[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So the state takes my tax money, and I have either the choice of a state mandated secular humanist education or I can forfeit it and pay after tax dollar on a private school…Sounds a bit like state coercion towards the secular humanist school. And the notion that our schools must be absent any mention of God as a real and important part of our lives is indeed a federal mandate…

[/quote]

You can choose to view it as coercion, or state provided choices. The state (little “s”) also provides you with police and fire protection, national defense, regulatory bodies for banks and investment houses, to help protect and ensure the foods and products you buy are safe, park and recreation facilities, roads and public transportation and much more. Some of these you will use directly, some indirectly, some not at all. Some you may support, some you may vehemently disagree with. But you don’t get to choose whether you pay for them, you only get to choose, through the election process, whether those services will be funded. If enough people feel the same way as you, maybe some of these services will be defunded. Public schools are one of the services that have been provided for many generations. And for more than 60 years, the constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the funding of religious instruction in public schools. There is nothing prohibiting you from providing that instruction outside the public school system. Just as there is nothing prohibiting you from providing outside isntruction for many subjects which have also (though for different reasons) been defunded in many school districts. Like music, art, drama, and physical education. No coercion involved. Nobody is coercing you, or your children to be godless athiests. That’s the point of the separation. There is no government coercion.

I don’t really know much about secular humanism. I’m reasonably sure it is not a subject taught in public schools. Certainly not in my kid’s schools. Unless you classify science as secular humanism, that argument fails.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So the state takes my tax money, and I have either the choice of a state mandated secular humanist education or I can forfeit it and pay after tax dollar on a private school…Sounds a bit like state coercion towards the secular humanist school. And the notion that our schools must be absent any mention of God as a real and important part of our lives is indeed a federal mandate…

[/quote]

You can choose to view it as coercion, or state provided choices. The state (little “s”) also provides you with police and fire protection, national defense, regulatory bodies for banks and investment houses, to help protect and ensure the foods and products you buy are safe, park and recreation facilities, roads and public transportation and much more. Some of these you will use directly, some indirectly, some not at all. Some you may support, some you may vehemently disagree with. But you don’t get to choose whether you pay for them, you only get to choose, through the election process, whether those services will be funded. If enough people feel the same way as you, maybe some of these services will be defunded. Public schools are one of the services that have been provided for many generations. And for more than 60 years, the constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the funding of religious instruction in public schools. There is nothing prohibiting you from providing that instruction outside the public school system. Just as there is nothing prohibiting you from providing outside isntruction for many subjects which have also (though for different reasons) been defunded in many school districts. Like music, art, drama, and physical education. No coercion involved. Nobody is coercing you, or your children to be godless athiests. That’s the point of the separation. There is no government coercion.

I don’t really know much about secular humanism. I’m reasonably sure it is not a subject taught in public schools. Certainly not in my kid’s schools. Unless you classify science as secular humanism, that argument fails.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So the state takes my tax money, and I have either the choice of a state mandated secular humanist education or I can forfeit it and pay after tax dollar on a private school…Sounds a bit like state coercion towards the secular humanist school. And the notion that our schools must be absent any mention of God as a real and important part of our lives is indeed a federal mandate…

[/quote]

You can choose to view it as coercion, or state provided choices. The state (little “s”) also provides you with police and fire protection, national defense, regulatory bodies for banks and investment houses, to help protect and ensure the foods and products you buy are safe, park and recreation facilities, roads and public transportation and much more. Some of these you will use directly, some indirectly, some not at all. Some you may support, some you may vehemently disagree with. But you don’t get to choose whether you pay for them, you only get to choose, through the election process, whether those services will be funded. If enough people feel the same way as you, maybe some of these services will be defunded. Public schools are one of the services that have been provided for many generations. And for more than 60 years, the constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the funding of religious instruction in public schools. There is nothing prohibiting you from providing that instruction outside the public school system. Just as there is nothing prohibiting you from providing outside isntruction for many subjects which have also (though for different reasons) been defunded in many school districts. Like music, art, drama, and physical education. No coercion involved. Nobody is coercing you, or your children to be godless athiests. That’s the point of the separation. There is no government coercion.

