Another Libertarian philosophy that I think will do America a great deal of good is to enforce REAL separation of church and state.

I chose to explore this position because this forum has a good representation of both Christians and Libertarians. Lurkers and regulars, please feel free to contribute your $.02 so that we can avoid another Flint, Gilda, and Unc D horse and pony show. This should be a good rousing debate, OT, but fun. Shall we have a go at it?

I see a lot of calls on this forum that go something like this We are bound for hell in a hand-basket and it is all because we took prayer out of the schools. I disagree with the act of schools enforcing prayer in the classroom, and so does the Libertarian Party.

When the Founding Fathers sat down to form our new countrys guiding document, the very first Amendment to the Constitution begins with the radical phrase (very radical for those days):

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

I think that is pretty clear, dont you? Not allowing government sponsored prayer in school is not only a good idea, it is actually a very Constitutional idea.

What do you think?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999

Answers

Well, you'll never take prayer out of the schools, unless you take tests out first. [g] But requiring someone to pray does not seem to jibe with the way the Constutition is written.

-- Paul Davis (davisp1953@yahoo.com), May 19, 1999.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Let's look at that a little closer

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Ummm

-- CT (ct@no.yr), May 19, 1999.

Hi Unc.

Perhaps the problem isn't prayer in schools but the types of schools the prayer is in? Originally public education was intended for the poorest of the poor - those who couldn't afford to go to a parochial or private school. I think the state needs to get *out* of the school business to the absolute maximum extent possible. If the government isn't involved in schooling (and it shouldn't be) then there wont be any problem with kids praying in school, 'cause there wont be any government money involved.

Arlin

-- Arlin H. Adams (ahadams@ix.netcom.com), May 19, 1999.

Been feeling a might frisky lately, eh Mr. Deedah!

Webster's definition:

Prayer: a spiritual communion with God or an object of worship, as in entreaty, thanksgiving, or adoration.

Prayer can be performed silently, in a standing, sitting, or laying down position. IMO, the positioning of the arms, hands, feet, etc. are irrelevant. That said, students & teachers alike have ample opportunity to pray silently throughout the course of the public school day.

Yes folks, prayer is allowed in the public schools.

That wasn't so hard now, was it?

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 19, 1999.

Unc D,

I fully agree with yours, and CT's point......"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..............

This brings up the problem of the removal of church and state. When the government claimed the right of teaching our children, we lost the morality of our nation.

How can a government that represents many religions be expected to sponsor any. The allowance of 5 minutes for personal prayer is only abhored by the unbeliever of a spiritual higher power.

They in fact teach the religion of capitalism. Capitalism being the highest power. Where a childs action, (or nonaction) is rewarded by the highest power (capitalism), and these actions go directly against any spiritual religions I've explored.

When I was a child and young adult to be a spiritual person was special, respected by many, and the nation was a whole lot more than it is today. The Federal government took care of that. Now to be a Christian is an instant lable. Terrorist. Right Wing. I am a christian. I would never try to impose my beliefs on you. I would only give you my opinion about spirituality when ask for it. I would never try to take away your right to believe. Whether Satanic, Agnostic,,,whatever.

Can you all say Facism??

Latest headline on WebCrawler........

Reuters 7 UPI 7 State News 7 Politics 7 Photos

Healer-In-Chief Clinton To Visit Town Of Massacre Updated 10:34 PM ET May 19, 1999 By Steve Holland WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Clinton will put his skills as healer of national traumas to the test Thursday when he visits the Colorado town where two high school students murdered 13 people in a shooting rampage.

A month after the massacre at Columbine High School in the Denver suburb of Littleton, Clinton will console students and families of victims in a visit that White House spokesman Joe Lockhart said would be more personal than policy.

More personal than policy. He'll use the first to take the second, then come back to take the first away.

Now I'm getting angry again. Thanks Unc. I think I'll go look at some thermonuclear sites (g)

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 19, 1999.

My understanding of the Founding Fathers' intent is that they wanted to avoid any official, government mandated church like the one most of them or their forefathers came to America to escape. I do not think they would endorse taking prayer out of schools - as most of them were more devout than most today.

I like Arlin's suggestion: Get government out of education and put prayer back in the schools.

