| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
01 Aug 2003 06:48:25 AM |
| Object: |
9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
Isn't it interesting how much static people gave the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals over the "under God," Newdow v. U S Congress decisions.
How they pointed out how liberal said court was how out of touch with the
times, the court was, how often that got reversed. etc. Yet did we hear a
peep about the following Ruling?
***********************************************************
Church-State, A Membership publication of Americans United For Separation
of Church and State, July August 2003
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
Vouchers Reloaded
Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
Church-State Law In America
by Rob Boston
College freshman Joshua Davey decided in 1999 that he wanted to study for
the ministry and become a pastoral counselor – and that Washington state
taxpayers should help him meet that religious goal.
State officials had other ideas. Although they initially approved a $1,125
“Promise Scholarship” for Davey, staffers at Washington’s Higher Education
Coordinating Board rescinded it when they learned that the young man
planned to become a minister.
In a letter to Northwest College, the Assemblies of God-run institution
near Seattle where Davey had enrolled, Board officials cited provisions in
the Washington Constitution that bar any diversion of tax funds for
religion.
“[T]he State Constitution is clear regarding the separation of church and
state,” John Klaeik, the Board’s associate director wrote. “We have
consistently interpreted this constitutional provision as prohibiting state
financial aid funds for students who are pursuing a degree in theology.”
TV preacher Pat Robertson’s legal group, the American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ), immediately sensed an opportunity. The facts were very
sympathetic: Davey, a young man from a family of modest means, had
qualified for the scholarship because of academic achievement and hard
work. Now, mean-spirited bureaucrats were trying to take it away.
That was the ACLJ’s media spin. The reality is somewhat more complex. Like
many states, Washington has a provision in its constitution barring direct
tax support for religious purposes. Religious Right groups would like to
see these provisions made null and void and open the floodgates to numerous
forms of government support for religion, not just scholarship aid for
needy students. They see Davey’s case as their best shot.
The Religious Right is already well on the way to achieving its goal. In
July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Davey’s
favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is a violation
of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. Washington state
officials appealed, and in May, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would
hear the case.
Davey v. Locke has the potential to dramatically reshape the relationship
between church and state in America. In June of 2002, the high court ruled
vouchers for private religious schools constitutional, holding that states
may choose to offer this type of assistance to religious education if they
want to. The decision in the Davey case would build on that ruling and
greatly expand government funding of religious education in America.
[Click on URL above to read rest of the article]
.
|
|
| User: "Dana" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
01 Aug 2003 07:24:14 PM |
|
|
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ipkkiv4fcpjoft9fj2eai8nlpormfh07ie@4ax.com...
In July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in
Davey's favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is >
a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination.
Well no *****, that is what we have been telling you secular humanists, you
cannot be bigots and discriminate against the religious.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
01 Aug 2003 07:49:41 PM |
|
|
Funding this guy studying collegiate superstition is as much an insult to
taxpayers as requiring them to furnish Dana with a fat woman to sit on his
face and defecate on him.
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message
news:vim0rjrrq91a93@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ipkkiv4fcpjoft9fj2eai8nlpormfh07ie@4ax.com...
In July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in
Davey's favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is
a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination.
Well no *****, that is what we have been telling you secular humanists, you
cannot be bigots and discriminate against the religious.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
01 Aug 2003 10:03:34 PM |
|
|
"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> writes:
Funding this guy studying collegiate superstition is as much an insult to
taxpayers as requiring them to furnish Dana with a fat woman to sit on his
face and defecate on him.
No, I'd pay to see that.
-- merlyn
"Dana" <yourname@example.com> wrote in message
news:vim0rjrrq91a93@corp.supernews.com...
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ipkkiv4fcpjoft9fj2eai8nlpormfh07ie@4ax.com...
In July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in
Davey's favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is
a violation of religious freedom and a form of discrimination.
Well no *****, that is what we have been telling you secular humanists, you
cannot be bigots and discriminate against the religious.
--
"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our
rights, and the rights of man."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd President of the United States
(1801-1809)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
01 Aug 2003 10:56:10 PM |
|
|
On 2 Aug 2003, Brian Westley wrote:
"Larry Smith" <dbrigman3@charter.net> writes:
Funding this guy studying collegiate superstition is as much an insult to
taxpayers as requiring them to furnish Dana with a fat woman to sit on his
face and defecate on him.
No, I'd pay to see that.
Me, too. But not out of my taxes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
07 Aug 2003 12:55:27 PM |
|
|
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:ipkkiv4fcpjoft9fj2eai8nlpormfh07ie@4ax.com...
Isn't it interesting how much static people gave the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals over the "under God," Newdow v. U S Congress decisions.
How they pointed out how liberal said court was how out of touch with the
times, the court was, how often that got reversed. etc. Yet did we hear
a
peep about the following Ruling?
