Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 12 Sep 2002 03:09:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1009 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William R. Ward writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> writes:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William R. Ward writes:
> >
> > > I have no problem with people believing in whatever religion they
> > > want. However, when the State, through the public school system,
> > > offers *financial* support for an institution of religion, then that
> > > crosses the line. The Bible Club should be permitted to meet but
> > > should not have access to student body money. The Court was wrong
> > > here, IMNSHO.
> >
> > Socialism is thought by some to be a religion (1), are you OK if we ban the
> > teaching of socialism in public schools? Let's stick to things we know are
> > true, after all...
> > 1 - it requires faith in miracles and has no predictive power
>
> I don't see what relevance this has to anything I said.
OK. But you're a socialist, right? Since belief that a socialist system can
actually work is counterfactual, holding such a belief is a kind of religion
since it requires faith.
> > I'll support not funding religious schools or religious activities in public
> > schools when I can choose not to *fund* public schools. But as long as I
> > have to pay, I am going to require hewing a fine line. No Noah murals and no
> > banning christian clubs on school property either.
>
> Why?
Separation of Church and State.
A permanent mural (contrast with an informational exhibit, this was
decorative) with Noah on it in a public school (we had one (past tense,
thanks to my wife) in our local elementary) is a State endorsement of a
particular religion. Not allowed under the constitution.
Banning clubs of students from holding meetings, whatever the topic matter
(christian, Jedi, secular humanist, libertarian, communist, softball, chess,
Lego, MegaBlocks) is State repression of that particular viewpoint. Not
allowed under the constitution.
This is just a restatement of what was said by Dave! (The 9th circuit was
right both times for essentially the same reason.)
Note that the mere fact of holding a meeting means that the club is
consuming resources (and thus money) of the school system, so the point of
whether the school FUNDS the club is moot, it already does so when it gives
space.
The key point is that the schools are a public good, funded by taxpayers,
whether those taxpayers think it's a good idea or not (I for one don't)...
and as such, cannot show any preference for one viewpoint over another.
Private schools are under no such compunction.
If the public school allows any club whatever to hold meetings (or apply for
funding) it must allow the same to all clubs as long as they are otherwise
law abiding. (the Rape Club, whose purpose is to rape whoever they can drag
in off the street, of whatever gender, need not apply for space)
Seems pretty straightforward to me.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
| (...) By US standards, I suppose I would be called that. By European standards, I'd probably be considered centrist. But that isn't the topic currently being discussed. (...) Good. (...) Huh? That's a straw man. The issue is religion, not viewpoint. (...) (22 years ago, 12-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
220 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