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), May 20, 1999.

Bill P. and Arlin got it. The constitution has a hell of lot more to do with freedom than it does restriction. If a government sponsered, funded, school system takes freedom in the name of freedom that's restriction---courts be damned. Geeze, I got worked up. VOUCHERS

-- Carlos Mueller (riffraff@cybertime.net), May 20, 1999.

"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

There's the rub. It is not "the free exercise thereof" when a school requires its students to engage in public "prayer." Think what you would feel if your Christian child was in a Muslim school in a Muslim country in comparable circumstance, required to conform to the forms and substance of prayer used there.

You may believe that all children should pray -- and I won't argue that -- but it is compulsion to require all children to adhere to the format of prayer prescribed by the majority. Of course the child is told "You're free not to participate." This is still compulsion, by peer pressure, not by edict.

How many 8 or 10 or 12 year old children are that independent? How many could stand up against the ridicule and hazing from the rest? Think of yourself at that age. No child wants to be different!

Prayers uttered under compulsion can't be called prayer, it is hypocrisy and falsehood. That we should not be teaching to any child.

-- Tom Carey (tomcarey@mindspring.com), May 20, 1999.

Tom,

I disagree with the implications of this statement....

"How many 8 or 10 or 12 year old children are that independent? How many could stand up against the ridicule and hazing from the rest? Think of yourself at that age. No child wants to be different! "

This is state dependant thinking. It is my responsbility to teach my child the value of independent thinking. To teach my child the values I hold dear. Not the social group he/she interacts with. It is not the function of learning institutions to teach my child these value's, although both sides of the political parties jump at the chance....

"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

It is not the function of learning institutions to withhold the teaching of value's to my child either.

Can u say fascism?

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 20, 1999.

Silent prayer, for someone who does not pray, is nothing, simply sitting and meditating, perhaps.

THe point of this particular ammendment is quite simple. THe government can't establish a specific sect, belief or other definition of religion as the approved state religion. This does NOT mean that the people in the government, or in the schools can not indulge in personal religious practices.

This ALSO does not allow a group to go to a city, sue the city for having a cross and a book in the city seal, and demand that the city redesign their seal, of a hundred plus years standing. When the city tried to wimp out and settle, the PEOPLE of the city managed to put the issue on the ballot, and the current seal won HANDILY. At that juncture, the city law director tried to indicate that the city had no funds to fight this free expression/free speech issue and they would have to give in. jay Secula (a person I don't listen to alot for other than germain reasons) is willing and anxious to defend the city of SOLON Ohio. With a name like Solon, one would think the issue could be handled better.

Chuck

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 20, 1999.

PS

NOWHERE in there does it say that there should be a separation of Church and State. The Founders were EXTREMELY religious men. Reading this as creating a separation of Church and State must have them spinning.

C

-- Chuck, a night driver (rienzoo@en.com), May 20, 1999.

Chuck,

That is an exellant point........

"NOWHERE in there does it say that there should be a separation of Church and State. The Founders were EXTREMELY religious men. Reading this as creating a separation of Church and State must have them spinning. "

On the flip side, it doesn't say the state shall embrace a church either.

Leaving me with, The state shall not pass any laws for nor against the church. Church meaning religion, and state meaning the Federal/State government.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 20, 1999.

Boy did I just bust a hole in that one after more thought. Hypotheticaly speaking, "I am a (pick your name), and I kill children at sunrise because that is where the sun gets it's power."

duh!

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 20, 1999.

Many (by no means all) early Americans, including the founders, cherished the colonies because, for the first time, they could practice their religion IN the "public square" without fear of suppression by the government. The word "separation" of church and state would have been incomprehensible to them.

Likewise, the idea of a federal, centralized government creating and regulating a system of schools would have been abhorrent to their sense of liberty AND (something we lack) responsibility. Spoken as a home schooling parent..... yes, the moment one yokes "federal" and "schools", prayer becomes a problem. BTW, I am against vouchers for Christian schools because I believe, reasonable though the concept appears in general, it will inevitably mean regulation in a host of areas and a decline.

There is a pretty good analogy, better than one might think, between conditions then and now with respect to plurality of "religions". Most then-Baptists (heck, Anglicans) viewed Catholics (and vice versa) not unlike today members of some Christian and some Islamic groups might look at one another. And so it goes.

