will Arrive: sorting-out the fallacies contained in infinitely-nested levels within the claim, "I Possess The Truth". When the child becomes an adult: then shall it be revealed, how effectively has s/he become able to deal with her fellow homo-saps in the area where they are Least-sane, Most-bellicose and generally: utterly off-the-wall. Hope this works for you, though I left out the spreadsheet of $-Costs of NOT 'doing it' .. so perhaps the bottom line isn't so clear to you. Ashton Econ Translations LLC - where ya gots ta really KISS
Post #115,004 by bepatient 8/22/03 7:45:03 PM Reply	Not necessary... ...just surprised at the direction you took...and posted same. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #114,787 by JayMehaffey 8/21/03 2:14:50 PM Reply	Doesn't have to be a specific religion Two problems with that. The theoretical problem is that it doesn't matter that it isn't a specific religion, support of all religions is equally forbidden. The more practical problem is that such a program would be a subsidy for the large popular religions only. Groups too small to finance their own schools would be left with no recourse. Jay
Post #114,819 by bluke 8/21/03 4:55:27 PM Reply	the constitution states ... that the governement shall not establish a religion. It is clearly referring to a state religion like the Church of England. I fail to see how the government giving money to any school that qualifies irrespective of religion is establishing a state religion. If the governement gives mony to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and non-religious schools what religion is it establishing?
Post #114,832 by jake123 8/21/03 6:12:07 PM Reply	Well, up here there is state money for religious schools; they don't get as much because the state doesn't own the physical plant like they do in the public schools. When I was going to high school, we got readings read over the loudspeaker in homeroom from a variety of sources, including buddhist, jewish, and muslim, though christian predominated. Not so much a prayer as just a quick thought provoking quote. However, school control was a lot more decentralised then, and that had a lot more to do with the principal than it did the ministry of education. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
Post #114,886 by bepatient 8/22/03 8:10:37 AM Reply	Thats the common translation now bluke... ...which is pretty much what I'm rattling on about...that the current translation of the Jefforsonian "wall of separation" hasa gone far beyond the charter of keeping the Fed neutral with respect to religion to the Fed essentially taking prejudicial stances against religion. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #115,002 by Ashton 8/22/03 7:36:27 PM Reply	I agree with that wording And merely suspect that.. this 'government interpretation' is an expectable consequence of dealing with a mass of literal-minded zealots (across the board / orthogonally). The problem that real Simplicity, especially re metaphysical hunches! is a difficult task to achieve - never deters the genuinely simplistic from insisting upon each's One Truth - Mine. So.. what did You expect? sweet Reason !?
Post #114,817 by bluke 8/21/03 4:52:14 PM Reply	Not true If the government makes clear criteria that any school whether religious (any religion) or not qualifies how is the governement establishing religion? Hypothetically, if vouchers are used at a Catholic school, a Jewish school, a Muslim school, a Mormon school, and some non-religious schools which religion is the government establishing? The message I would take is that the governement is not establishing any religion, rather the government is supporting education. In any case, where do you draw the line? Can Catholic hospitals get federal money? They do. etc.
Post #114,833 by jake123 8/21/03 6:14:48 PM Reply	I'm pretty much with you on that the main point is where the decision making resides. If it resides with representatives of the state, then it's Bad News. However, if it's being done by individuals, then that should be OK. That said, I think a strong public educational system is a very important thing. I'd like to note that there is a distinction between "powerful" and "strong" in the context I'm using, if ya know what I mean. --\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca \n [link\|http://consultron.ca\|http://consultron.ca] [link\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca\|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] \n Kingston Ontario Canada [link\|news://news.consultron.ca\|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to IWETHEY!