This 'religion' thing

The Washington Times ^ | Balint Vazsonyi

[VinnyTex]

First things first. Let us get the myth about "separation of church and state" out of the way. A thousand dollars in cash to anyone who can find such a provision in the U.S. Constitution.

Two thousand dollars to anyone who can establish a rational connection between "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and the American Civil Liberties Union's assertion that writing "God bless America" on a high school marquee is unconstitutional.

[AppyPappy]

Allow for the suppression of speech for everyone? What does that accomplish?

An American Indian performing a historic dance to the Great Spirit in a school auditorium does not compel a student to do anything nor does it create a national religion. But telling a speaker he cannot mention Jesus Christ when speaking to a City Council does violate the free speech rights of the speaker especially when a Council member routinely uses it as a expletive.

[OWK]

That's because you can't accept reality. We DO allow religion in the public arena.

Surely you understand the difference between allowing religion in the public arena, and compulsory funding of a particular religion in the public arena.

Then again, maybe you don't.

[jwalsh07]

By the way, I don't want your money taken from you forcibly any more than I want the first amendment abridged by the ACLU. The public square should be an open forum for all, period.

[OWK]

Allow for the suppression of speech for everyone?

Please explain how your right to free speech is suppressed or otherwise subjugated, if you are not allowed access to a publicly funded vehicle for your "free speech"?

[AppyPappy]

Not should their be the right to take the microphone from my hand as happened in Texas.

[ksen]

Is it moral to compel men to pay for the advancement of a faith they do not support or share?

No, it is not moral. I would also include Naturalistic Humanism (Secular Humanism, whatever)in the list of faiths.

-ksen

[Nebullis]

The free expression of religion is the essential ingredient which turns the establishment clause from one of suppression into one of tolerance. And, yes, tolerance must be paid for by all.

[Uriel1975]

People who don't have kids, and people with grown kids also support the public schools. 64 posted on 10/16/01 7:01 AM Pacific by SiouxsieQ

More proof of the entire system's Constitutional illegitimacy.

Understand that, to a Calvinist Covenantalist, offering to "publicly school" my congregation's children in any school which does not specifically affirm the particular Lordship of Jesus Christ and the theological rectitude of the doctrines of Reformation Protestantism, is morally akin to offering to poison those children. (Vague references to "God" and unitarian prayers won't cut it. Such weak religion is an insult to Calvinists, not half-a-blessing)

If I stole your money, and then offered to poison your children, would you consider that just compensation?
Likewise, stealing money from the parents of my congregation, and then offering to poison their children, is neither "compensation" nor "just".

[AppyPappy]

Your use of "compulsory funding" is disingenious. A teacher leading a prayer or discussing religion is not "compulsory funding" except in theory. No more that a teacher leading a sex education class is "compulsory funding" of sex in the schools or even a pregnant teacher is "compulsory funding" of pregnancy.

In short, you are trying too hard to be offended. no one is trying to put a baptismal font in the library.

[Sci Fi Guy]

Actually you've proven that separation of Church and State is not in the constitution.

Still if you are trying to argue that that is what the First Amendment means. Then what you need to do is prove that what Jefferson meant by separation of Church and State back then is the same thing that the ACLU says it means today.

[OWK]

No, it is not moral. I would also include Naturalistic Humanism (Secular Humanism, whatever)in the list of faiths.

Inasumch as advocates of evolution etc. attempt to foist their ideas on unwanted audiences, I would agree.

See post 78.

[AppyPappy]

If they give YOU free speech but not me, that is suppression. If they allow a Muslim to share his religion, why not a Christian?

[OWK]

Your use of "compulsory funding" is disingenious. A teacher leading a prayer or discussing religion is not "compulsory funding" except in theory. No more that a teacher leading a sex education class is "compulsory funding" of sex in the schools or even a pregnant teacher is "compulsory funding" of pregnancy.

It's all compulsory funded... which is of course why public schools are in and of themselves immoral.

Think.

[AppyPappy]

Not but that is what is happening.

[AppyPappy]

Cheerleaders led a prayer at the stadium. Some atheists sued and the prayers were stopped.

[Uriel1975]

Your use of "compulsory funding" is disingenious. A teacher leading a prayer or discussing religion is not "compulsory funding" except in theory. No more that a teacher leading a sex education class is "compulsory funding" of sex in the schools or even a pregnant teacher is "compulsory funding" of pregnancy. In short, you are trying too hard to be offended. no one is trying to put a baptismal font in the library.

If it's not compulsory... may the home-schoolers of my congregation deduct the average per-capita cost of public schooling from their State property taxes, etc?

Or are they still compelled to pay those taxes?