One would think the Libertarian position would be to allow any "entity" with appropriate authority over itself (whether individual, family, village, specific school, etc) to make its own decisions about spiritual practice. So, one school might "emphasize" New Age practices, another none, another Christian, etc. One town might have a cross up for Christmas, another not.

Isn't the nub of it why a centralized government has been ceded the right to force even the tiniest, far-removed entity to do its bidding with respect to spiritual matters?

So, Uncle Deedah, it appears that the real problem is that the government hasn't separated itself from the desire of its citizens to be left alone to practice their religion(s) as they wish, singly or together, rather than the other way around (ie, wouldn't it be great if we HAD separation of church and state).

-- BigDog (BigDog@duffer.com), May 20, 1999.

Beyond, school prayer, there are other issues to be hotly debated. For example, what about law? Is human law founded upon a Natural Law which is received from the Creator and determined by human reason or is it founded upon human reason, will, and whim? Let me illustrate this... Is homosexual marraige an institution that we can now legitimate by mere legislation or... is heterosexual marraige an institution that government has received and has no right to define (whatever the cultural experiments that may prevail)? Or you can put another way: Is government's business in marraige only it's encouragement of an institution because of the real social benefits it imparts to this democracy? This is my argument. Other illustrations include abortion or partial birth abortion. In truth, the debate over the separation of church and state has been argued through human laws for a very long time (since the beginning of society) and with little conclusion as to what is to be done. Myself, I can not see a healthy society whose law is not guided in some way by the the moral input of religion (the natural law). As Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court rightly pointed out: "Without the Natural Law, I can be made a slave, again!"

Sincerely, Stan Faryna

-- Stan Faryna (info@giglobal.com), May 20, 1999.

I belive that prayer should be brought bank into the schools. When children were tought morality in school, as well as at home, crime was low, and we were a much better nation, now look at what has happened. Without God, America has decilined. Prayer should be back in the schools, and the government should be out of them. Period!

-- Crono (Crono@timesend.com), May 20, 1999.

Per earlier posts in this thread:

1) Retain separation of church and state (recognizes the ramifications of 30 years of 3rd-world immigration due to the 1965 immigration-law change)

2) Minimize the Federal Government's role in public (Government) schools

-- Anonymous99 (Anonymous99@Anonymous99.xxx), May 20, 1999.

It is unlikely in the extreme that the Founders envisioned legally mandated public education enforcing a moral vaccuum, wherein no discussion or group endorsement of moral beliefs took place. Such a situation cannot exist: just as nature abhors a vaccuum, so do humans turn to talismans upon which to hang their behavioral hats. Witness 'values' education. What is it, if not an advancement of a secular religion, masquerading as an areligious common ground. Or witness the emphasis on 'diversity.' It is not true diversity they seek, but a slavish obeisance to a morally neutral monoculture. The elites who design national curricula can pick and choose the 'ethical' causes they wish children (and adults) to embrace. If homosexuality is in season, then it must be tolerated under the rubric of diversity. If contraception/abortion/euthanasia are in season, then 'ethicists' are trotted out who vouchsafe the utility of same. Any traditional notions of Faith, of God, are tossed in the wastebasket: radical secularists campaign to remove any vestige of tradition from our public square, even to the point of taking down plaques bearing the ten commandments, as being 'divisive.' Language is corrupted, and all that was considered good is labelled evil by the regime. Value neutral? Hardly.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 20, 1999.

Why has no one, save myself, given their interpretation of prayer, an example of what they wish to see pass for prayer in public schools?

Why has no one even attempted to refute, save Chuck (huh?), my example that proves prayer IS allowed in public schools?

Hello? I'm not the brightest of blokes, of this I'm quite aware. OK, I'm a dullard. Nonetheless, please humor me. Please explain.

And enough about the high morals of this country's populace way back when. A populace which condones slavery is moral? A populace which condones 'Jim Crow' laws is moral?

"But you're looking back on these times out of context, Bingo".

Dream on!

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 20, 1999.