***********************************************************
Church-State, A Membership publication of Americans United For Separation
of Church and State, July August 2003
http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
Vouchers Reloaded
Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
Church-State Law In America
by Rob Boston
College freshman Joshua Davey decided in 1999 that he wanted to study for
the ministry and become a pastoral counselor - and that Washington state
taxpayers should help him meet that religious goal.
State officials had other ideas. Although they initially approved a $1,125
"Promise Scholarship" for Davey, staffers at Washington's Higher Education
Coordinating Board rescinded it when they learned that the young man
planned to become a minister.
In a letter to Northwest College, the Assemblies of God-run institution
near Seattle where Davey had enrolled, Board officials cited provisions in
the Washington Constitution that bar any diversion of tax funds for
religion.
"[T]he State Constitution is clear regarding the separation of church and
state," John Klaeik, the Board's associate director wrote. "We have
consistently interpreted this constitutional provision as prohibiting
state
financial aid funds for students who are pursuing a degree in theology."
TV preacher Pat Robertson's legal group, the American Center for Law and
Justice (ACLJ), immediately sensed an opportunity. The facts were very
sympathetic: Davey, a young man from a family of modest means, had
qualified for the scholarship because of academic achievement and hard
work. Now, mean-spirited bureaucrats were trying to take it away.
That was the ACLJ's media spin. The reality is somewhat more complex. Like
many states, Washington has a provision in its constitution barring direct
tax support for religious purposes. Religious Right groups would like to
see these provisions made null and void and open the floodgates to
numerous
forms of government support for religion, not just scholarship aid for
needy students. They see Davey's case as their best shot.
The Religious Right is already well on the way to achieving its goal. In
July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Davey's
favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is a violation
of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. Washington state
officials appealed, and in May, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would
hear the case.
Davey v. Locke has the potential to dramatically reshape the relationship
between church and state in America. In June of 2002, the high court ruled
vouchers for private religious schools constitutional, holding that states
may choose to offer this type of assistance to religious education if they
want to. The decision in the Davey case would build on that ruling and
greatly expand government funding of religious education in America.
[Click on URL above to read rest of the article]
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
07 Aug 2003 04:07:01 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:1u75jvc773qaaq7r543jtgfdg48i087cvr@4ax.com...
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Of course we can, and we do. Likewise the amount is dependent on
where we go. I had a National Merit Scholarship in college, and the
amount was set at $1500/yr which was the maximum at the time, based on
where I wanted to go. I ended up going to Michigan State University,
which was a cheaper college, and my scholarship was reduced due to my
family's reduced need, to $550/yr. No politics, no religion, no
actual opinion on the college by the sponsor was involved in this, but
the bottom line was that the amount of the scholarship was based on
the school I chose.
But, your qualification for the scholarship was not dependant upon where you
went, only the amount of the scholarship was. The point of a scholarship is
to put your through school, not line your pockets with gold. If you wanted a
$2500 per year school, they would provide $1500, and you gave the rest. If
you want a $1500 school, they give you $750 and you provide the rest.
Getting the scholarship is not dependent upon the school of choice, only the
amount of the scholarship is. This is not the issue here.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
08 Aug 2003 08:43:43 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
:|use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
:|scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Jeffy, as often as you have bad mouthed the 9th Circuit in the Newdow
rulings, why so silent on this ruling?
Do you employ a double standard?
:|<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
:|news:ipkkiv4fcpjoft9fj2eai8nlpormfh07ie@4ax.com...
:|> Isn't it interesting how much static people gave the 9th Circuit Court of
:|> Appeals over the "under God," Newdow v. U S Congress decisions.
:|>
:|> How they pointed out how liberal said court was how out of touch with the
:|> times, the court was, how often that got reversed. etc. Yet did we hear
:|a
:|> peep about the following Ruling?
:|>
:|>
:|> ***********************************************************
:|> Church-State, A Membership publication of Americans United For Separation
:|> of Church and State, July August 2003
:|> http://www.au.org/churchstate/03-07-feature1.htm
:|>
:|> Vouchers Reloaded
:|> Washington State Scholarship Case At Supreme Court Could Rewrite
:|> Church-State Law In America
:|>
:|> by Rob Boston
:|>
:|> College freshman Joshua Davey decided in 1999 that he wanted to study for
:|> the ministry and become a pastoral counselor - and that Washington state
:|> taxpayers should help him meet that religious goal.
:|>
:|> State officials had other ideas. Although they initially approved a $1,125
:|> "Promise Scholarship" for Davey, staffers at Washington's Higher Education
:|> Coordinating Board rescinded it when they learned that the young man
:|> planned to become a minister.
:|>
:|> In a letter to Northwest College, the Assemblies of God-run institution
:|> near Seattle where Davey had enrolled, Board officials cited provisions in
:|> the Washington Constitution that bar any diversion of tax funds for
:|> religion.
