> Gautam Mukunda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Deborah Harrell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: <snippage>
> 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". I didn't mean that it was a violation of *my* rights, rather a violation of the separation between church and state (probably more of the spirit, rather than the letter, since officially 'there are no religiously-sponsored "abstinence-only" programs'). Aside: if faith-based initiatives are receiving govt. funds, this could start again. > 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. <grin> well, at least _some_ folks think NPR _has_ 'caved to the military industrial complex,' per my previous post this twist of the thread! I didn't check the sources, but if several top executives of CPB and NPR come from 'Voice of America' radio & related backgrounds, as that article claimed, it would tend to support the view that it's not merely a lefty program. > > That's how they began, until the ACLU sued, and > > 'specific religious content' was supposed to be > > removed (ruling in 1993). > 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. <blinks> I'm losing focus here - if it's OK to spend govt. $ on dumb programs, why not NPR as well as "Just Say Not Yet"? > > 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. In your opinion, correct? As my interpretation is my opinion. Does anyone know if the govt. funding of religious programs has been legally challenged yet? The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Respect (v): http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=respect 1.To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem. 2.To avoid violation of or interference with: respect the speed limit. 3.To relate or refer to; concern. It's still my opinion that such funding would violate the First A. > > 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. Some engineers whose opinions I respect think it 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. <wry> Weeel, you give me more credit than is due, since I'm only vaguely aware of the M-1's existence, and I am quite sure that I didn't have an opinion on it's funding...but I agree with the next sentence: > 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. I think that this particular aspect will be hashed out in the courts. Debbi who is getting really, really behind in answering posts (but the ones for Dan still hold my personal time record - not a good one!) __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - More reliable, more storage, less spam http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
