From: hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: BioMerieux-Vitek, St. Louis Mo.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 17:52:17 GMT

In article <mykes.0dc8@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG>
   mykes@amiga0.SF-Bay.ORG (Mike Schwartz) writes:
>In article <1992Sep2.172533.17921@dbsun.uucp>
>    hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>> In article <1992Sep1.123427.1@ulkyvx.louisville.edu>
>>     cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu writes:

>> >If I, as an educator, individually decide to include creationism (along
>> >with evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I teach at a
>> >public institution, how in the world can one argue that this is
>> >unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
>> >mandating that I teach this?  NO.

>> If I as an educator, individually decide to include Satanism (along
>> with creationism and evolution) as a part of the curriculum of a course I
>> each at a public institution, how in the world can one argue that this
>> is unconstitutional?  Is congress (or state and local governments)
>> mandating that I teach this?  NO.

>My $.02:  If you choose to teach ANY subject matter that is widely
>unaccepted, the PARENTs should get involved and demand you be fired
>(or whatever).  The PARENTs should mandate what gets tought, with the
>govt. making MINIMAL educational requirements - like civics, PE, etc.

The parents should mandate, to a point.  Once again, if a large group
of Muslims should move into your school district, do you want them
mandating required courses in Islamic history?  Do you want passages
from the Koran posted on the school walls, because they have mandated
this?  Do you want "voluntary" prayers to Mecca led by the teacher?

>> Rhetoric aside, you, as an educator at a public instituion, have shed
>> your individualism and become a spokesman for the State.  That happened
>> the moment you accepted tax money.  As a spokesman for the State, you
>> cannot "respect an establishment of religion."  Congress passes a law
>> giving you tax money, you cannot use that money to preach your religious
>> beliefs.

>Spokesman for the STATE is correct.  Not for the federal government.  There
>is a major difference, you know.  Where does it say in the constitution that
>the State of Utah can't promote a religion?  As long as they don't prohibit
>practice of other religions, there is nothing legally wrong.

The State of Utah, or any other state, may not use federal tax dollars to
promote a religion.  When the state accepts federal tax dollars for,
education, they agree to abide by a set of rules.  Because of the
Constitution, these rules include the prohibition of "respecting the
establishment of religion".  If the Federal Government didn't pay for
it, the individual states could do whatever they wanted.

I just do not want to see my tax dollars go to support your religious
beliefs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
hulsey%dbsun.uucp@wupost.wustl.edu (Jim Hulsey)   TBDBITL '84 ('85 Rose Bowl)
An Ohioan living in Misery (Missouri, same difference)

Watch what you say!                Won't you sign up your name
They'll be calling you a radical   So you can be their dependable
A liberal, fanatical criminal      Respectable, presentable vegetable
--  Supertramp "The Logical Song"
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,rec.humor,talk.politics.misc