:|>
:|> "[T]he State Constitution is clear regarding the separation of church and
:|> state," John Klaeik, the Board's associate director wrote. "We have
:|> consistently interpreted this constitutional provision as prohibiting
:|state
:|> financial aid funds for students who are pursuing a degree in theology."
:|>
:|> TV preacher Pat Robertson's legal group, the American Center for Law and
:|> Justice (ACLJ), immediately sensed an opportunity. The facts were very
:|> sympathetic: Davey, a young man from a family of modest means, had
:|> qualified for the scholarship because of academic achievement and hard
:|> work. Now, mean-spirited bureaucrats were trying to take it away.
:|>
:|> That was the ACLJ's media spin. The reality is somewhat more complex. Like
:|> many states, Washington has a provision in its constitution barring direct
:|> tax support for religious purposes. Religious Right groups would like to
:|> see these provisions made null and void and open the floodgates to
:|numerous
:|> forms of government support for religion, not just scholarship aid for
:|> needy students. They see Davey's case as their best shot.
:|>
:|> The Religious Right is already well on the way to achieving its goal. In
:|> July of 2002, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Davey's
:|> favor. Denying him the scholarship aid, the court declared, is a violation
:|> of religious freedom and a form of discrimination. Washington state
:|> officials appealed, and in May, the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would
:|> hear the case.
:|>
:|> Davey v. Locke has the potential to dramatically reshape the relationship
:|> between church and state in America. In June of 2002, the high court ruled
:|> vouchers for private religious schools constitutional, holding that states
:|> may choose to offer this type of assistance to religious education if they
:|> want to. The decision in the Davey case would build on that ruling and
:|> greatly expand government funding of religious education in America.
:|> [Click on URL above to read rest of the article]
:|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
08 Aug 2003 09:17:17 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|The qualification
:|for the scholarship must not be religion based because that would violate
:|the Constitution, but likewise limiting the use of the scholarship that is
:|otherwise granted is also a potential violation of the Constitution.
The grand Chief Justice of that court above the USSC, Jeffy Strickland, has
just ruled that all those aid for tuition to private religious school cases
from 1971 to present that were ruled unconstitutional because the
particular case violated the Lemon Test or some other test that was applied
at that time., i.e. money going to private religious schools of the k-12
variety, usually, but even schools of higher learning had limitations,
restrictions etc, i.e. not to be used for religious education, etc.
Funny that court just below Jeffy's court, that famous or infamous USSC,
didn't understand that all of those years.
Despite Rehnquist and his cohorts, the taxing of citizens to support
religion, their own religion or any other religion was one of the evils the
founders of this nation wanted to put a stop to.
The meant religion as in religious institutions, or the teaching of
religion in general or a specific religion, the spreading of religion,
etc.
That included the support of teachers of religion, support of ministers of
religion, building or maintenance of buildings used for religion , etc.
I have stated this hundreds of time and each time the person I state it to
pretends it isn't there, because they have to way of addressing it, no way
of rebutting it.
Here it is again.
Nine out of the eleven states that ratified the BORs in 1789-91 considered
the use of public funds for any form of supporting religion to be an
establishment of religion.
Now, Jeffy, you can call that discrimination if you want, but if it is, it
is a form of discrimination that founders felt was far less evil and
threatening than supporting religion with public funds and were okay with.
That is exactly why this was worded this way in 1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
#5 was called the "no aid to religion" principle.
A prime purpose of any and all private religious schools is the furthering
of their religion, the installing of their dogmas, doctrines, tenets in the
mons of the next generation of believers.
After all, a church or religion only exists so long as it has followers and
believers. Followers and believers need to be replenished since they tend
to die off, or change beliefs, etc.
Another prime purpose of many private Protestant religious schools,
especially in the south, of the k-12 variety is discrimination.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 06:21:14 AM |
|
|
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Of course we can. It's our money.
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: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 01:13:48 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kcjhjvsgge9s882i3ta2l5r3978qh1t2d1@4ax.com...
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Of course we can. It's our money.
You don't get it, do you? The very protections you seek for yourself, you
deny others with a different view than you have. I find that odd. You say
that I trample your rights if you have to recite under God in the Pledge,
but you would deny a scholarship to a qualified candidate solely because of
his religious intent. You want the protections on one side of the coin, but
deny the same protections on the other side.
If there is a scholarship program that wants to control where its funds get
spent, then it should make the limitations known to candidates before they
apply. The limitations ought not be limited soley due to religious reasons,
but should be limited to state run institutions. For example, if a
scholarship is not allowed at a private bible college, then it should not be
allowed at any private school. Indeed, if a state is going to give a
scholarship, and limit its use to public schools, then maybe it should limit
the use to publiic schools within the state that awards the scholarship. I
think the state has a vested interest in educating students in any
discipline the student wants. Of course, it wouldn't do the state any good
to train students to become terrorists, so there are some limitations.
