| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
15 Sep 2005 03:02:05 AM |
| Object: |
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
For 25 of more years the other side has had a monopoly on word games and no
one has called them on it, effectively challenged them on it. They have
managed to turn liberal into a bad word, even moderate has been made
suspicious. Managed to make Democrat a bad word. Managed to turn equal
rights for a minority group into gay rights or special rights. Those are
just a few examples.
Now they are doing the same thing with the courts. They are using words
again to mislead, misrepresent and lie.
Make no mistake about it, judicial activism means any court ruling they do
not like. It has absolutely no other meaning and it appears once more that
no one has the balls to call them on it and keep calling them on it until
that fact finally cancels their dishonest word playing.
Case in point. Last night on Lou Dobbs I heard, either Dobbs or one of his
talking heads use judicial activism in reference to the District Court
pledge ruling. Dobbs also tossed the usual ***** zinger at the 9th
Circuit as he ended that segment of his show by saying the 9th Circuit, the
most liberal Circuit in the country and also the most overturned Circuit
on the country.
I never realized Dobs was a talking head for the right, he should be on Fox
instead of CNN or maybe CNN is in their pocket as well.
Another example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/14/national/14cnd-pledge.html
But it had immediate emotional impact. "This is an extraordinary and
blatant display of judicial activism," Kay Daly, president of the Coalition
for a Fair Judiciary, said in a statement issued here.
The American Center for Law and Justice had a similar reaction. "The pledge
clearly acknowledges the fact that our freedoms in this country come from
God, not government, and we're hopeful this flawed decision will ultimately
be rejected," said Jay Sekulow, the organization's chief counsel.
The fact of the mater is the original 9th Circuit ruling is the correct
ruling. Absolutely no Judges or ruling handed down since then has honestly
and in detail refuted that ruling, not even the recent 4th Circuit ruling
upholding the pledge in schools
***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 12:16:45 PM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't?
Because there are rules on Pell Grants to prevent it being used for
religious education. Something that is easier because in fact e3ven
religious colleges are able and willing to separate religious courses
from non-religious courses (whereas K12 religious schools are
invariably "pervasively religious").
And because no one has brought suit to challenge them.
Yes, actually, in this case it does. If I go to Notre Dame on a Pell
Grant, I'm an not required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing
religionist of any kind.
If I take my voucher and put my kid in a Catholic School I am not
required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing religionist of any
kind.
But the government money will be supporting a pervasively religious
education, which is inherent in St. Joseph Parochial School but not at
Notre Dame, where I believe it is possible to enroll in and yet never
attend a religious activity.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
22 Sep 2005 07:53:21 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't?
Because there are rules on Pell Grants to prevent it being used for
religious education.
And how is that different from a voucher? Vouchers must be used at
accreditted schools.
Something that is easier because in fact e3ven
religious colleges are able and willing to separate religious courses
from non-religious courses (whereas K12 religious schools are
invariably "pervasively religious").
A broad generalization that you cannot support.
And because no one has brought suit to challenge them.
Suits have been brought against school voucher programs and they have
been found to be constitutional. I guess then, that by your own
criteria, you lost this debate.
JSL
Yes, actually, in this case it does. If I go to Notre Dame on a Pell
Grant, I'm an not required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing
religionist of any kind.
If I take my voucher and put my kid in a Catholic School I am not
required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing religionist of any
kind.
But the government money will be supporting a pervasively religious
education, which is inherent in St. Joseph Parochial School but not at
Notre Dame, where I believe it is possible to enroll in and yet never
attend a religious activity.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 02:30:15 AM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't?
Because there are rules on Pell Grants to prevent it being used for
religious education.
And how is that different from a voucher? Vouchers must be used at
accreditted schools.
Believe it or not, there have been many voucher plans, and not all of
them include such a proviso.
Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools.
Something that is easier because in fact e3ven
religious colleges are able and willing to separate religious courses
from non-religious courses (whereas K12 religious schools are
invariably "pervasively religious").
A broad generalization that you cannot support.
Actually it was stipulated by both sides in the Wisconsin voucher
case, which is why I know about it. Allison has the evidence and has
posted it before.
And because no one has brought suit to challenge them.
Suits have been brought against school voucher programs and they have
been found to be constitutional.
Some particular programs have been found to be constitutional.
I guess then, that by your own criteria, you lost this debate.
No, since I wasn't even in the debate. I just answered one question
that you seem to think significant.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 08:43:22 AM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't?
Because there are rules on Pell Grants to prevent it being used for
religious education.
And how is that different from a voucher? Vouchers must be used at
accreditted schools.
Believe it or not, there have been many voucher plans, and not all of
them include such a proviso.
Please post one. Parents are required in every state that I am aware
of to see that their children attend an accreditted school. No need
to rewrite such provisions into voucher plans.
Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2059
Private schools already comply with essential government regulations.
There is no basis in educational experience or research to suggest
that regulation creates better schools; however, private schools
already provide essential fire and safety protection, observe
compulsory attendance requirements, and cover core mandated subjects
such as history, English, math, and science.
Private schools are accredited by the same agencies that accredit
government schools. Private schools are at least as accountable as
government schools by the government's own measurements of
accountability. According to Charles O' Malley, executive director of
the National Council for Private School Accreditation, approximately
96 percent of all private school students attend schools that are
accredited or evaluated by national, regional, or state private
organizations. The result is that the vast majority of private schools
are able to meet government school accreditation requirements.136 And
in some cases, private schools subject themselves to dual
accreditation through both government and private school agencies.137
Something that is easier because in fact e3ven
religious colleges are able and willing to separate religious courses
from non-religious courses (whereas K12 religious schools are
invariably "pervasively religious").
A broad generalization that you cannot support.
Actually it was stipulated by both sides in the Wisconsin voucher
case, which is why I know about it. Allison has the evidence and has
posted it before.
And because no one has brought suit to challenge them.
Suits have been brought against school voucher programs and they have
been found to be constitutional.
Some particular programs have been found to be constitutional.
I guess then, that by your own criteria, you lost this debate.
