From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Government and religious freedoms
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 09:26:34 PST

In <nate.1121@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, Nathan Engle writes:

>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>   Here's an observation I've made several times, and I direct it toward
>>those who oppose private school vouchers while favoring federally funded
>>abortion.

>    That's not me, but I have something to say here.

>[big snip]

>>  Just for the record:  I favor vouchers for private schools, and I'm also
>>in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal--but I don't want the government
>>to fund it.

>    The thing that I'm curious about is how you reconcile the position
>of favoring vouchers for private schools while opposing funding of abortion.
>It seems to me that your position is just as flimsy as that of the people
>who favor funding for abortion but oppose vouchers. I'm obviously biased on
>the subject, but I would have thought that the only thoroughly consistent
>positions are to either oppose government funding of both (which, for the
>record, is where I stand), or to favor funding for both (the ultimate "Big
>Government" position).

I hate it when I forget to make my most important point.  There is one other
(and in my opinion, compelling) difference between my position and the position
I rebuked.

Must government policy be 100% consistent with respect to government funding?
I see no Constitutional requirement for that.  Must it be 100% consistent with
respect to religious freedom?  You bet.

If one's only alternatives with respect to government funding is either "fund
everything or fund nothing," then we are either broke or libertarian.  Govern-
ment funding is not an absolute; government always has and always will fund
certain things while not funding others.  There is no Constitutional clause,
for example, which requires that all things be funded equally, nor is there a
"right" to have your favorite pet project funded by government.  Funding is
subjective, and there are no Constitutional restrictions on it (at least not
literally)--except where funding something would violate some other clause of
the Constitution.  And if we don't support the communist "government is every-
thing" ideal or the libertarian "government must support nothing" ideal, then
we're all hypocrites by your definition (or at least by my interpretation of
your definition).

Therefore, funding for private schools seems subjective to me--there is no
Constitutional requirement that it be done, nor is there any prohibition to it
(provided that *all* religions--including absence of religion--are supported
by it).  There are already many private businesses funded by government--
defense contractors and construction businesses, for example.  Of course, the
government has the right (IMHO, the *duty*) to set regulations on these
businesses WHEN THEY ACCEPT GOVERNMENT MONEY.  Private schools would be no
exception.  So they couldn't discriminate arbitrarily, for example--at least
not if they wanted government money.

Religious freedom, on the other hand, is *absolute*--it's guaranteed by the
First Amendment and reinforced by the 14th.  Unlike funding, which is quite
subjective, the government can *not* pick and choose which religions to
support, nor can it *choose* to pursue policy which denies *anyone* of their
religious freedom.  Federal funding of abortions--among other things--does
just that to those who pay taxes and feel that abortion is a sin against
their religion and their God.  The government is thus violating an *absolute*
right.  Not good.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13539 talk.politics.misc:69312 alt.president.clinton:1729