Perhaps the limitation is the legality of the profession for which the
training will be used, ie; if training can only be used to do illegal
things, then it would be reasonable to not award a schoalrship, or to demand
repayment of a scholarship if it is used for such purposes.
There is nothing inherently illegal or dangerous in the professsion a
student might be expected to go into after he attends seminary school.
Indeed, a lawyer is more likely to to engage in illegal activity, but we
award scholarships to law schools all the time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 06:20:39 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:kcjhjvsgge9s882i3ta2l5r3978qh1t2d1@4ax.com...
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Of course we can. It's our money.
You don't get it, do you?
Oh, I do indeed.
The very protections you seek for yourself, you
deny others with a different view than you have.
False. I don't seek any government financing of my religious views
teachings, or practices.
I find that odd. You say
that I trample your rights if you have to recite under God in the Pledge,
No. Government tramples our rights if they declare that a Pledge
containing the words "under God" is an official standard of this
country, and/or that it is to be taught in public schools, or led by
authority figures in ceremonies.
but you would deny a scholarship to a qualified candidate solely because of
his religious intent.
Government is not in the business of funding religion. PERIOD. Every
attempt to weasel around that clear statement of principle merely gets
me more antagonistic to what might otherwise be realistic compromises.
I had no problem with formulaic Pell Grants that allow limited support
for divinity students. But if allowing them is to serve as a wedge
for greater church/state entanglement, then they must go as well.
You want the protections on one side of the coin, but
deny the same protections on the other side.
It's the same protection in both cases. No government money or
authority goes to support religion. PERIOD.
If there is a scholarship program that wants to control where its funds get
spent, then it should make the limitations known to candidates before they
apply.
The first amendment makes the limitation clear.
I
think the state has a vested interest in educating students in any
discipline the student wants.
The state can have ABSOLUTELY NO vested interest PERIOD in educating
students in religion.
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: "Hugh Farrell" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 06:39:10 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <> wrote in message
news:j3tijvc08n3lf5elsm6dccpmsn0ia1sqo6@4ax.com...
<SNIP>
The state can have ABSOLUTELY NO vested interest PERIOD in educating
students in religion.
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
Bob,
I believe that this statement you made is incorrect. Additionally, do you
believe that the state has a vested interest in not educating students in
religion?
Hugh
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 09:10:03 PM |
|
|
"Hugh Farrell" <hughm@farrell.ws> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:j3tijvc08n3lf5elsm6dccpmsn0ia1sqo6@4ax.com...
<SNIP>
The state can have ABSOLUTELY NO vested interest PERIOD in educating
students in religion.
I believe that this statement you made is incorrect. Additionally, do you
believe that the state has a vested interest in not educating students in
religion?
That state can neither favor nor disfavor religion. It must, so far
as is possible, pretend that religion does not exist. When
pragmatically it cannot ignore their existence, they must not in any
way endorse, encourage or support them.
I cannot easily answer your last question because your use of "not"
has multiple readings, and the answer would depend on how you intended
it to be read. The state has a vested interest in educating students;
they may not educate them in religion. But the state may not stop a
parent who for religious reasons chooses an alternate form of
education (but the state does not fund that alternative).
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: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 03:16:07 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:j3tijvc08n3lf5elsm6dccpmsn0ia1sqo6@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:kcjhjvsgge9s882i3ta2l5r3978qh1t2d1@4ax.com...
"J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com> wrote:
If the student qualifies for a scholarship, then he/she should be able
to
use the scholarship wherever he wants. We can not make the acceptance
of
scholarships dependent upon the school of choice for the student.
Of course we can. It's our money.
You don't get it, do you?
Oh, I do indeed.
The very protections you seek for yourself, you
deny others with a different view than you have.
False. I don't seek any government financing of my religious views
teachings, or practices.
No, you seek protection from all exposure to any aspect of religion.
I find that odd. You say
that I trample your rights if you have to recite under God in the Pledge,
No. Government tramples our rights if they declare that a Pledge
containing the words "under God" is an official standard of this
country, and/or that it is to be taught in public schools, or led by
authority figures in ceremonies.
but you would deny a scholarship to a qualified candidate solely because
of
his religious intent.
Government is not in the business of funding religion. PERIOD. Every
attempt to weasel around that clear statement of principle merely gets
me more antagonistic to what might otherwise be realistic compromises.
But they are in the business of funding EDUCATION.
I had no problem with formulaic Pell Grants that allow limited support
for divinity students. But if allowing them is to serve as a wedge
for greater church/state entanglement, then they must go as well.
I agree, we need ot be sure the entanglement does not develop.
You want the protections on one side of the coin, but
deny the same protections on the other side.
It's the same protection in both cases. No government money or
authority goes to support religion. PERIOD.
