Subject:
|
Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Sep 2002 04:36:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1054 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, William R. Ward writes:
> > 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.
>
> That isn't what the Constitution says. It says Congress (and by
> extension, the public school systems) can't give support to any
> religion.
Or suppress it either.
Allowing a club to meet isn't support, but preventing one from meeting is
suppression. Unless the school has a policy forbidding all clubs from
meeting on school grounds it cannot prevent some clubs (which are otherwise
lawful) from meeting.
Since there is a non zero cost (lost in the noise or not, it is nevertheless
non zero) of allowing a club to meet, there is no difference in kind between
allowing meetings and subsidising. Merely a difference in degree. Once
you've fit the gnat through the strainer, the camel is merely a difference
in degree, albeit a quite large one.
The 9th circuit was correct in its ruling on this issue. Just as it was
before on the PoA, given the way the constitution is written, and the intent
of the founding fathers as documented in the Federalist Papers.
I'm an atheist. Were it up to me and were I in a less charitable frame of
mind than I usually am, the constitution would say that those of you out
there that hold irrational beliefs (such as christianity, socialism, and
other such counterfactuals), and therefore are less productive members of
society, are not the same class of citizen as those of us that are fully
rational, and would have to pay higher poll taxes to vote than I would.
But it doesn't. It makes no such distinction. Fortunately for you and J2.
Hopefully that clears things up. You're relatively new here in this section
so you'll forgive me if I am somewhat bored by most of this and give rather
terse answers initially, as it's all well plowed ground.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
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
|
|
|
|