No, since I wasn't even in the debate. I just answered one question
that you seem to think significant.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 12:49:53 PM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
Believe it or not, there have been many voucher plans, and not all of
them include such a proviso.
Please post one. Parents are required in every state that I am aware
of to see that their children attend an accreditted school.
Never heard of homeschooling? Such kids do not attend an accredited
school.
Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2059
Non-responsive.
Private schools already comply with essential government regulations.
That does not mean that they are accredited. Do you know what the
word means?
That also says nothing about their quality, as you opponents of the
public schools are quick to point out.
There is no basis in educational experience or research to suggest
that regulation creates better schools;
All depends on how you define "better". To me, part of the definition
of "better" is "regulated", so an unregulated school can't be better
no matter how many geniuses attend it.
however, private schools already provide essential fire and safety protection,
So do restaurants. Can a restaurant accept a school voucher?
observe compulsory attendance requirements,
In most states, the requirement in this regard is to take attendance
every day.
and cover core mandated subjects such as history, English, math, and science.
But of course there are disagreements as to what it means to "cover"
science. A school that teaches creationism in a biology class is not
"covering" science no matter how many parents choose that school.
Private schools are accredited by the same agencies that accredit
government schools.
Those agencies are private agencies, so accreditation doesn't mean
what you want it to mean.
Private schools are at least as accountable as
government schools by the government's own measurements of
accountability.
Patently false. Private schools are NOT required to follow NCLB
rules. They are NOT required to serve as LSA under the IDEA special
education laws. They are NOT required to make their budgets public as
government agencies are. In most states they are NOT required to take
standardized tests, much less report the results to the public. They
are NOT required to accept all students who live within their area of
attendance.
These are part of what "government accountability" means.
According to Charles O' Malley, executive director of
the National Council for Private School Accreditation, approximately
96 percent of all private school students attend schools that are
accredited or evaluated by national, regional, or state private
organizations.
96% is not all. And they are still private organizations doing the
accrediting.
The result is that the vast majority of private schools
are able to meet government school accreditation requirements.
Since accreditation is a private function, that is a meaningless
statement. There are no "government school accreditation
requirements"
And in some cases, private schools subject themselves to dual
accreditation through both government and private school agencies.
Whatever that would mean, I am not sure that it offers anything
significant.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 02:15:46 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
linder.one@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
Believe it or not, there have been many voucher plans, and not all of
them include such a proviso.
Please post one. Parents are required in every state that I am aware
of to see that their children attend an accreditted school.
Never heard of homeschooling? Such kids do not attend an accredited
school.
How many vouchers are available to homeschooled children?
Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2059
Non-responsive.
Non-repsonsive? Did you read what I posted was on the site?
Private schools already comply with essential government regulations.
That does not mean that they are accredited. Do you know what the
word means?
That also says nothing about their quality, as you opponents of the
public schools are quick to point out.
There is no basis in educational experience or research to suggest
that regulation creates better schools;
All depends on how you define "better". To me, part of the definition
of "better" is "regulated", so an unregulated school can't be better
no matter how many geniuses attend it.
however, private schools already provide essential fire and safety protection,
So do restaurants. Can a restaurant accept a school voucher?
observe compulsory attendance requirements,
In most states, the requirement in this regard is to take attendance
every day.
and cover core mandated subjects such as history, English, math, and science.
But of course there are disagreements as to what it means to "cover"
science. A school that teaches creationism in a biology class is not
"covering" science no matter how many parents choose that school.
Private schools are accredited by the same agencies that accredit
government schools.
Those agencies are private agencies, so accreditation doesn't mean
what you want it to mean.
Private schools are at least as accountable as
government schools by the government's own measurements of
accountability.
Patently false. Private schools are NOT required to follow NCLB
rules. They are NOT required to serve as LSA under the IDEA special
education laws. They are NOT required to make their budgets public as
government agencies are. In most states they are NOT required to take
standardized tests, much less report the results to the public. They
are NOT required to accept all students who live within their area of
attendance.
These are part of what "government accountability" means.
According to Charles O' Malley, executive director of
the National Council for Private School Accreditation, approximately
96 percent of all private school students attend schools that are
accredited or evaluated by national, regional, or state private
organizations.
96% is not all. And they are still private organizations doing the
accrediting.
Well...you said:
"Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools." When in fact by your own admission they do.
The result is that the vast majority of private schools
are able to meet government school accreditation requirements.
Since accreditation is a private function, that is a meaningless
statement. There are no "government school accreditation
requirements"
And in some cases, private schools subject themselves to dual
accreditation through both government and private school agencies.
Whatever that would mean, I am not sure that it offers anything
significant.
Of course not.
JSL
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 11:55:47 PM |
|
|
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
(Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
Bob LeChevalier < > wrote:
Believe it or not, there have been many voucher plans, and not all of
them include such a proviso.
Please post one. Parents are required in every state that I am aware
of to see that their children attend an accreditted school.
Never heard of homeschooling? Such kids do not attend an accredited
school.
How many vouchers are available to homeschooled children?
How many vouchers are available to non-homeschooled children?
Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools.
http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=2059
Non-responsive.
Non-repsonsive? Did you read what I posted was on the site?
It provides no evidence on the question of whether government
organizations accredit religious schools. They don't.
According to Charles O' Malley, executive director of
the National Council for Private School Accreditation, approximately
96 percent of all private school students attend schools that are
accredited or evaluated by national, regional, or state private
organizations.
96% is not all. And they are still private organizations doing the
accrediting.
Well...you said:
"Furthermore, government organizations do not accredit religious
schools." When in fact by your own admission they do.
You have yet to identify a government organization that does so.
Private organizations are not government organizations.
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "1904 Dead" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 08:54:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1904 Dead <zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:18:18 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1896 Dead <zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:18:20 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1899 Dead <zepp1899#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:32:23 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1899 Dead" <zepp1899#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3j7ri19krjc7ikgh7pa3vj5n3gnm0g5ggl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:54:46 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'll interrupt here to note that prayers in a school cost Christians
who believe their children should publically pray prayers led by the
state nothing. For the rest of us, there is the cost of having to
find ways to protect our own children from being subjected to
religious propaganda.