No, not only do you want to be free from exposure, you want to remove the
exposure that an individual might actually be seeking out.
If there is a scholarship program that wants to control where its funds
get
spent, then it should make the limitations known to candidates before
they
apply.
The first amendment makes the limitation clear.
The first amendment make it clear that government must not stand in the way
of a person seeking out religion.
Government ought not deny the free will of an individual solely because the
individual seeks religion. If government is going to say that we can use
public monies for private schools, then all private schools should be
included. If government is going to award money that can only be used in
state schools, that is OK, but they ought to spell out that the money can or
can not be used in private schools before the applicants go therough the
application process.
In the case at hand, the applicant was not told that his choice of school
was a factor in getting the scholarship until after he had met the
scholarship requirements. It seems to me that government is changing the
game in the middle to meet the consequence of where the ball landed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 04:06:31 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:j3tijvc08n3lf5elsm6dccpmsn0ia1sqo6@4ax.com...
The very protections you seek for yourself, you
deny others with a different view than you have.
False. I don't seek any government financing of my religious views
teachings, or practices.
No, you seek protection from all exposure to any aspect of religion.
False, since I am religious myself. I seek protection from GOVERNMENT
MONEY OR AUTHORITY being used to support any religious activity,
*including* a denomination I may happen to be a member of.
Government is not in the business of funding religion. PERIOD. Every
attempt to weasel around that clear statement of principle merely gets
me more antagonistic to what might otherwise be realistic compromises.
But they are in the business of funding EDUCATION.
Secular education only.
I had no problem with formulaic Pell Grants that allow limited support
for divinity students. But if allowing them is to serve as a wedge
for greater church/state entanglement, then they must go as well.
I agree, we need ot be sure the entanglement does not develop.
Nothing to do with entanglement. If Pell Grants for religious studies
are used as a foot-in-the-door argument for vouchers or scholarships
to religious schools, then Pell Grants need to go.
You want the protections on one side of the coin, but
deny the same protections on the other side.
It's the same protection in both cases. No government money or
authority goes to support religion. PERIOD.
No, not only do you want to be free from exposure, you want to remove the
exposure that an individual might actually be seeking out.
Liar. I want to keep GOVERNMENT MONEY out of it.
The first amendment makes the limitation clear.
The first amendment make it clear that government must not stand in the way
of a person seeking out religion.
Not what it says.
In the case at hand, the applicant was not told that his choice of school
was a factor in getting the scholarship until after he had met the
scholarship requirements.
Then maybe he didn't study the requirements carefully enough.
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: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 03:21:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 15:16:07 -0500, Jeff Strickland wrote
(in message <vjl771eidplj7e@corp.supernews.com>):
The first amendment make it clear that government must not stand in the way
of a person seeking out religion.
Government ought not deny the free will of an individual solely because the
individual seeks religion.
Would you please explain the preceding setence?
Gray Shockley
-------------------------------------------------
Pain is evitable but suffering is optional.
If government is going to say that we can use
public monies for private schools, then all private schools should be
included. If government is going to award money that can only be used in
state schools, that is OK, but they ought to spell out that the money can or
can not be used in private schools before the applicants go therough the
application process.
In the case at hand, the applicant was not told that his choice of school
was a factor in getting the scholarship until after he had met the
scholarship requirements. It seems to me that government is changing the
game in the middle to meet the consequence of where the ball landed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 03:29:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|You don't get it, do you?
The person who doesn't get it, Jeffy, is you.
For over a year I have watched you show your ignorance of Church state
separation, the history behind church state unions in western Civilization
and in this country, the reasons behind why it was written in the U S
Constitution, why the original motto was secular and far more in harmony
with the purpose and goals of this nation than those of today, the reasons
why Madison vetoed 3 acts of Congress, why 9 justices arrived at this
meaning for the Establishment Clause in 1947
************************************************
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
That is exactly why this was worded this way in 1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
*********************************************
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
***********************************************
This sums it up for your Jeffy:
The "Ten Commandments movement" revisited. Last summer (click here), I
described the ongoing soap opera in Alabama involving a) the election, with
considerable unintended "help" from the ACLU, of Roy Moore, the so-called
"Ten Commandments Judge," to the chief justiceship in November of 2000 and
b) the placement by the Chief, without advance knowledge or approval by his
cohorts, of a "Ten Commandment monument" in a prominent public area of the
Alabama Judicial Center. Today, 11.04.2001, I posted there my latest
update, a link to a news story relating to the filing of two separate
lawsuits in federal court by parties seeking an order directing Moore to
remove the monument. Story in Freedom Forum dated 11.03.2001. The story
also refers to skirmishes in other states in which politicians have tried
or are trying to follow Moore's lead. Some have asked, "What's so bad about
what Moore has done?" That's somewhat like the legendary question, "What is
jazz?" If you have to ask, well, maybe you'll never get it -- or maybe
you'll never see it as I see it and as other people who believe in the
separation of church and state see it.
http://www.lawandeverythingelse.com/id50.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 05:04:42 PM |
|
|
There is a huge difference in church state separation, and the free will of
the citizens to engage in the religious expression of their desire.
