From: wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.marrou,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Date: 11 Aug 92 23:09:45 GMT
Organization: Apple

In article <1992Aug10.141607.17527@mksol.dseg.ti.com>, mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes: 
> >> One more time, for the intellecually impaired (now pay close
> >> attention, Mr. Wilkes).  My position is that schools REQUIRING
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> RELIGIOUS TRAINING are unconstitutional and cannot be funded out of
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >> public monies.
> >
> >I'm paying very close attention: the above sentance says that schools
> >requiring religious classes are unconstitutional (that's the assertion),
> 
> No, GOVERNMENT FUNDED schools requiring religious classes are
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> unconstitutional

But that's not what you said!  Read your own damn words above: "My position
is that schools REQUIRING RELIGIOUS TRAINING are unconstitutional ..."  If
it would refresh your memory, I can re-post the original article wherein
you made this claim twice, the first time with no reference to government
funding in the same sentence (or even the same paragraph.)

Now, I'll admit that I knew exactly what you *meant* but that is not what
you *wrote* and since you have been so insulting of my reading ability, I
thought I'd respond to the actual words you used, rather than putting any
sort of interpretation on them.  Do you deny that you wrote those words?
Do you deny their literal meaning?

> Then you, Mr. Wilkes, are obviously either unable to read or a fool.

Uh huh.

I need a good flamefest every now and then, and I thank Mr. McCall for
providing such a satisfying one.

To sum up, Mr. McCall believes that government funding (through some sort
of school choice voucher system) of schools that have required courses in
religion is unconstitutional.  I disagree, believing that so long as parents
can use the voucher to send their kids to a different school with no such
required religous classes, there is no establishment of religion nor
prohibition of the free exercise thereof.  (We're talking about the federal
constitution, not the Texas constitution, or any other state constitution.)

Additionally, I would point out that, under a system such as the one I
advocate, *any* religious organization (e.g., Bhuddist, Satanic, Islamic,
Baptist, Hindu, Catholic, Secular Humanist, Shinto, Atheist) would be free
to operate a school with their own brand of required religious instruction
and accept state vouchers as payment.  Thus, use of state-funded vouchers
no way establishes a religion, nor does it prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Of course, as a libertarian, I would prefer to see no state funding of
education.  I would guess that Mr. McCall, whatever his flavor of non-
libertarianism, is basically opposed to state funded school choice and
believes that the government should set everybody's educational curriculum,
or at least the curriculum of any state-funded education.

Mr. McCall and I will never see eye-to-eye on this issue.

Thank you, Mr. McCall, for liberal use of the personal attack.  This is a
hallmark of a good flamefest, and I salute you for it.  You may have the
last shot, if you so desire.  Aim well!

John Wilkes   <wilkes@apple.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.all-worlds