This is why I strongly prefer vouchers over incorporating religion into
public schools.
Vouchers subsidize religion.
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't? In
both cases money goes to the individual and the individual chooses
where the money goes.
You're asking the wrong guy, chuckles. Read above, where it says "I
think Pell grants should be abolished, personally." Do you see that?
I think they ARE unconstitutional. I think all religious subsidy of
education should be private sector entirely.
Funny how you free enterprise twits aways bleat about the superiority
of the private sector, but when it comes to propping up religion, you
all want to suck on the public tit.
For the same reason government employees can donate their personal
funds to a church. It doesn't directly violate church and state. I
regarded it as a harmless practice until the religious right started
trying to use it as a camel's nose.
Gee...I guess they should fear you know since you've considered it
harmful?
But there are two significant differences between colleges, and the
poor little kids you want to inflict your jeezus-weezing upon:
Attendence and attention to religious stuff isn't required
And college students are consenting adults.
So? Consent does not alter the constutition does it?
Yes, actually, in this case it does. If I go to Notre Dame on a Pell
Grant, I'm an not required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing
religionist of any kind.
If I take my voucher and put my kid in a Catholic School I am not
required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing religionist of any
kind.
JSL
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeffrey Scott Linder" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 10:10:46 AM |
|
|
1904 Dead <zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1904 Dead <zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:18:18 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1896 Dead <zepp#22111896dead@nospamzeppscommentaries.com> wrote:
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 16:18:20 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
1899 Dead <zepp1899#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote:
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:32:23 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
"1899 Dead" <zepp1899#2211finestplanet.com@> wrote in message
news:3j7ri19krjc7ikgh7pa3vj5n3gnm0g5ggl@4ax.com...
On Sat, 17 Sep 2005 21:54:46 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
I'll interrupt here to note that prayers in a school cost Christians
who believe their children should publically pray prayers led by the
state nothing. For the rest of us, there is the cost of having to
find ways to protect our own children from being subjected to
religious propaganda.
This is why I strongly prefer vouchers over incorporating religion into
public schools.
Vouchers subsidize religion.
Explain PELL grants Zepp and why they can be used a private schools
run by churches.
I think Pell grants should be abolished, personally.
Find and dandy. Now why haven't they been ruled unconstituional?
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't? In
both cases money goes to the individual and the individual chooses
where the money goes.
You're asking the wrong guy, chuckles. Read above, where it says "I
think Pell grants should be abolished, personally." Do you see that?
I think they ARE unconstitutional. I think all religious subsidy of
education should be private sector entirely.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you...which should come as no great
suprise.
Funny how you free enterprise twits aways bleat about the superiority
of the private sector, but when it comes to propping up religion, you
all want to suck on the public tit.
Huh?
For the same reason government employees can donate their personal
funds to a church. It doesn't directly violate church and state. I
regarded it as a harmless practice until the religious right started
trying to use it as a camel's nose.
Gee...I guess they should fear you know since you've considered it
harmful?
But there are two significant differences between colleges, and the
poor little kids you want to inflict your jeezus-weezing upon:
Attendence and attention to religious stuff isn't required
And college students are consenting adults.
So? Consent does not alter the constutition does it?
Yes, actually, in this case it does. If I go to Notre Dame on a Pell
Grant, I'm an not required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing
religionist of any kind.
If I take my voucher and put my kid in a Catholic School I am not
required to be a Catholic, or even a practicing religionist of any
kind.
JSL
"'I’m not meeting with that goddamned *****,' Bush screamed at aides
who suggested he meet with Cindy Sheehan, the war-protesting mother
whose son died in Iraq. 'She can go to hell as far as I’m concerned!'"
--Putsch, a decompensating drunk
"Grover Norquist couldn't drown the government, so he drowned New Orleans instead."
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "MikeSoja" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
22 Sep 2005 06:34:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:54:21 -0700, 1904 Dead
<zepp1904#2211finestplanet.com@> posted:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:34:02 GMT, (Jeffrey Scott
Linder) wrote:
Then how is it vouchers are supporting religion and grants aren't? In
both cases money goes to the individual and the individual chooses
where the money goes.
You're asking the wrong guy, chuckles. Read above, where it says "I
think Pell grants should be abolished, personally." Do you see that?
I think they ARE unconstitutional. I think all religious subsidy of
education should be private sector entirely.
Funny how you free enterprise twits aways bleat about the superiority
of the private sector, but when it comes to propping up religion, you
all want to suck on the public tit.
It's not "suck[ing] on the public tit", you stupid, commie slob, to
give the education dollars stolen from people *back* to those people
to use to opt out of the miserable failure of the U.S. public school
system.
Mike Soja
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
23 Sep 2005 02:26:12 AM |
|
|
MikeSoja <msoja9@newsguy.com> wrote:
It's not "suck[ing] on the public tit", you stupid, commie slob, to
give the education dollars stolen from people *back* to those people
to use to opt out of the miserable failure of the U.S. public school
system.
They weren't "stolen", and they generally wouldn't be going to the
people who paid them.
It's redistribution of wealth, not matter what the purpose is. And if
such redistribution is "stealing", then it is "stealing" in violation
of the Establishment Clause instead of "stealing" to "promote the
General Welfare".
lojbab
--
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
18 Sep 2005 08:21:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:32:23 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Also note that your words "NOT bringing religion into the
school classroom" are misleading. "Not bringing" indicates
passivity, doing nothing. But in reality, the public schools
actively PREVENT organized religion from being brought
in. Actively preventing people from doing something is
definitely a form of manipulation
Your "argument" is merely sophistry without much
cleverness. A court disallowing a state from imprisoning
people for criticizing the government is "actively
PREVENTING" such activity by the state, but the fault
lies with the *real* activist in the matter--the state that
adopted such a patently anti-constitutional measure in
the first place.
