--- Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not about mixing religion and public health, I'm not > -- I've already posted extensively on this, so I > won't > belabor it again.
No, Debbi, your policy prescriptions might be fine. I have (carefully) not expressed my opinions on abstinence-only education (assuming I have any, which I may not). Where you'd be wrong is in assuming that you have a _right_ to say "I disagree with this program, so it's a violation of my rights". You don't. If NPR were a right-wing Republican stronghold, it would equally be a violation of my rights, and I hope, and believe, that I would be equally upset. > That's how they began, until the ACLU sued, and > 'specific religious content' was supposed to be > removed (ruling in 1993). It is not my impression > alone that these programs are based on false > premises: You are entirely missing the point. The government spends money on lots of dumb things. Abstinence education may (or may not) be one of them. That doesn't make it a violation of your rights. In fact NPR may in fact do many worthwhile things. That doesn't make it okay that the money is spent. > Unless the government is providing equal funds to > _all_ religions, it is favoring *one* -- that is a > violation as far as I'm concerned (my lawyer friends > agree, but admittedly none of them is a Constitution > expert). If the government says "only Christian programs can get this money" that is a violation. If the government says "only secular programs can get this money" that is _also_ a violation. If the government says "any program can get this money, Christian, secular, Buddhist, or Bahai" - that is not a violation of separation of Church and state. That is, in fact, what the law says right now. If Bahai religious groups don't _apply_ for funding, that is not the problem of the government. > Which party has the majority in Congress at the > moment? > But there are no Republicans who voted grant money > for > NPR? There are. They should be ashamed of themselves. They have let themselves be dragooned by the wealthy and privileged of American society who are (as they often are) willing to camouflage voting themselves benefits from the public purse behind a false facade of caring for the poor. > I am not trying to be flip, for this is literally a > deadly business -- if, as you say, only wealthy > liberals listen to NPR, but millions of American > teens > are supposed to be taught about sex, in which is > more > important to ensure accuracy of information? One is a matter of good policy. The other is a matter of your rights as a citizen. You may think (for example) that ballistic missile defense is a bad idea. Judging by your politics, Debbi (and I apologize if I do you a disservice) you probably thought, oh, the M-1 tank was a bad idea. That doesn't make it a violation of your rights that the government built M-1s. It might make it bad policy (although it was, in fact, very good policy). But that's different from your rights. The Constitution does not mean that you get whatever it is you want. It means pretty much what it says, even when that sometimes leads to results that you (or I) do not like. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
