From: mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 20:27:31 GMT

In article <1992Aug11.230945.7444@mumbo.apple.com> wilkes@apple.com (John Wilkes) writes:
>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.)

The context of the whole discussion is and has been PUBLIC FUNDING OF
EDUCATION.  Please try and keep up.  You might also like to note the
ending of that sentence.  Obviously, ANYTHING is Constitutional if not
engaged in by government.  

>
>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?

Well, if you want to play THAT kind of stupid game, they HAVE no
'literal meaning'.  They're really just phosphor dots (in my world).

>
>> 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.

Glad you enjoyed it.  Pity you don't have a life.  Then you wouldn't
feel the need to periodically validate your existence by starting
flamefests. 

>
>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.)

My position has been obvious all along.  The amazing thing is that it
took you this long to 'get it'.

>
>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.

Unless, of course, you happen to be the only Moslem in an all-Jewish
neighborhood. 

>
>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.

There you go telling me what I think again.  Stop guessing and try
READING WHAT IS SAID FOR A CHANGE.  Hell, you summarized my position
up there.  GO BACK AND READ IT!

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

Thank God.

>
>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!

And I will take it, of course, despite the sophomor[e|ic] psychology
efforts to divert it.  I simply return your own to you, Mr. Wilkes.
Pity you can't manage a rational discussion instead of the personal
attacks, but I'm perfectly willing to play either way (unfortunately
for you).

So, by all means, carry on.  If you can't handle discussion, by all
means continue to flame.  Even you are entitled to be heard, no matter
how silly what you say comes out sounding.


-- 
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live
 in the real world."   -- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fred.McCall@dseg.ti.com - I don't speak for others and they don't speak for me.
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections,talk.abortion