In every instance you cite, the government is presenting the religious
options for the citizens to adopt.
What we have in this instance is a citizen that has already adopted a
religious option, and has sucessfully qualified for a scholarship.
Government is now telling that individual that he can not use the
scholarship for the desired educational experience. If they were going to
deny the use of the scholarship, they should have made it clear what sorts
of education it could be used for. That said, if government is going to
allow public scholarships at private schools, they ought to have a different
criteria than "it is a seminary" when deciding that a particular private
school in unacceptable. It is just as valid of a professional pursuit to go
into a chosen field of pastor or rabbi as it is to go int the field of
becoming a doctor or a lawyer. Frankly, there is probably more money in
becoming the latter as opposed to the former, but what you do with your life
is of no concern to me, even if government uses my money to help you train
for your profession.
When government does anything to either promote or deny the individual's
free choice in religion, then we have a constitutional problem.
When the argument is that government makes an offer that is contigent upon
those that accept the offer to engage is a particular religious activity,
then we have an argument that says government is doing something wrong. We
have the exact same problem if in order to accept the offer that government
has made, we must stop engaging in religious activity. The test is, or
should be, is the free will of the individual being denied in order to
accept the government's offers. Now, if government made an offer that only
religious people could take advantage of, then we would have a serious
problem also, which is the other side of the same coin that says only
non-religious need apply.
I have no issue with government saying that its money must be spent at its
own institutions. But, when they create systems to give money to people to
use for a certain purpose (education in this instance), and that purpose is
filled by the private sector, then all players in the private sector should
be able to compete to get the recipient to use his money in their
institution. When government is going to set aside a private institution as
being unfit for the recipients to use the money at, it should set aside the
institution on grounds other than its religious content.
Government ought not demand nor deny that its money be spent at a religious
institution, especially when the primary function of the institution is not
religion at all, but education, or housing, or whatever. Government's only
interest is that the recipient use the money for education, or housing, or
whatever. Government would not want to give housing money to a poor family,
then find that the family is living in a car instead of an apartment or
house. But, if the family was living in a home built by a church group and
the family was paying rent to the church, or making its home loan payments
to the church because the sale was done on what is called a Land Contract, I
don't think anybody should care. The money is meant to be used for housing,
and the family is using it for housing. As long as the family is not told
that they must live in that particular house in order to qualify for the
government's money, we ought not have any concern.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 12:23:47 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|There is a huge difference in church state separation, and the free will of
:|the citizens to engage in the religious expression of their desire.
If you really want to talk church state separation, it will be within the
framework of the actual history of the time and/or within the framework of
the following and not your lame, flawed uninformed personal opinions.
FREE EXERCISE:
The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The
Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as
incompetent as Congress to enact such laws. The constitutional inhibition
of legislation on the subject of religion has a double aspect. On the one
hand, it forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the
practice of any form of worship. Freedom of conscience and freedom to
adhere to such religious organization or form of worship as the individual
may choose cannot be restricted by law. On the other hand, it safeguards
the free exercise of the chosen form of religion. Thus the Amendment
embraces two concepts,-freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is
absolute but, in the nature of things, the [310 U.S. 296, 304] second
cannot be. Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of
society. (4) The freedom to act must have appropriate definition to
preserve the enforcement of that protection. In every case the power to
regulate must be so exercised as not, in
attaining a permissible end, unduly to infringe the protected freedom. No
one would contest the proposition that a state may not, be statute, wholly
deny the right to preach or to disseminate religious views. Plainly such a
previous and absolute restraint would violate the terms of the guarantee.
(5) It is equally clear that a state may by general and non-discriminatory
legislation regulate the times, the places, and the manner of soliciting
upon its streets, and of holding meetings thereon; and may in other
respects safeguard the peace, good order and comfort of the community,
without unconstitutionally invading the liberties protected by the
Fourteenth Amendment.
SOURCE USSC 1940
***************************************************
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE:
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
That is exactly why this was worded this way in 1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
*********************************************
The Establishment Clause
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/estclause.htm
************************************************
Thus actual history or actual legal or both, but not your make it up as you
go, fly by the seat of your pants, uninformed, flawed opinions.
I bet you pass on the invitation.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 03:05:25 PM |
|
|
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in
the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 04:01:06 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
This is not happening when an individual gets a scholarship.
If the school is a seminary, it is.
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: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 06:30:21 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
There is a huge difference in church state separation, and the free will of
the citizens to engage in the religious expression of their desire.
They can do the free will thing all they want. But government may not
get involved.
What we have in this instance is a citizen that has already adopted a
religious option, and has sucessfully qualified for a scholarship.
