Quote:
Originally Posted by galenrox  That in education, if there is a God, God doesn't matter. That is just about as far from theologically neutral as you can get. |
That is an incredible leap in logic, galen. You go from "we don't have teacher led prayer, because not everyone here is a Christian and that'd be violating their rights" to "Not praying as a class means god doesn't matter". You're going from Point A to Point G, missing a few crucial places in the middle. Care to explain your logic, or is that none of my business too?
Quote:
|
Are Quakers being forced to serve in the military? Do they have to give their time to the military first before they can give their time to things their religion leads them to want to do? Because if not the military example is completely devoid of meaning in this context.
|
No, but they're being forced to materially support with their taxes they don't believe in. What's the difference between you being forced to pay something you don't believe in (Public Schooling) and Mr. Quaker having to support the military with his taxes? That's money that he could just as soon give to World Peace efforts that'd be in line with his religion. Why is it not a violation of the first amendment to make a religious pacifist support the military?
Quote:
|
Your argument is based on the strawman that I said you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't agree with through taxes. I argued you shouldn't have to pay for secular education before you're free to pay for an education that adheres to your religious beliefs. Your continued misrepresentation of my points does not reflect well upon the merits your position (as were you in a justifiable position you wouldn't have to resort to misrepresenting my posts).
|
I'm not misrepresenting your position, I just understand the ramifications of it better than you do. The ramifications being that if, by your bizarro logic, its wrong to make you pay for public education because the lack of school prayer violates your beliefs, then its wrong to make other religions pay for things other things they don't believe in. You're looking at the issue and the ramifications with far too narrow a scope. Remember Galen, in the real world, things like this have consequences.
Quote:
|
That in education, if there is a God, God doesn't matter. It requires a pretty backwards view of religion to think the assertion that one's religious practice is inconsequential is religiously neutral.
|
Once again, you're confusing not making a statement at all with making a denial of God. By your logic, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a school to be religiously neutral. Am I right?
Quote:
|
You can pay to educate the public without having the government run the actual schools. We want more people driving hybrids, we subsidize the purchase of hybrids, we want people educated, we subsidize education.
|
Yes, but completely privitizing education would make sure that the least able among us get the worst education. I'm pretty sure that Jesus would rather everyone gets a decent education and can rise out of the slums than that people pray before class. Just saying, "as you have done to the least of me, you have done to me."
Quote:
|
I didn't skip over the meat of the question as there was no meat to the question. Perhaps if you had read my argument you'd recognize why, but in short the distinction is that one is the exact same thing as government using its power to compel people to attend a specific church and the other is road work.
|
No one ever suggested the government should compel people to attend a specific church.
And you've yet to explain why its alright for the government to take money from good religious folk if that taxation will hinder them from worship. Why is it OK?
Quote:
|
On a side note, that's none of your business.
|
Just trying to expand my learning, buddy. I've studied the bible under Episcopals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Nazerines, and a smaller amount under other faiths like the Mormons, and I've never come across that teaching. I'm always looking to deepen my understanding, no reason to get defensive.
Quote:
|
I find strawman arguments very rude also. I will try to do better if you will.
|
Does that mean you'll stop using so many?
Quote:
|
So the first amendment only pertains as long as you can't claim that its violation serves a public interest? What if the federal government started forcing people to pay their taxes to a specific state run church, and then said "You can go to whatever church you want, but you have to pay for this church, and you have to worship in some way." Would such a move be justified because our level of discipline within our society is a compelling public interest?
|
Stop. Just stop. Are you telling me that you don't know the difference between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause? WTF? No, we can't have a state-run church because that violates the establishment clause. The clause in question, however, is the free exercise clause. I thought you were against people using strawmen?
Quote:
|
If you don't believe in the merit of religious freedom you're completely free to go to a country that shares your beliefs. America was founded on religious freedom and so even if it's inconvenient it's something you've gotta accommodate.
|
Once again, stop misrepresenting my statements. Stop the strawmen. I never said I don't believe in religious freedom, I merely said, and just about every supreme court has agreed with me, that there are occasions where Free Exercise is trumpted by other matters. It's similar to how I can't yell fire in a crowded theater.