In the matter of the pledge case presently before the
courts, the actor who was out of line was the federal
government for passing a law which forcibly inserted
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (and, by
extension, into the orifices of the American public).
Since you keep wanting to make it a purely pocketbook
issue, then you need to explain in what way any specific
relgious doctrine enhances the value of an education.
I've disputed your allegation that "prayer is free" -- it isn't.
What are the benefits to be accrued?
In James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," one of
his objections to the bill under debate was, "Because the
Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent
Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion
as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant
pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers
in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an
unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
Having government take a position on the value of prayer
would be an attempt by the "Civil Magistrate" to judge a
religious truth. True separation of church and state cannot
allow government to do such a thing. Therefore,
government must leave the question of how much value to
put on prayer up to individual families. Any government
policy that confers greater benefits onto families who make
one judgment than onto families who make another would
interfere with that choice and thus violate that freedom.
Whether you realized it or not, you just made a very forcible
argument *against* those who would play games with
religious liberty. The government isn't a competent judge of
religious truth, and has no business employing religion as an
engine of civil policy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 09:38:28 AM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:5g3si1lup5jtq1ms0oq3rkncr6k8u1hisf@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:32:23 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Also note that your words "NOT bringing religion into the
school classroom" are misleading. "Not bringing" indicates
passivity, doing nothing. But in reality, the public schools
actively PREVENT organized religion from being brought
in. Actively preventing people from doing something is
definitely a form of manipulation
Your "argument" is merely sophistry without much
cleverness. A court disallowing a state from imprisoning
people for criticizing the government is "actively
PREVENTING" such activity by the state, but the fault
lies with the *real* activist in the matter--the state that
adopted such a patently anti-constitutional measure in
the first place.
Your analogy completely misses the point. What the courts are doing is not
just saying, "You can't put people in jail for criticizing the government."
It's like the courts saying, "You have to put people in jail if they
criticize people who criticize the government, because criticizing people
who criticize the government might interfere with the freedom of speech of
the people who want to crticize the government." In doing such a thing, the
courrts would go so far in trying to protect people who want to criticize
the government that they end up violating other people's freedom of speech
in the process.
Similarly, what the courts do with the issue of prayer in school, and are
now trying to do with "under God" in the Pledge, is not merely to tell
states that they are not allowed to punish people if they don't have public
prayers or "under God" in the Pledge in a classroom. Rather, they are
saying that states HAVE to punish people if they do have public prayers or
"under God" in the Pledge in classrooms, since the threat of some kind of
punishment is the only way to keep them out if the people involved really
want them in.
In the matter of the pledge case presently before the
courts, the actor who was out of line was the federal
government for passing a law which forcibly inserted
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (and, by
extension, into the orifices of the American public).
I agree that the federal government should not have done so. Any movement
to add "under God" to the Pledge should have used the mechanism of
encouraging citizens to choose to add it themselves rather than passing a
law adding it. But government has no more power to prevent people from
saying "under God" than it does to require them to do so.
In James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance," one of
his objections to the bill under debate was, "Because the
Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent
Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion
as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant
pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers
in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an
unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation."
Having government take a position on the value of prayer
would be an attempt by the "Civil Magistrate" to judge a
religious truth. True separation of church and state cannot
allow government to do such a thing. Therefore,
government must leave the question of how much value to
put on prayer up to individual families. Any government
policy that confers greater benefits onto families who make
one judgment than onto families who make another would
interfere with that choice and thus violate that freedom.
Whether you realized it or not, you just made a very forcible
argument *against* those who would play games with
religious liberty. The government isn't a competent judge of
religious truth, and has no business employing religion as an
engine of civil policy.
Duh. Did it occur to you that maybe I quoted words from Madison supporting
that position because it's my position too? I don't like it when atheists
use government to impose their agenda onto Christians, and I don't like it
when Christians use government to impose their agenda onto atheists. I want
individual citizens to be as free as is practical to make their own choices
without government either telling them what they must do or telling them
what they can't do, and without government making people's religious choices
a factor in determining whether they will be granted or denied benefits.
You, in contrast, are getting so caught up in the "must do" side of the
issue that you completely ignore the "can't do" side.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
25 Sep 2005 08:23:28 AM |
|
|
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
:|Duh. Did it occur to you that maybe I quoted words from Madison supporting
:|that position because it's my position too?
And you are lying
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 07:11:33 AM |
|
|
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:5g3si1lup5jtq1ms0oq3rkncr6k8u1hisf@4ax.com...
On Sun, 18 Sep 2005 18:32:23 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Also note that your words "NOT bringing religion into the
school classroom" are misleading. "Not bringing" indicates
passivity, doing nothing. But in reality, the public schools
actively PREVENT organized religion from being brought
in. Actively preventing people from doing something is
definitely a form of manipulation
Your "argument" is merely sophistry without much
cleverness. A court disallowing a state from imprisoning
people for criticizing the government is "actively
PREVENTING" such activity by the state, but the fault
lies with the *real* activist in the matter--the state that
adopted such a patently anti-constitutional measure in
the first place.
Your analogy completely misses the point. What the courts are doing is not
just saying, "You can't put people in jail for criticizing the government."
It's like the courts saying, "You have to put people in jail if they
criticize people who criticize the government, because criticizing people
who criticize the government might interfere with the freedom of speech of
the people who want to crticize the government." In doing such a thing, the
courrts would go so far in trying to protect people who want to criticize
the government that they end up violating other people's freedom of speech
in the process.
Similarly, what the courts do with the issue of prayer in school, and are
now trying to do with "under God" in the Pledge, is not merely to tell
states that they are not allowed to punish people if they don't have public
prayers or "under God" in the Pledge in a classroom. Rather, they are
saying that states HAVE to punish people if they do have public prayers or
"under God" in the Pledge in classrooms, since the threat of some kind of
punishment is the only way to keep them out if the people involved really
want them in.
The issue in the case of the Pledge is that govenment employees are
required to lead chants of "one nation under god" as part of there
official
duties. Over 100 billion such chants have been led by government
employees
paid with our taxes. If we tried to not pay our taxes to support this
established religion of the USA, we would be fined. If we tried real
hard to avoid the fines, we would be imprisoned.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
19 Sep 2005 08:50:59 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:38:28 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Also note that your words "NOT bringing religion into the
school classroom" are misleading. "Not bringing" indicates
passivity, doing nothing. But in reality, the public schools
actively PREVENT organized religion from being brought
in. Actively preventing people from doing something is
definitely a form of manipulation
Your "argument" is merely sophistry without much
cleverness. A court disallowing a state from imprisoning
people for criticizing the government is "actively
PREVENTING" such activity by the state, but the fault
lies with the *real* activist in the matter--the state that
adopted such a patently anti-constitutional measure in
the first place.
Your analogy completely misses the point.
No, it was demonstrating your own lack of one in this matter.
What the courts are doing is not just saying, "You can't put
people in jail for criticizing the government." It's like the
courts saying, "You have to put people in jail if they criticize
people who criticize the government, because criticizing
people who criticize the government might interfere with the
freedom of speech of the people who want to crticize the
government."
No, they aren't, because the entity engaging in the
constitutionally odious practice is the government, not
private citizens. Criticize the government, it's free speech.
Criticize someone for critcizing the government, it's free
speech. The government prosecuting those which
criticize it: Not free speech.
In doing such a thing, the courrts would go so far in trying
to protect people who want to criticize the government that
they end up violating other people's freedom of speech
in the process.
Only if one believes government has a valid "free speech"
right that includes the ability to enforce religious notions on
the public. It doesn't. You're wrong.
Similarly, what the courts do with the issue of prayer in
school, and are now trying to do with "under God" in the
Pledge, is not merely to tell states that they are not
allowed to punish people if they don't have public
prayers or "under God" in the Pledge in a classroom.
(The pledge case regards a federal law.)
Rather, they are saying that states HAVE to punish
people if they do have public prayers or "under God" in
the Pledge in classrooms, since the threat of some kind
of punishment is the only way to keep them out if the
people involved really want them in.
As I said before--and it will remain true, no matter how long
you ignore it--religious liberty does NOT mean Protestant
Christianity gets special privileges from the government,
but everyone else is free not to partake in the exercise of
those privileges. That was a policy known as toleration,
and it was explicitly rejected in the United States over 200
yeas ago. Religious liberty means no one gets special
privileges, and denying the special privileges is not
"oppression" in any meaningful sense of the concept.
Those who are "punished" by government neutrality on
religion are "punished" in exactly the same way as those
who are denied the ability to empower government to put
dissenters from government in prison. They're free to try to
change the Constitution or they're free to ***** off.
In the matter of the pledge case presently before the
courts, the actor who was out of line was the federal
government for passing a law which forcibly inserted
"under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance (and, by
extension, into the orifices of the American public).
I agree that the federal government should not have
done so. Any movement to add "under God" to the
Pledge should have used the mechanism of
encouraging citizens to choose to add it themselves
rather than passing a law adding it.
You miss the entire point of the exercise. The whole
point was to write it into the law, and put an official
stamp on it. That's what its proponents wanted, that's
what the congress that passed it into law wanted, and
what the president who signed it wanted.
But government has no more power to prevent people
from saying "under God" than it does to require them
to do so.
Government doesn't prevent people from saying the
pledge; it is simply barred from passing laws requiring
the addition of "under God."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
20 Sep 2005 02:18:42 AM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:2ipui1tkgsfg39s1l8rjf918vjl7kebdbh@4ax.com...
On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 09:38:28 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
What the courts are doing is not just saying, "You can't put
people in jail for criticizing the government." It's like the
courts saying, "You have to put people in jail if they criticize
people who criticize the government, because criticizing
people who criticize the government might interfere with the
freedom of speech of the people who want to crticize the
government."
No, they aren't, because the entity engaging in the
constitutionally odious practice is the government, not
private citizens. Criticize the government, it's free speech.
Criticize someone for critcizing the government, it's free
speech. The government prosecuting those which
criticize it: Not free speech.
And of course you ignore the fact that children voluntarily choosing on
their own initiative (or perhaps based on a parent's initiative) to engage
in a religious activity in a public school classroom is the free exercise of
religion by citizens acting as individuals, not an act by government.
When I was a child, we had a pretty effective rule for ensuring that the
last piece of something like pie or cake would be divided fairly between my
brother and me. One of us would cut it in half, and the other would get to
choose which piece he wanted.
If it were conservative Christians seeking to deny others any choice but the
public schools, and conservative Christians wanting to exercise religion in
public schools in a way that would push religion onto others, that would
constitute evidence that they are using government power to push their
religion onto others.
But when it is atheists and secularists who oppose choice, and atheists and
secularists at the same time seek to use the fact that public schools mix
children of all religions together as an excuse to restrict religious
activities in public schools, that makes it pretty clear that it is the
atheists and secularists, not conservative Christians (or at the very least
certainly not only conservative Christians), who are making the deliberate
effort to interfere in religious aspects of the lives of other people's
children.
Rather, they are saying that states HAVE to punish
people if they do have public prayers or "under God" in
the Pledge in classrooms, since the threat of some kind
of punishment is the only way to keep them out if the
people involved really want them in.
As I said before--and it will remain true, no matter how long
you ignore it--religious liberty does NOT mean Protestant
Christianity gets special privileges from the government,
Nor does it give atheists and secularists power to deliberately prevent
Protestant Christian children from exercising religion ways that would
CLEARLY be possible in the same porrtions of the children's lives if
government were not involved in education. If you don't want Protestant
Christian children's free exercise of religion to have a side effect of
pushing religion onto others, the solution is simple. Support choice so
others won't have to be in the same classrooms when Protestant Christians
(or any other group) exercise their religion.
But no, that's not what you want. You want to use government power to push
children of all religions together in the same classrooms and then use the
fact that government pushed them together as an excuse to restrict
Protestant Christian children's religious freedom.
I agree that the federal government should not have
done so. Any movement to add "under God" to the
Pledge should have used the mechanism of
encouraging citizens to choose to add it themselves
rather than passing a law adding it.