If the scholarship does not include a religious option, then he has
not qualified for a scholarship.
Government is now telling that individual that he can not use the
scholarship for the desired educational experience.
Government scholarships (and other expenditures) may be used only to
support legitimate state interests. Religion is never a legitimate
state interest.
If they were going to
deny the use of the scholarship, they should have made it clear what sorts
of education it could be used for.
I'm sure that they did.
I have no issue
Who cares what you have issue with? The only thing that matters is
the law, and your ignorant opinion matters to no one but you.
Government ought not demand nor deny that its money be spent at a religious
institution,
Tough. The first amendment disagrees with you.
especially when the primary function of the institution is not
religion at all, but education, or housing, or whatever.
The government is not in the business of deciding what the primary
function of a religious organization is. If any function is
religious, then the organization is religious and should not be
entangled with government.
Opening the door a little will merely make it easy for religious
fanatics to take over government. Absolutely no loopholes are
tolerable; if someone tries to open a loophole, it must be shut HARD.
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: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 03:01:38 PM |
|
|
If the scholarship does not include a religious option, then he has
not qualified for a scholarship.
It was not a qualification disqualifier BEFORE the scholarship was awarded.
It became an issue only after the scholarship was granted, and all other
requirements of the scholarship were met.
Government is now telling that individual that he can not use the
scholarship for the desired educational experience.
Government scholarships (and other expenditures) may be used only to
support legitimate state interests. Religion is never a legitimate
state interest.
If they were going to
deny the use of the scholarship, they should have made it clear what
sorts
of education it could be used for.
I'm sure that they did.
Apparently they did not.
I have no issue
Who cares what you have issue with? The only thing that matters is
the law, and your ignorant opinion matters to no one but you.
Government ought not demand nor deny that its money be spent at a
religious
institution,
Tough. The first amendment disagrees with you.
especially when the primary function of the institution is not
religion at all, but education, or housing, or whatever.
The government is not in the business of deciding what the primary
function of a religious organization is. If any function is
religious, then the organization is religious and should not be
entangled with government.
But, the ARE in the business of deciding the primary business of a school.
In this particular instance, the primary business of the school is
religion -- it is a seminary school, after all. But there is a difference in
a state sponsored school that teaches religion, forbidden by the
Constitution, and a private school that a student elects to attend.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 03:59:14 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
The government is not in the business of deciding what the primary
function of a religious organization is. If any function is
religious, then the organization is religious and should not be
entangled with government.
But, the ARE in the business of deciding the primary business of a school.
In this particular instance, the primary business of the school is
religion -- it is a seminary school, after all.
Then it is apparently not a "school" for purposes of that college
scholarship, since its primary purpose is not academics.
But there is a difference in
a state sponsored school that teaches religion, forbidden by the
Constitution, and a private school that a student elects to attend.
If state money is used in its support via tuition or vouchers, then it
becomes to some degree a "state-sponsored school".
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: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 04:55:06 PM |
|
|
"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote in message
news:cg9ljv069c0sfuoe3l4k6memgo33dp8f1u@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
The government is not in the business of deciding what the primary
function of a religious organization is. If any function is
religious, then the organization is religious and should not be
entangled with government.
But, the ARE in the business of deciding the primary business of a
school.
In this particular instance, the primary business of the school is
religion -- it is a seminary school, after all.
Then it is apparently not a "school" for purposes of that college
scholarship, since its primary purpose is not academics.
Well, that is a matter of splitting hairs. There is certainly an academic
component to theology. The question is, are the academics more or less valid
as the academics involved in learning to become a lawyer or doctor or
engineer or liberal arts major. Surely, the academics might be more
difficult when studying medicine or law, but are the academics more valid?
But there is a difference in
a state sponsored school that teaches religion, forbidden by the
Constitution, and a private school that a student elects to attend.
If state money is used in its support via tuition or vouchers, then it
becomes to some degree a "state-sponsored school".
That does not have to be true. If an individual gives money to a homeless
person so he can buy food, but the homeless person buys liquor instead of
food, the individual is not supporting homeless people getting drunk. When
the state supports an individual to get food, and the individual uses the
support to buy tobacco, the government is not supporting tobacco farmers.
When the state has a program that has rigorous requirements to get public
funding, and a candidate meets all of the requirements, then government
ought have no interest in how the funds get used, provide they are used for
the purpose the funds were dispursed for.
The entanglement in the case of trhe scholarship recipient is between
government and the individual, then the individual and his church. There is
no entanglement of government and the church. The presumptin is that when
the individual leaves, the link between government and the church is broken
and the funds stop flowing. If the link was not broken and the funds
continued to flow, then the problems you are suggesting would become real.
The individual is the key here. There is no link directly from government to
the church, except through the individual.
