Subject:
|
Re: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Sep 2003 15:46:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
265 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> 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.
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 government have the obligation to fund random people so that they can say
"no, people ought to ignore their monetary debts and not pay them"?
I say no. The government can take moral positions and you cannot attack the
government for NOT funding advocacy of other positions ON FREE SPEECH GROUNDS
(emphasis added).
You certainly can on separation of church and state grounds in the case of
abstinence education (and DARE training and a host of others), and you should.
But be careful how you argue because if you argue on free speech grounds when it
isn't really applicable, you weaken the argument for everyone. And this is
annoying enough of a policy idea (do I smell Mr. Ashcroft's wing of the party at
work here?) that it matters.
Don't use bad arguments, please.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Abstinence makes the heart grow fonder...
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