You miss the entire point of the exercise. The whole
point was to write it into the law, and put an official
stamp on it. That's what its proponents wanted, that's
what the congress that passed it into law wanted, and
what the president who signed it wanted.
And that's what I think was improper. If changing the Pledge was to be done
at all, it should have been done in a way that did not put government's
official stamp on the change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 12:28:33 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
What the courts are doing is not just saying, "You
can't put people in jail for criticizing the
government." It's like the courts saying, "You have
to put people in jail if they criticize people who
criticize the government, because criticizing people
who criticize the government might interfere with the
freedom of speech of the people who want to crticize
the government."
No, they aren't, because the entity engaging in the
constitutionally odious practice is the government,
not private citizens. Criticize the government, it's
free speech. Criticize someone for critcizing the
government, it's free speech. The government
prosecuting those which criticize it: Not free
speech.
And of course you ignore the fact that children
voluntarily choosing on their own initiative (or
perhaps based on a parent's initiative) to engage
in a religious activity in a public school classroom
is the free exercise of religion by citizens acting
as individuals, not an act by government.
If they act as individuals (and with the usual caveat about it being
non-disruptive), there's no issue, and no court or law in the history
of the United States has ever even suggested otherwise. Public
schools, however, are government institutions, and an inherently
coercive environment. Making organized religious activity a matter of
policy there is entirely inappropriate, and constitutionally
offensive.
If it were conservative Christians seeking to deny
others any choice but the public schools,
Neither conservative Christians nor liberal Christians nor
non-religious conservatives or liberals have ever denied anyone any
other choice--you're free to send your children to whatever school you
want, and I should add that this is becoming a very tiresome canard
you continue to float. You aren't asking for "choice." You already
have that. You're asking for money.
and conservative Christians wanting to exercise
religion in public schools in a way that would push
religion onto others, that would constitute evidence
that they are using government power to push their
religion onto others.
With the already-refuted lie above snipped, what you describe here is
exactly what is happening, and has been happening for a very long
time. There is a reactionary right-wing element in the United States
which despises the notion of religious liberty, and tries to undermine
it at every opportunity.
But when it is atheists and secularists who oppose
choice,
Translation: Money
and atheists and secularists at the same time seek to
use the fact that public schools mix children of all
religions together as an excuse to restrict religious
activities in public schools,
The fact that we're dealing, in public schools, with a government
institution featuring a coercive environment for children who are of
so many different religious backgrounds is, in fact, one of the
strongest arguments for government being kept out of the business of
religious activity. That isn't some trick by "atheists and
secularists"; it's just common sense. That's why it was written into
the Constitution. It's not made any less reasonable a proposition by
your determination to insist that government has some sort of "right"
to religious activities. It doesn't. Your word games are meaningless.
that makes it pretty clear that it is the atheists and
secularists, not conservative Christians (or at the very
least certainly not only conservative Christians), who
are making the deliberate effort to interfere in
religious aspects of the lives of other people's
children.
Government doesn't have a "right" to religious activities. Not on
behalf of some majority. Not on behalf of anyone. No one is being
"oppressed" by a policy of neutrality, and no amount of huffing and
puffing is ever going to blow a spark into that particular
intellectual vacuum.
But no, that's not what you want. You want to use
government power to push children of all religions
together in the same classrooms and then use the
fact that government pushed them together as an
excuse to restrict Protestant Christian children's
religious freedom.
The coming together of diverse religious traditions is a necessary
side-effect of a public school system. If you think I or anyone else
advocates a public school system only because we get some sort of
jollies out of using it to deny to someone religious freedom, you're
as dumb as a box of rocks.
I agree that the federal government should not have
done so. Any movement to add "under God" to the
Pledge should have used the mechanism of
encouraging citizens to choose to add it themselves
rather than passing a law adding it.
You miss the entire point of the exercise. The whole
point was to write it into the law, and put an official
stamp on it. That's what its proponents wanted, that's
what the congress that passed it into law wanted, and
what the president who signed it wanted.
And that's what I think was improper. If changing the
Pledge was to be done at all, it should have been done
in a way that did not put government's official stamp
on the change.
But they did, and you're still missing that point. The official stamp
is what they want, and all they want. It's what they want when they
react so furiously to things like the pledge ruling, to Engel v.
Vitale, and to every ruling on this subject between the two. Their
entire point is to use government to forcibly insert their religious
dogma into the orifices of America. They despise religious liberty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 05:39:41 AM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:rqr1j1hbvbf6betg9rdq2n7mpvi2cslsdc@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 02:18:42 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
If it were conservative Christians seeking to deny
others any choice but the public schools,
Neither conservative Christians nor liberal Christians nor
non-religious conservatives or liberals have ever denied anyone any
other choice--you're free to send your children to whatever school you
want, and I should add that this is becoming a very tiresome canard
you continue to float. You aren't asking for "choice." You already
have that. You're asking for money.
Earlier, you did not regard the fact that Catholics were free to choose
private schools at their own expense instead of having prayers that left out
the words "for ever and ever" as sufficient to protect their freedom. And I
could argue that if people don't want "under God" in the Pledge, they are
free to choose private schools that don't say the Pledge or that exclude
those words from it, but I'm sure you wouldn't view that freedom to choose
as sufficient to protect their rights either. How is it that freedom to
choose at enormous private expense is not sufficint to protect religious
freedom when rights you care about are at stake, yet you view it as just
fine when rights other people care about every bit as much or perhaps even
more are at stake?
All I'm asking for is that the cost difference between comparable religious
and nonreligious schools to be the same as it would be if government were
not involved so that families can make religious choices on essentially the
same basis that they would if government were not involved. Is that really
so hard to understand? Why should one family have to pay thousands of
dollars more to make the choice their consciences tell them is best than
another family has to pay for the choice their consciences say is best when
the cost difference would be zero if government were not interfering in the
situation? How is that kind of artificial disparity in benefits anything
but grossly unfair, or anything but damaging to freedom?