In fact, as John Neuhas ably described in his landmark book 'The Naked Public Square,' the false concept of seperation is used by the anti-Christian elites to proscribe involvement in politics by men of faith. If a public representative refers to Jesus, media hackles are raised, and keyboards start smoking as columnists raise anew the specter of 'creeping theocracy.' "Do you want to live in the Ayatollah's Iran?" becomes the central question, as if to talk of mercy and compassion is to be a Shiite. This fevered rejection of Christian morality simply paves the way for atheistic social engineering, which is the ultimate goal of our elites. This fierce kulturkampf goes on every day, all around us, and leads to feelings of alienation on the part of Christians. Witness Paul Weyrich's recent call for separatist Christian communities, and schools. But we all saw how our government, so tolerant of diversity, treated the Branch Davidians in Waco: they murdered them. Having said that, I still realize it is possible for an individual to be faithful to his God, and to lead a life of holiness. It is sin that enslaves us, not the Roman regime of Tiberius, or Clinton. We may seek amelioration in this world, but as Jesus showed, His (and our) Kingdom is not of this world. I do not advocate Angelism (roughly, the desire to retreat and let God handle everything), and the Church acts through history to bring souls to redemption. Take heart, brethren: all the empires raised against the Church fade to dust. In the end, Satan loses.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 20, 1999.

Excellent! Just what I was hoping for!

I see that Stan Faryna is going right for the throat of the matter. His example of homosexual marriage is a good one to show how subtle the connections between church and state are, and why our laws are still based on SOME religious beliefs, while discounting OTHER religious beliefs. I believe that the state has no more right to tell one man that he cannot marry another man, (which is abhorrent to some religious beliefs) than it has to tell a white man that he cannot marry a black woman, (which is frowned on by some religious beliefs) or tell a man that he cannot have more than one wife. (which is actually encouraged by some religious beliefs)

His quote of As Associate Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court rightly pointed out: "Without the Natural Law, I can be made a slave, again!" How true!

What is Natural law as seen by the founders? The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! This country was settled largely by people who were fleeing religious persecution, who were tired of the way that the LAWS were changed every time a new king was crowned. They saw first hand the trouble that arises when the church and state are allowed to intertwine. To be a Catholic was safe one day, but Lord help you if the next king was Protestant!

or prohibit the free exercise thereof allows individuals and groups to pray all they wish, free from interference from the state, EVEN if others find those religious beliefs abhorrent. Waco, and for that matter Jonestown, would likely not have occurred if this simple idea had been followed by the parties involved. But they were CULTS! Cults are EVIL! Everyone knows that!

Golly, a politically unpopular group of devoted followers, who gave up all of their worldly goods, and withstood persecution and derision in order to follow a highly charismatic leader. Does this ring a bell with anyone out there?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

A quick afterthought,

For those of you who think that the government is teaching your children terrible values, or who think that large government run schools don't teach your children very well, the Libertarian Party wants you to send your children to small, local schools that teach them the values that YOU want them to have.

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

Unc D: You do a credible job advocating libertarianism, and I strongly endorse the need for a third party. I like Gore Vidal's (a homosexual) remark that there is only one party in this country, the Bankparty. Joe Farah today asks the same question. Independent-minded Americans have known since the thirties that there's not a nickel's worth of difference between our two official parties: all the supposed issues of contention are now revealed for what they always were--smoke and mirrors. I've enjoyed reading Liberty magazine in the past, and would be the first to concede 'live and let live' as an operative philosophy (and I'm sure you understand why I feel abortion to be an exceptional issue). My fear, as we move towards Nov. 2000, is that Big Money will employ their usual tactics of divide and conquer to prevent a single strong voice of opposition from emerging. Even if the Weyrichs, Spideys, Ludwig von Mises types did agree to back Libertarian national candidates, Big Money would run one or several spoilers: exhume Ross Perot, or someone like him. Also, I percieve among some libertarian thinkers a blind devotion to 'free trade,' which means they oppose Pat Buchanan's economic determinism. To me, global trade, good in theory, plays into the hands of the same multinational corporate interests that do so much to undermine American economic interests. Attack GATT, and you come up against an opposition whose name is legion, well-heeled, and in control of the national media. There is an appeal to Weyrich's separatism: huddle in our camps, and wait for the night to pass. When you read the history of the Wobblies, the Agrarian reformers, the forces arrayed around William Jennings Bryan, the (political) situation seems bleak. Grass roots? The federal judiciary will thwart it.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 20, 1999.