I don’t really know much about secular humanism. I’m reasonably sure it is not a subject taught in public schools. Certainly not in my kid’s schools. Unless you classify science as secular humanism, that argument fails.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]
So the state takes my tax money, and I have either the choice of a state mandated secular humanist education or I can forfeit it and pay after tax dollar on a private school…Sounds a bit like state coercion towards the secular humanist school. And the notion that our schools must be absent any mention of God as a real and important part of our lives is indeed a federal mandate…

[/quote]

You can choose to view it as coercion, or state provided choices. The state (little “s”) also provides you with police and fire protection, national defense, regulatory bodies for banks and investment houses, to help protect and ensure the foods and products you buy are safe, park and recreation facilities, roads and public transportation and much more. Some of these you will use directly, some indirectly, some not at all. Some you may support, some you may vehemently disagree with. But you don’t get to choose whether you pay for them, you only get to choose, through the election process, whether those services will be funded. If enough people feel the same way as you, maybe some of these services will be defunded. Public schools are one of the services that have been provided for many generations. And for more than 60 years, the constitution has been interpreted to prohibit the funding of religious instruction in public schools. There is nothing prohibiting you from providing that instruction outside the public school system. Just as there is nothing prohibiting you from providing outside isntruction for many subjects which have also (though for different reasons) been defunded in many school districts. Like music, art, drama, and physical education. No coercion involved. Nobody is coercing you, or your children to be godless athiests. That’s the point of the separation. There is no government coercion.

I don’t really know much about secular humanism. I’m reasonably sure it is not a subject taught in public schools. Certainly not in my kid’s schools. Unless you classify science as secular humanism, that argument fails.

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]All of this follows to the elemental problem with public schools…They are a one size fits all legislative control arm from Washington. In one of the most intimate aspects of our lives. There are no choices (I guess they are limited with charter schools and the financially prohibitive private schools). If people can go where they choose, this debate we are having is moot.[/quote]

The elemental problem seems to be that you have no clue what you’re talking about. There is no legislative control of classroom curricula from Washington. It is all determined at the state or local level. And you can send your children where you chose. Either the public school in your area (many actually provide choices within your district) or you can elect to send them to private school. Or even home school them. That choice is yours.

[quote=jstoesz] The solution to this problem is freedom not more regulation. I am sure you want your child to go to a secular humanist school. I have no problem with that. But should you have a problem if I want to send my kid to a Muslim school? Why is your Religon more protected than mine? The absence of a religion is still a religion.[/quote]

Nobody is keeping you from sending your children to a Muslim school if you so choose. But with minor exception, that Muslim school (or any other parochial school) cannot receive direct federal or state funding.

(And the assertion that the absence of religion is a religion is absurd. In the rhetorical sense, it begs the question. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that everyone must have faith. I don’t, thank you. I don’t begrudge you having yours. It simply isn’t mine.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]All of this follows to the elemental problem with public schools…They are a one size fits all legislative control arm from Washington. In one of the most intimate aspects of our lives. There are no choices (I guess they are limited with charter schools and the financially prohibitive private schools). If people can go where they choose, this debate we are having is moot.[/quote]

The elemental problem seems to be that you have no clue what you’re talking about. There is no legislative control of classroom curricula from Washington. It is all determined at the state or local level. And you can send your children where you chose. Either the public school in your area (many actually provide choices within your district) or you can elect to send them to private school. Or even home school them. That choice is yours.

[quote=jstoesz] The solution to this problem is freedom not more regulation. I am sure you want your child to go to a secular humanist school. I have no problem with that. But should you have a problem if I want to send my kid to a Muslim school? Why is your Religon more protected than mine? The absence of a religion is still a religion.[/quote]

Nobody is keeping you from sending your children to a Muslim school if you so choose. But with minor exception, that Muslim school (or any other parochial school) cannot receive direct federal or state funding.

(And the assertion that the absence of religion is a religion is absurd. In the rhetorical sense, it begs the question. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that everyone must have faith. I don’t, thank you. I don’t begrudge you having yours. It simply isn’t mine.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]All of this follows to the elemental problem with public schools…They are a one size fits all legislative control arm from Washington. In one of the most intimate aspects of our lives. There are no choices (I guess they are limited with charter schools and the financially prohibitive private schools). If people can go where they choose, this debate we are having is moot.[/quote]

The elemental problem seems to be that you have no clue what you’re talking about. There is no legislative control of classroom curricula from Washington. It is all determined at the state or local level. And you can send your children where you chose. Either the public school in your area (many actually provide choices within your district) or you can elect to send them to private school. Or even home school them. That choice is yours.

