Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (56221)	7/14/1999 12:15:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>...I am with you on many of the issues you mention. However, the fact that things occur that are offensive to religious believers does not mean that National Atheism is established.< Well now I do not maintain this. It is not that these matters are just offensive to believers. They flatly concern a willful ignorance of God. In other words, they plainly go out of their way to disallow His consideration. >The Pledge still includes the phrase "under God"; chaplains are still funded for the military; money still contains the phrase "in God we trust"; the Senate still has a chaplain; the President still lights the National Christmas Tree; etc....< Merely relics of a time long gone. Now that we have accepted the constitutional illogic that God cannot be supported in public schools, it is really inconsistent to do any of these things. No Atheist should be forced to pay for someone's else's chaplain because it violates the constitution. No Atheist should be forced to carry money that says “In God We Trust” because it is unconstitutional and it is a lie, the Senate should not have a chaplain and there should not be a Christmas tree, etc… >...People do determine their own religious lives in their own homes and places of worship...< But they must endure someone else, likely with an opposing view, teaching their children about the nature of God, human reproduction and marriage, and they must pay for it to boot. This is certainly not freedom. >...Should the Federal government defund chaplaincies? Strike "In God We Trust" off of the coinage? What do you want, precisely?< Yup. Because it is all inconsistent with the current philosophy. No Muslim should have to pay to have a Jewish chaplain, and no Mormon should have to pay to have a Christian chaplain because the government should not be in the business of establishing religion at all. A kid can literally use money to taunt an Atheist by saying “belief in God is American--- SEE?” >If it is an ideal Christian town, found your own version of Kiryat Joel...< (sigh) Well I've done quite friggin well as it is. Now if I can have my own "Kiryat Joel" without having a government unconstitutionally forcing me to fund religion I would be quite satisfied. >...If the AA version of religion is unacceptable, they should establish parochial schools. Public schools will necessarily entail a compromise...< This “compromise” of yours requires them to accept governmentally sanctioned religion, and this is unconstitutional. >...If there is no constitutional right to an abortion, as I maintain, then your point is moot.< And if there is no constitutional right to federally funded education, then so is yours. >The question is of the application of the First Amendment to local/state government, which I think is properly an established principle...< The question actually concerns the application of the Constitution to the federal government. The Constitution says that any power it does not grant to the federal government, is automatically reserved for the people. >...There is no reason to suppose that an even- handed approach is a "polytheistic ethic". But, as I said, if one is militant, one has the option of establishing a parochial school...< An “even-handed” approach can indeed be considered “polytheistic” when you force the acknowledgement of a host of different religions for the purposes of teaching morality. >...Neutrality is always disputable, and I am on your side on some issues, but people are capable of recognizing that a regime of "polite reticence" prevails in places like schools, without drawing "proselytizing" conclusions...< Tell that to the parents whose children are being taught “safe-sex”, neo-Darwinism as fact and the acceptability of homosexuality. There is no regime of “polite reticence.” It is one of pure indoctrination, the basis of which is religious philosophy.