Spidey said, "There's not a nickel's worth of difference between our two official parties." No kidding.

The Democrats are the party of more government, and the Republicans are the party of just a little bit less more government.

-- DMH (aint@tellin.com), May 20, 1999.

Spidey so elegantly stated: "I like Gore Vidal's (a homosexual)..." Thanks for the heads-up.

Sincerely Yours,

Bingo (hermaphrodite)

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 20, 1999.

Bingo: I added that parenthetically because in "Age of Reason I" my fulminations against abortion were linked in some respondents posts with hatred of homosexuality. I respect Mr. Vidal's writings very much, and would recommend to anyone his collected essays ('United States'), particulary those that deal (prophetically) with the national security state. If people want to bugger themselves, let them. God knows the clerisy is ridden with them, to the shame of us all. I'm too old and too jaded to pull punches anymore with language. Euphemisms are part of the problem, and until we uncorrupt the language, and learn to speak clearly, we will be held in thrall to elitist interests inimical to the health of the polity. 'nuff said, as Stan Lee used to say. (as far as hermaphroditism, neat trick, if you can accomplish it)

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 20, 1999.

I'm enjoying the discussion.

Let me just throw out one comment and one additional thought for the mix.

Thought: Prayer in schools = Bad Idea! I cringe everytime I see one of my fellow Christians get sucked into that red herring. Spend the energy lobbing against goonverment meddling in education; that's where the real problem lies. Education belongs in the private sector AMAP (as much as possible).

Comment: The constitutional prohibition against church/state establishment only applies to the federal government. The individual States could, if they so chose, have state religions. Many of the colonies did, with Maryland -- a Catholic colony -- being the first to have true religious freedom for all Christians (just a little tidbit for your next Trivial Pursuit game there ;-D).

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

David: surely a curious balkanization would occur. Anyway, the federal courts would use the Commerce Clause to prevent it. The only hope is introducing Gregorian chant. A polyphonic society is a sedate society.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 20, 1999.

I'm not advocating it -- just saying that it would not be unconstitutional.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

In my house we have had frequent discussion as to whether or not The Enlightenment failed, based on the evidence in the late 20th Century.

I'm just going to add this quote now, and the web site for your edification before going back and reading everyone's thoughtful posts. I came across this just yesterday, but it has application to me since I think that claims to understanding the "founders" intent are much misused.

"The Treaty of Tripoli

Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1997.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government."

Now the link to read this and other freethought (aka, enlightenment) articles

http://members.icanect.net/~zardoz/index.htm

Freethinker

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), May 20, 1999.

David

To be quite frank with you, I am not sure whether that is Constitutional or not in a strict reading sense. (I'm not a lawyer, and I refuse to play one on TV until they cough up big bucks)

But would it not both violate the spirit of that Amendment, (only on a smaller scale, state not nation) while also leading us down the same path that we are on: Trying to figure out which religious values the state should espouse, and who's religious values get dumped in the trash?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 20, 1999.

Donna, thanks for the link. Although I've been on the Secular Web, I'd missed this somehow.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 20, 1999.

My pleasure, gilda,...an Enlightenment dinosaur, I'm obliged to pass on information that backlash babies will ignore and my kindred will appreciate.

-- Donna (moment@pacbell.net), May 20, 1999.

Thanks for the link Donna. Rule one at my house... "know the enemy"

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Mr Wright,

As to your earlier point, the Duh one.

Libertarians, and the state for that matter, have a vested interest in halting the activities of religions which practice human sacrifice. That old Live and Let Live, you know.

As for your latest post, who is the enemy? Folks who do not agree with you, but would agree to let you practice your beliefs as you see fit? (With that old pesky caveat about harming others, of course) Or, those who would actively seek to silence others, because they do not have the "correct" beliefs?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

Unc D,

The enemy is anything that subverts the value's I am teaching my children.

Libertarians. I'm a member of the party. They are the closest party to my beliefs. I disagree with their stance on many things.

legalizing narcotics

speeding

empowering policemen to make snap decisions on degree of law

I believe the human sacrifice post is there to show the falacy of my thinking.

