To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 22124
22123  |  22125
Subject: 
Re: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:29:36 GMT
Viewed: 
156 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

<snip>


I was with you (abstinence education as the sole path is a terrifically stupid
approach) till this last bit, how's this a first amendment violation again? Free
speech isn't free, remember, you the speaker have to pay for it. There is no
obligation for the state to fund particular sorts of speech.

It might be a violation of the equal protection clause, or the freedom of
religion (no law respecting...) clause... I haven't analysed it in enough detail
to assert that, just tossing it out.

However, having the gov't making a 'judgement' about where your tax dollars go
based, as far as I can see, only on a 'Christian moral value', therefore
excluding other groups who don't want to preach the Christian ethic, sounds like
an infringement.  You either fund the different 'views' of sex ed, or you fund
none of them.

I don't know if this is also getting into the realm of 'separation of Church and
State'--It doesn't seem that way to me, but it could be interpreted as the gov't
supporting Christian-only groups with your tax dollars.

Dave K



Message has 1 Reply:
  Re: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
 
(...) Still not seeing it. Let's take the general (moral position) case here for a sec. Consider if the government said in a policy statement "we prefer if people pay their debts rather than dodge their creitors". That's a moral statement. Does the (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
 
(...) I was with you (abstinence education as the sole path is a terrifically stupid approach) till this last bit, how's this a first amendment violation again? Free speech isn't free, remember, you the speaker have to pay for it. There is no (...) (21 years ago, 18-Sep-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

4 Messages in This Thread:

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR