From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: ProLife, ProMurder, ProCrime And Iraq
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 93 15:23:37 PST

In <1993Jan21.213954.23399@netcom.com>, Maddi Hausmann writes:

>casivils@lescsse.jsc.nasa.gov (craig sivils) writes: >
>datepper@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (David Aaron Tepper) writes: >>
>craig: >>>
>>
>>>>Why are so many people who claim to be "pro-choice" against the right of
>>>>an individual to use public money for their children to attend the
>>>>school private or public of their choice

>This is the logical fallacy of amphiboly, where you redefine how
>the term "choice" is used in the two separate issues.  In one,
>it is a question of bodily auotonomy; in the other, a question
>of tax subsidies.  Thus, the two issues are unrelated, but
>you attempt to set them up equally by playing on the word
>"choice."

To me, "choice" is absolute.  You as an individual can choose to do whatever
you want as long as no else has their basic rights abridged (in my opinion),
and that includes abortion (though I shouldn't have to pay for it if I don't
approve of it).  That also includes drug use, prostitution and...choosing to
participate in beauty pageants and be stay-at-home mothers.  If one is really
"pro-choice" with respect to one's decisions about their own lives, then all
of these choices must be sanctioned.

>>There is a case in
>>court now where a football coach was fired for placing his son in a private
>>school rather than a public school.  When asked for the reason, the Coach
>>replied that he wanted his son to be taught from a christian perspective on
>>values.  His supervisor told him that was what his evenings were for.  How man
>>counselor would discuss with each student if christanity was right for that
>>student and would provide detailed information on where to go if the student
>>wanted to become a christian.  (Answer: its illegal in some states for a
>teacher to have a closed bible on their desk).  I understand why we don't have
>such clinics and agree that they are not needed.  But there is a difference in
>>the way we treat the seperation of the State and one Value, and the way that
>>we tread the seperation of the State and the other value.

>We do have such clinics.  They are called "churches," and anyone
>interested in Christianity can attend one.

>Have you forgotten about the First Amendment, that Congress shall
>uphold NO religion?  That means no funding for religious indoctrination
>in tax-supported schools.  But neither can it interfere with any
>religion, which is why you may worship in any Church you wish.
>*** OR NOT WORSHIP ***

It's "establish" a religion, not "uphold" a religion.  It may seem like
splitting hairs, but it seems like two different things to me.  One implies
no support at all, and one implies no favoritism among them (with the added
stipulation that "no religion" is treated just as any other religion).

>There is no such thing as "separation of State and Value."  The
>issue is "Church," not "Value."  Or are you claiming that evolution
>is a religion?  Can you show that evolution is a religion rather
>than a science?  Can you define the difference between religion
>and science?

There's no separation of church and state in the Constitution either.  The
First Amendment merely states that Congress may not establish a religion.  But
what does "establish" mean?  To me, it means to favor/fund/sanction one or
more at the expense of others.  If all religions are treated the same with
respect to government policy, then there is no conflict.  Freedom of religion
is not the same as freedom *from* religion.

The term "separation of church and state" came from a private letter written
by Jefferson in the 1820's, shortly before his death.  There is no basis in
our founding documents--be it the Declaration, the Articles of Confederation,
the Constitution or the Federalist Papers, that require "separation of church
and state."  There is no requirement that government remain entirely out of
religious affairs.  It just can't pick "one (or n) most favored religion" with
respect to public policy.

It also means to me that government will not interfere with a person's right
to practice (or not practice) their chosen religion as they see fit.  Now,
let's consider federal funding of abortion.  You have every right to think that
Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson are jerks.  However, they have the same First
Amendment religious rights as you and I do.  To that end, I see federally
funded abortion as using the tax dollars of a Falwell or a Robertson to support
something their religion forbids.  So indirectly (but undeniably), they are
paying for the performance of actions which are taboo in their religion.  Is
that really constitutional?  I know that is a change of subject and would score
a few points in Phil-O-Matic (tm), but it is an important (and related) issue.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using more than 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc,alt.president.clinton