Given that the ordinance was one for the Federal government's running of the territories, common sense says it would be funding those schools. I apologize for thinking that you would have common sense. Forgot I was dealing with libertarians here.
Funding schools, fine. -- but you wrote:
"These ordinances called for the establishment of government funded churches that would specifically be called for to teach religion".
Not so, as we see.
Common sense? What are you talking about. The federal government wasn't involved in education then. Why would it be common sense?
"I apologize for thinking that you would have common sense. Forgot I was dealing with libertarians here."
Further proof that you are losing the argument -- insults and attacks.
ran, I've read a lot of your posts on other threads in the short time that you've been here. You aren't a bad guy and I agree with you on a lot of things. One of them is that the LP has image problems. The theory and philosophy really are all about personal liberty. A lot of people are afraid of liberty and don't trust themselves with it and are not at all willing to trust others with it. That's human nature, I guess. That we (L & l) libertarians advocate your right to control your body doesn't mean that we think that drug use is a good idea. It's just that our experience with prohibition tells us that the 'cure' is worse than the disease.
There are many other issues, some I agree with and some I don't. I've limited my comments to drugs since that is brought up most often. BTW, I rarely even take an aspirin and have never and will never take drugs (other than in my favorite liquid form) for recreational purposes.