From: Jaeger <Jaeger@hempseed.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1998 22:26:33 +0800
To: "Edwin E. Smith" <cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Re: Democracy...
In-Reply-To: <35FF220A.F88B87F6@hempseed.com>
Message-ID: <36008052.C8B84516@hempseed.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



I reply to this message going point by point, within the original
text...  so scroll down if you care to read what I wrote..

> AI recently saw a posting about right v. wrong or good v. evil. These
> are subjective terms as any good semanticist knows. But what is real

Neither good nor evil is subjective to anything...  if something is
absolutely evil, then there is nothing that will make it good...  (and
vice versa <SP?>)

> and what is unreal is a much more difficult thing to determine. It
> requires rigorous thinking without prejudice or belief getting in the
> way.

> As to law. The first of the Bill of Rights says:
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
> assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
>
> If you are going to quote something, do it fully and accurately. It
> isn't that hard and if you don't have a copy of the constitution
> laying around then either get one or keep your damn mouth shut until
> you know what you are talking about.
>

as to the above thing about quoting, I agree...

> No, the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear but then
> neither does "privacy", but it is damn well implied by the 4th
> amendment.
>

I disagree with the above...  I'll explain later

> Those self-righteous pricks who want bible reading in the schools and
>

speaking of invalid arguments...  might the above be an <gasp!> ad
hominem (abusive) attack ?!?

> rail against those who recite the 1st amendment either lack
> understanding of the term "reading" or are being dishonest by
>

ditto to my previous comment

> insisting that disallowing teachers to read the bible to students is
> wrong and that the constitution needs to be amended. Anyone with any
> honesty would realize that the first amendment doesn't prohibit bible
> reading by students or even bible study in a historical context. It
>

as for the teachers reading the Bible to their classes, I would agree
that that is a violation of the first amendment...  however, the Bible
is a useful teaching tool as far as understanding history, as much of
history is influenced by the Bible or parts of it (the crusades, the
inquisition, various countries' foundings/gov't systems, and, of course,
the United States' history).  Using the Bible in a historical context
passes the Lemon test (guidelines laid out by the USSC regarding gov't
attitude towards religion)

> merely prohibits tax-paid teachers from "respecting an establishment
> of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". If I see
> just one more bible-thumping zealot message about "would you care to
> show us where "seperation of church and state" is to be found in the
> constitution/bill of rights?" I will be tempted to take him out in
> the parking lot and pound sand into the parts which are unaccustomed
> to this substance.
>

okay, so this is a new kind of fallacy...  the appeal to a physical
threat as a means of winning an argument...  great...  you seem to be
very well rounded in making a variety of false arguments...

> I am all for separation of school and state. Show me where in the
> constitution/bill of rights everyone is entitled to a theft/tax
> funded education. This would solve church and state in schools
>

I defintiely agree with the above...

> wouldn't it. If you don't like your kids getting a non-religious
> education from the godless state, you are free to pull them out and
> put them into a private school of your choice. But of course it isn't
>

I was homeschooled for four years...(against my will)

> your kids you are worried about is it? It's all those other peoples
> kids that aren't getting the benefit of the word of the one true
> Christian god that you want to help isn't it!
>

no, actually it's more the insistence of the schools to present only the
humanist approach (which I consider a religion), rather than presenting
the facts as they are that bothers me...

> Hypocrisy is the Vaseline(tm) of political intercourse!
>
> Edwin E. Smith
>

how lovely....

Jaeger