The reality is that for most American families, the choice you talk about is
purely theoretical. For the poorest, unless some charitable group offers to
pay for a private school, sending their children to public schools is the
only way they can avoid violating compulsory education laws. For the
slightly less poor, unless they can get a heavy subsidy from a church or
other group, the choice is either public schools or horribly underfunded
private schools with teachers who are probably totally unqualified by
conventional standards (and may be totally unqualified, period). Even for
the middle class, artificial cost differences created by inequities in
government funding require significant sacrifices if families want to
choose.
and conservative Christians wanting to exercise
religion in public schools in a way that would push
religion onto others, that would constitute evidence
that they are using government power to push their
religion onto others.
With the already-refuted lie above snipped, what you describe here is
exactly what is happening, and has been happening for a very long
time. There is a reactionary right-wing element in the United States
which despises the notion of religious liberty, and tries to undermine
it at every opportunity.
There are extremists on both sides. I've debated people who would love to
completely outlaw religion in children's schools, even private schools, if
they had the power to do so. But the mainstream on the conservative
religious side would be content with vouchers that would let us get what we
want for our (in my case future) children without having to push our
religion onto others who don't want it.
But when it is atheists and secularists who oppose
choice,
Translation: Money
Translation: you want to use money to manipulate other people's choices.
and atheists and secularists at the same time seek to
use the fact that public schools mix children of all
religions together as an excuse to restrict religious
activities in public schools,
The fact that we're dealing, in public schools, with a government
institution featuring a coercive environment for children who are of
so many different religious backgrounds is, in fact, one of the
strongest arguments for government being kept out of the business of
religious activity.
But when the same people using that argument are the ones insisting that
government money be used to pull children into that coercive environment in
the first place, your argument falls apart. You want government to create a
problem, and then you want to use limitations on other people's free
exercise of religion to solve the problem. The fact that you want to create
the problem discredits you from having any legitimate right to impose your
solution onto others at the expense of their freedom. If government funded
children's education on an equitable basis without regard to religious
considerations, there would be no need to put children in such a coercive
environment if families prefer not to.
that makes it pretty clear that it is the atheists and
secularists, not conservative Christians (or at the very
least certainly not only conservative Christians), who
are making the deliberate effort to interfere in
religious aspects of the lives of other people's
children.
Government doesn't have a "right" to religious activities. Not on
behalf of some majority. Not on behalf of anyone. No one is being
"oppressed" by a policy of neutrality, and no amount of huffing and
puffing is ever going to blow a spark into that particular
intellectual vacuum.
Taxing religious families and using their money to bribe families to choose
schools that exclude religion over religious schools is NOT a neutral act.
It is an act that deliberately favors religious, atheistic, and agnostic
groups and factions that like public schools over religious groups and
factions that prefer religious schools. The fact that the schools
themselves are neutral - even if our society had agreement that they truly
are, which we clearly do not - would not make the act of using tax money to
bribe families in such a fashion a neutral act.
A voucher policy is a truly neutral policy because it taxes everyone and
pays for everyone's choices without regard to religious considerations. It
thus makes no effort to manipulate anyone's religious choices or to give any
group greater benefits than any other group as a result of their religious
decisions.
But no, that's not what you want. You want to use
government power to push children of all religions
together in the same classrooms and then use the
fact that government pushed them together as an
excuse to restrict Protestant Christian children's
religious freedom.
The coming together of diverse religious traditions is a necessary
side-effect of a public school system. If you think I or anyone else
advocates a public school system only because we get some sort of
jollies out of using it to deny to someone religious freedom, you're
as dumb as a box of rocks.
I know beyond all doubt that there are people who like the idea of using the
public system as an excuse to keep children out of religious schools. The
fact that you are on the same side as they are, and are cavalierly
dismissing any possible relevance for religious people's concerns just as
they do, makes your motives highly suspect. Whether or not you "get some
sort of jollies" out of denying other people religious freedom, you show
every siign of being perfectly happy to sacrifice other people's religious
freedom in the interest of furthering your goals.
And that's what I think was improper. If changing the
Pledge was to be done at all, it should have been done
in a way that did not put government's official stamp
on the change.
But they did, and you're still missing that point. The official stamp
is what they want, and all they want. It's what they want when they
react so furiously to things like the pledge ruling, to Engel v.
Vitale, and to every ruling on this subject between the two. Their
entire point is to use government to forcibly insert their religious
dogma into the orifices of America. They despise religious liberty.
You're missing the point. As you clearly recognize, public schools are a
coercive environment. Further, government uses its powers of taxation and
spending to coerce families into sending their children to public schools
instead of any other kind of schools. Thus, what cases like Engel and the
Pledge case do is not merely protect people who don't want something in
their children's schools, but is also to coerce religious families into NOT
having those things in their children's schools. Religious minorities are
not acting purely to protect their own interests, but also, at least in the
actual effects of their actions, to interfere in the religious lives of the
majority. That is especially true when the same groups that want to kick
organized religion out of the public schools also oppose vouchers that would
allow the majority to protect its religious freedom without forcing religion
onto the minority. That kind of refusal to compromise completely destroys
their credibility as being truly concerned with everyone's religious
freedom. Thus, opposition to such rulings comes not just from Christians
who want to use government power to force their religion onto others, but
also from a lot of us whose only concern is protecting our own religious
freedom and that of other families whose priorities are similar to ours.
I recognize that you have a hard time understanding how people can view the
freedoms involved as being so important. But take a look at how much money
some Christians are willing to pay to send their children to religious
schools and I don't see how you can doubt that there are significant numbers
of Christians who honestly and sincerely regard having religion play an
organized role in their own children's schools as important completely
independent of any desire to push their religion onto other people's
children.
.
|
|
|
| User: "classicliberal2" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
21 Sep 2005 09:30:22 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:39:41 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
If it were conservative Christians seeking to deny
others any choice but the public schools,
Neither conservative Christians nor liberal Christians nor
non-religious conservatives or liberals have ever denied
anyone any other choice--you're free to send your
children to whatever school you want, and I should add
that this is becoming a very tiresome canard you
continue to float. You aren't asking for "choice." You
already have that. You're asking for money.
