--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am likewise incensed that *my* tax dollars go to > fund abstinence-only programs (which in MN at least > have failed to prevent teen pregnancy - see my post > on > the ENABL report), and faith-based anything, as > these > violate 'separation of church and state.' Mixing > religious precepts with public health policy is a > very > bad idea; medical prescriptions should be based on > sound science as far as is possible (acknowledging > that evidence may change our understanding at any > point). > > Be willing to trade off on these two, I would... ;) > > Debbi
Yeah, but you'd be wrong. You may disagree with abstinence programs, and the motivation behind them may be religipus, but they are not in and of themselves religious. You can be perfectly secular and still be in favor of them. They are not even a tiny bit a violation of separation of church and state. You might disagree with them, but they're not a violation of your rights. Faith-based programs are a more difficult case, but I think that they are only a violation of the First Amendment if you believe that it requires virtual government hostility to religion, not neutrality. If the money is spent by the government specifically to proselytize, that would be a violation of your rights. In this case, however, funding to NPR (given its political bias) is essentially the Democratic Party appropriating funds from the general budget to run ads on its own behalf. I assume that is not okay with you? ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