[quote=jstoesz] The solution to this problem is freedom not more regulation. I am sure you want your child to go to a secular humanist school. I have no problem with that. But should you have a problem if I want to send my kid to a Muslim school? Why is your Religon more protected than mine? The absence of a religion is still a religion.[/quote]

Nobody is keeping you from sending your children to a Muslim school if you so choose. But with minor exception, that Muslim school (or any other parochial school) cannot receive direct federal or state funding.

(And the assertion that the absence of religion is a religion is absurd. In the rhetorical sense, it begs the question. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that everyone must have faith. I don’t, thank you. I don’t begrudge you having yours. It simply isn’t mine.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]All of this follows to the elemental problem with public schools…They are a one size fits all legislative control arm from Washington. In one of the most intimate aspects of our lives. There are no choices (I guess they are limited with charter schools and the financially prohibitive private schools). If people can go where they choose, this debate we are having is moot.[/quote]

The elemental problem seems to be that you have no clue what you’re talking about. There is no legislative control of classroom curricula from Washington. It is all determined at the state or local level. And you can send your children where you chose. Either the public school in your area (many actually provide choices within your district) or you can elect to send them to private school. Or even home school them. That choice is yours.

[quote=jstoesz] The solution to this problem is freedom not more regulation. I am sure you want your child to go to a secular humanist school. I have no problem with that. But should you have a problem if I want to send my kid to a Muslim school? Why is your Religon more protected than mine? The absence of a religion is still a religion.[/quote]

Nobody is keeping you from sending your children to a Muslim school if you so choose. But with minor exception, that Muslim school (or any other parochial school) cannot receive direct federal or state funding.

(And the assertion that the absence of religion is a religion is absurd. In the rhetorical sense, it begs the question. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that everyone must have faith. I don’t, thank you. I don’t begrudge you having yours. It simply isn’t mine.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=jstoesz]All of this follows to the elemental problem with public schools…They are a one size fits all legislative control arm from Washington. In one of the most intimate aspects of our lives. There are no choices (I guess they are limited with charter schools and the financially prohibitive private schools). If people can go where they choose, this debate we are having is moot.[/quote]

The elemental problem seems to be that you have no clue what you’re talking about. There is no legislative control of classroom curricula from Washington. It is all determined at the state or local level. And you can send your children where you chose. Either the public school in your area (many actually provide choices within your district) or you can elect to send them to private school. Or even home school them. That choice is yours.

[quote=jstoesz] The solution to this problem is freedom not more regulation. I am sure you want your child to go to a secular humanist school. I have no problem with that. But should you have a problem if I want to send my kid to a Muslim school? Why is your Religon more protected than mine? The absence of a religion is still a religion.[/quote]

Nobody is keeping you from sending your children to a Muslim school if you so choose. But with minor exception, that Muslim school (or any other parochial school) cannot receive direct federal or state funding.

(And the assertion that the absence of religion is a religion is absurd. In the rhetorical sense, it begs the question. It is a logical fallacy which assumes that everyone must have faith. I don’t, thank you. I don’t begrudge you having yours. It simply isn’t mine.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=BKlawyer]You HAVE to be kidding me, right? I want to hear from you guys the night after the election. Don’t worry, by then Obama will have fled the jurisdiction. Your/The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the bill of rights by you knuckleheads is amazing! I don’t know where to begin other than to look at KKK member Hugo Black’s 1947 decisions to begin this discussion. You guys are regularly a pretty sober group but apparently your impending losses are causing a bleed out.
For a total bastardization of the constitutiuon and BORs, PLEASE read up on current Justice Breyer’s affections for foreign policy to shape current Court decisions regarding death penalty, etc. Of course, while he advocates outlawing it based on Sweden or some other country’s policies, he fails to embrace amputation for theft or stoning for adultery. How about forced abortion in China (I suspect a lot of you would give a “thumbs-up” to that). Hey! Female Circumscision? Why are we stopping at death penalty policy? Because you pick your opinion and work backwards. Instead of adhering to principle and pushing forwards.[/quote]

Ha! Funny. Amazing what ideologies can do, even for the educated. (And I’m not laughing at Breyer.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=BKlawyer]You HAVE to be kidding me, right? I want to hear from you guys the night after the election. Don’t worry, by then Obama will have fled the jurisdiction. Your/The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the bill of rights by you knuckleheads is amazing! I don’t know where to begin other than to look at KKK member Hugo Black’s 1947 decisions to begin this discussion. You guys are regularly a pretty sober group but apparently your impending losses are causing a bleed out.
For a total bastardization of the constitutiuon and BORs, PLEASE read up on current Justice Breyer’s affections for foreign policy to shape current Court decisions regarding death penalty, etc. Of course, while he advocates outlawing it based on Sweden or some other country’s policies, he fails to embrace amputation for theft or stoning for adultery. How about forced abortion in China (I suspect a lot of you would give a “thumbs-up” to that). Hey! Female Circumscision? Why are we stopping at death penalty policy? Because you pick your opinion and work backwards. Instead of adhering to principle and pushing forwards.[/quote]

