Doesn't have to be a specific religion

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 !?

Welcome to IWETHEY!