You are suggesting that for people to take advantage of government programs,
they may be required to forgo their religion. This is as much of a
constitutional violation as to force an individual to embrace a religion
against his will.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 05:13:36 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Bob LeChevalier" < > wrote in message
news:cg9ljv069c0sfuoe3l4k6memgo33dp8f1u@4ax.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
The government is not in the business of deciding what the primary
function of a religious organization is. If any function is
religious, then the organization is religious and should not be
entangled with government.
But, the ARE in the business of deciding the primary business of a
school.
In this particular instance, the primary business of the school is
religion -- it is a seminary school, after all.
Then it is apparently not a "school" for purposes of that college
scholarship, since its primary purpose is not academics.
Well, that is a matter of splitting hairs. There is certainly an academic
component to theology. The question is, are the academics more or less valid
as the academics involved in learning to become a lawyer or doctor or
engineer or liberal arts major. Surely, the academics might be more
difficult when studying medicine or law, but are the academics more valid?
They are religious, and therefore not eligible for government funding,
either direct or indirect.
When the state has a program that has rigorous requirements to get public
funding, and a candidate meets all of the requirements, then government
ought have no interest in how the funds get used, provide they are used for
the purpose the funds were dispursed for.
Wrong.
The entanglement in the case of trhe scholarship recipient is between
government and the individual, then the individual and his church. There is
no entanglement of government and the church. The presumptin is that when
the individual leaves, the link between government and the church is broken
and the funds stop flowing. If the link was not broken and the funds
continued to flow, then the problems you are suggesting would become real.
The individual is the key here. There is no link directly from government to
the church, except through the individual.
Indirect aid to religion is still aid to religion.
You are suggesting that for people to take advantage of government programs,
they may be required to forgo their religion.
No. They just can't use the government program money for their
religion.
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: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 06:23:44 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
Surely you are not suggesting that the state should use the
personal danger posed to the individual as a substanative criteria to extend
a scholarship.
The state can use any criteria it wants, based on the public interest,
as long as those criteria are applied equally to all. That means if
they say "no religious scholarships" then they cannot allow some
people religious scholarships and deny others.
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: "Joni Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
12 Aug 2003 05:11:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308121241150.1175-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308121150400.1175-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
There is nothing inherently illegal or dangerous in the professsion
a
student might be expected to go into after he attends seminary
school.
Some forms of missionary work can be very dangerous.
And that is relevant because why?
As relevant as your addition of the word "dangerous" to the discussion...
as if dangerous were somehow a synonym for "illegal."
That's because why (sic).
Dangerous is not a synonym for illegal. And, the danger that you cited is a
personal danger that nobody should have any concern about except the
individual. Surely you are not suggesting that the state should use the
personal danger posed to the individual as a substanative criteria to extend
a scholarship.
Uhm, that's what I was asking YOU. You're the one who entered the term
into the context of that discussion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
13 Aug 2003 02:54:57 PM |
|
|
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308121511220.12153-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308121241150.1175-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Joni Rathbun" <jrathbun@orednet.org> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0308121150400.1175-100000@lab.oregonvos.net...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
There is nothing inherently illegal or dangerous in the
professsion
a
student might be expected to go into after he attends seminary
school.
Some forms of missionary work can be very dangerous.
And that is relevant because why?
As relevant as your addition of the word "dangerous" to the
discussion...
as if dangerous were somehow a synonym for "illegal."
That's because why (sic).
Dangerous is not a synonym for illegal. And, the danger that you cited
is a
personal danger that nobody should have any concern about except the
individual. Surely you are not suggesting that the state should use the
personal danger posed to the individual as a substanative criteria to
extend
a scholarship.
Uhm, that's what I was asking YOU. You're the one who entered the term
into the context of that discussion.
Then no, government ought not be concerned with the potential danger that a
scholarship recipient might put himself in as the result of undertaking a
course of training.
I entered no such topic into the discussion, by the way. I was speaking of
public danger, not personal danger.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals |
08 Aug 2003 09:19:53 AM |
|
|
For "J Strickland" <crwlr@yahoo.com>
I have asked you this question several times and you keep ignoring it. I am
beginning to think you are afraid of it.
But I will try again:
I have a question jeffy
Do you really believe the following to be true?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The subject of the discourse is one in which I feel a more than common
interest, inasmuch as there is something of a disposition in this state to
efface from our public affairs every thing that bears the impress of
Christianity, or is calculated to remind us of the obligations of religion
upon a professedly Christian people.
If I have observed well, an ambitious demigogue with something of art and
intrigue, might readily form here a considerable combination, whose object
should be to do utterly away every remaining vestige of Christianity in our
public affairs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And if you do believe it's true, do you think it's a modern happening?
It seems to me that I have at some point in time in some of your posts
regarding "under God" or the Ten Commandments you had expressed something
similar to the above.
So rather than saying you had I am asking.
What are your thoughts on the topic?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