Ha! Funny. Amazing what ideologies can do, even for the educated. (And I’m not laughing at Breyer.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=BKlawyer]You HAVE to be kidding me, right? I want to hear from you guys the night after the election. Don’t worry, by then Obama will have fled the jurisdiction. Your/The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the bill of rights by you knuckleheads is amazing! I don’t know where to begin other than to look at KKK member Hugo Black’s 1947 decisions to begin this discussion. You guys are regularly a pretty sober group but apparently your impending losses are causing a bleed out.
For a total bastardization of the constitutiuon and BORs, PLEASE read up on current Justice Breyer’s affections for foreign policy to shape current Court decisions regarding death penalty, etc. Of course, while he advocates outlawing it based on Sweden or some other country’s policies, he fails to embrace amputation for theft or stoning for adultery. How about forced abortion in China (I suspect a lot of you would give a “thumbs-up” to that). Hey! Female Circumscision? Why are we stopping at death penalty policy? Because you pick your opinion and work backwards. Instead of adhering to principle and pushing forwards.[/quote]

Ha! Funny. Amazing what ideologies can do, even for the educated. (And I’m not laughing at Breyer.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=BKlawyer]You HAVE to be kidding me, right? I want to hear from you guys the night after the election. Don’t worry, by then Obama will have fled the jurisdiction. Your/The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the bill of rights by you knuckleheads is amazing! I don’t know where to begin other than to look at KKK member Hugo Black’s 1947 decisions to begin this discussion. You guys are regularly a pretty sober group but apparently your impending losses are causing a bleed out.
For a total bastardization of the constitutiuon and BORs, PLEASE read up on current Justice Breyer’s affections for foreign policy to shape current Court decisions regarding death penalty, etc. Of course, while he advocates outlawing it based on Sweden or some other country’s policies, he fails to embrace amputation for theft or stoning for adultery. How about forced abortion in China (I suspect a lot of you would give a “thumbs-up” to that). Hey! Female Circumscision? Why are we stopping at death penalty policy? Because you pick your opinion and work backwards. Instead of adhering to principle and pushing forwards.[/quote]

Ha! Funny. Amazing what ideologies can do, even for the educated. (And I’m not laughing at Breyer.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=BKlawyer]You HAVE to be kidding me, right? I want to hear from you guys the night after the election. Don’t worry, by then Obama will have fled the jurisdiction. Your/The fundamental misunderstanding of the Constitution and the bill of rights by you knuckleheads is amazing! I don’t know where to begin other than to look at KKK member Hugo Black’s 1947 decisions to begin this discussion. You guys are regularly a pretty sober group but apparently your impending losses are causing a bleed out.
For a total bastardization of the constitutiuon and BORs, PLEASE read up on current Justice Breyer’s affections for foreign policy to shape current Court decisions regarding death penalty, etc. Of course, while he advocates outlawing it based on Sweden or some other country’s policies, he fails to embrace amputation for theft or stoning for adultery. How about forced abortion in China (I suspect a lot of you would give a “thumbs-up” to that). Hey! Female Circumscision? Why are we stopping at death penalty policy? Because you pick your opinion and work backwards. Instead of adhering to principle and pushing forwards.[/quote]

Ha! Funny. Amazing what ideologies can do, even for the educated. (And I’m not laughing at Breyer.)

[SK in CV]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
Thankfully, SK is back and we can get back to more clear discussions about how his involvment with the Fed has caused our large shark subsidies to wane.[/quote]

That’s the difference between you and me. I’m all for shark subsidies. But only SMALL shark subsidies. You just want to subsidize the large sharks, which, over the last 40 years, have grown bigger and bigger, as the small sharks shrink. Our economy grew strong during the middle of this century on the jobs created by small sharks. The nurses, the sands, the Dwarf Lanternfish (yeah, I looked that one up)….and you want to fund the threshers, the great whites and the hammerheads. That trickle down sharkonomy just doesn’t work. It’s a fallacy. Probably invented by Ronald Reagan.

[Author]

Posts