Earlier, you did not regard the fact that Catholics were
free to choose private schools at their own expense
instead of having prayers that left out the words "for
ever and ever" as sufficient to protect their freedom.
No, I said that was a good example of why religion and
government should NOT be mixed in the schools. And it
is.
And I could argue that if people don't want "under God"
in the Pledge, they are free to choose private schools
that don't say the Pledge or that exclude those words
from it, but I'm sure you wouldn't view that freedom to
choose as sufficient to protect their rights either.
The government isn't allowed to involve itself in religious
matters. Allowing it to do so in violation of the Constitution
while telling everyone who doesn't like it to ***** off is *not*
an acceptable alternative. You could argue otherwise. In
fact, the reactionary freaks who create these controversies
by their constant agitation for government endorsement of
their religion have argued exactly the same thing as you've
outlined above. It's an argument for a regime of toleration,
as opposed to one of religious liberty. A toleration regime
endorses the majority religion, and the religious freedom of
dissenters is condescendingly allowed as a gift of that
majority. The U.S., however, favors and adopted a regime
of religious liberty, which holds that religion is a private
matter that is rightfully placed beyond the scope of
government power, and, as a consequence, maintains a
strict neutrality on religion. You can argue for chucking
this in favor of mere toleration, but, in turning your back on
such a fundamental American principle (essentially ripping
up all the ideas of the Declaration of Independence),
you're looking at an uphill battle.
But when it is atheists and secularists who oppose
choice,
Translation: Money
Translation: you want to use money to manipulate other
people's choices.
and atheists and secularists at the same time seek
to use the fact that public schools mix children of all
religions together as an excuse to restrict religious
activities in public schools,
The fact that we're dealing, in public schools, with a
government institution featuring a coercive
environment for children who are of so many different
religious backgrounds is, in fact, one of the strongest
arguments for government being kept out of the
business of religious activity.
But when the same people using that argument are the
ones insisting that government money be used to pull
children into that coercive environment in the first place,
your argument falls apart.
My argument is as solid as a rock, because NO ONE
advocates public education as a means of violating
someone else's religious freedom. The arguments in
favor of public education have gone on for over two
centuries, and that has never been a feature of it.
You want government to create a problem, and then
you want to use limitations on other people's free
exercise of religion to solve the problem.
The only people who see it as a "problem" are a
handful of marginal fruit-loops who would be happy
with nothing less than theocratic rule, and the people
they've duped. You're so lost in your own ideology that
you aren't seeing very obvious things, here.
But no, that's not what you want. You want to use
government power to push children of all religions
together in the same classrooms and then use the
fact that government pushed them together as an
excuse to restrict Protestant Christian children's
religious freedom.
The coming together of diverse religious traditions
is a necessary side-effect of a public school system.
If you think I or anyone else advocates a public
school system only because we get some sort of
jollies out of using it to deny to someone religious
freedom, you're as dumb as a box of rocks.
I know beyond all doubt that there are people who
like the idea of using the public system as an excuse
to keep children out of religious schools.
Whatever.
The fact that you are on the same side as they
are, and are cavalierly dismissing any possible
relevance for religious people's concerns just as
they do, makes your motives highly suspect.
You don't have to "suspect" me; I'll confess my
complicity right up front: I'm in with the Jews, the
Freemasons, and the Trilateral Commission. My posts
here and elsewhere are just a part of the regular
propaganda in which our conspiracy engages. I'm
merely a low-level agent, so the unveiling of my
identity in this manner is of no real concern to my
superiors. No one here will believe I'm telling the
truth. That's the real secret of my power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nathan A. Barclay" |
|
| Title: Re: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, PLEDGE |
22 Sep 2005 01:45:15 PM |
|
|
"classicliberal2" <classicliberal2@operamail.com> wrote in message
news:qv34j1dj34cr8ku5bi2nt90tbgoc01cb5i@4ax.com...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 05:39:41 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
<nbarclay@hiwaay.net> wrote:
And I could argue that if people don't want "under God"
in the Pledge, they are free to choose private schools
that don't say the Pledge or that exclude those words
from it, but I'm sure you wouldn't view that freedom to
choose as sufficient to protect their rights either.
The government isn't allowed to involve itself in religious
matters. Allowing it to do so in violation of the Constitution
while telling everyone who doesn't like it to ***** off is *not*
an acceptable alternative.
The problem is, when government says, "You can't practice religion the way
you want to in this large part of your life unless you pay thousands of
dollars extra to choose something different that is no more expensive to
produce," government IS involving itself in religious matters. It is no
longer families that decide what is best for their children's lives
regarding religious matters duriing school hours, but instead is
government - except in the cases of the small percentage of families who
value their freedom so much that they are willing to pay thousands of
dollars a year extra or give up a comparable value in time in order to keep
their freedom.
You don't regard the freedom that is harmed as important. Purely from a
personal perspective, that is your prerogative. But when it is clear that
other families regard the freedom as so important that they are willing to
make major sacrifices, if government takes your position, the result is to
establish your religious views (or views regarding religion) and those of
other people who dismiss the types of religious freedom involved as
irrelevant in a very heavily favored position at the expense of religious
groups, factions, and families that regard the types of religious freedom
involved as important. You want government to side with your view regarding
how unimportant having religion play an organized role in children's lives
during school hours is, and against the views of families who indisputably
regard it as far, far more important.
<snuip>
The U.S., however, favors and adopted a regime
of religious liberty, which holds that religion is a private
matter that is rightfully placed beyond the scope of
government power,
When government dictates what roles religion can and cannot play in
children's lives during school hours unless families give up benefits worth
thousands of dollars per year per child, religion is very much within the
scope of government's power.
and, as a consequence, maintains a
strict neutrality on religion.
There is nothing neutral about using government power to create an
artificial cost difference of thousands of dollars per year per child
between educating children in an environment where organized religion is
deliberately excluded and educating them in an environment where religion
plays a significantly larger role. Such use of govern | | | | | | | | |