-- R. Wright (blaklodg@aol.com), May 21, 1999.

Thanks

As Flint so rightly pointed out on an other thread, I can be a bit dense at times. (NO, say it ain't so!)

What about if your religion advocates the use of a "narcotic" (a sloppy word that has been stretched to include all frowned on drugs) such as the American Indians, or the Rastafarians?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

As for decriminalization of narcotics, I stand (or sit) with William Boroughs. One proviso: when trying to shoot the apple off the top of your wife's head, don't be ripped on heroin. He did, and missed. Shot went low. True story, unfortunately.

-- Spidey (in@jam.commie), May 21, 1999.

Boy, lots of interesting stuff here. I actually find these discussions more interesting than Y2K which is why I wouldn't take Chuck's pledge ;-D.

Well Unc D., I'll say it again. I don't advocate any of the 50 States establishing a state religion. State religion is a Bad Idea, yea a Very Bad Idea. Just so we're clear on that.

I would not want my children to say Muslim prayers or Buddhist prayers or Taoist prayers or even distinctively Protestant prayers in school. I dare say that the folks here who do support prayer in school wouldn't want their kids saying any Hail Marys either. And the very last thing I want them to say are some emasculated, lowest common denominator, we-don't-want-to-offend-anybody prayers. That does more harm than good, because it teaches indifferentism and relativism. That and the constitutional prohibition of establishment are why I'm against prayer in schools.

My reason for throwing out the idea of a state religion (vs. a federal one) was simply to help us all gauge just how much latent federalism resides in our hearts. I don't think it can be argued that Wisconsin declaring itself officially Lutheran in any way violates the U.S. Constitution, spirit or letter. It does violate the WI Constitution, of course, but that's just the point. If we WIites decided to amend the WI Constitution to allow that, then it is my contention that the federal government should say "okee dokee" and go on about its business. It would be a bad idea but it would be perfectly within our rights. Can the Libertarians here agree with that?

On drug legalization, I am left without a good argument in reply to Unc's and others' case. Emotionally I'm against legalizing drugs; its seems terrible for the common good and I do think the law has an important function as a moral tutor. But that's pretty nebulous and, as I say, mainly emotional. Perhaps the correct middle ground for me at this point is to decriminalize drugs. That would....ah, heck, I'm floundering on this one. Reason tells me one thing and my emotions tell me something else. I gotta keep thinking about this.

I am very, very close to being a Libertarian myself. My reticence is philosophical; it seems to me that the Libertarian philosophy enshrines the individual as the highest moral authority. I don't agree with that and I think it leads to some exceedingly dangerous social situations (I won't mention the a-word). If I'm wrong on this then perhaps I can still be persuaded (can you imagine Gilda and me in the same political party? =:-O). I currently belong to the U.S. Taxpayers' Party (www.ustaxpayers.org; soon to be called the American Heritage Party, I hope). I agree with their platform. I am a bit hesitant at their tendency toward theocratic thinking, with their insistence that this is a Christian nation (Debbie's post above on this was VERY interesting), and with their decidedly Protestant flavor (specifically their approach to the authority of the Bible and its role in public policy). Still, their intent to be strictly constitutional suggests that within this party, religious freedom is sacrosanct. It's a new party and well worth watching.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

I'll try this one more time:

Prayer IS allowed in public schools. Until the day when thoughts can routinely be uncovered, recorded, supressed, etc., prayer cannot be kept out of the public schools. Nor the checkout line at the grocery store. Nor public transport. If in fact the focal point of one's prayer is omnipresent, as seems to be a popular belief, then is true prayer can be effective anytime, anywhere. Period. If omniscience is presumed, then silent prayer can be effective.

This assertion has not been addressed, much less refuted. How sad. If some fear of open discussion is holding anyone back, e-mail me privately with your views.

One's mind should be open, but not so wide open that the contents spill out upon the floor. Nor so tightly closed that little, if any, light may enter.

Peace to All,

-- Bingo1 (howe9@pop.shentel.net), May 21, 1999.

We're not talking about private prayer that happens to take place in school. We're talking about public prayer that is instigated by schools.

-- David Palm (djpalm64@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.

For me, the whole thing is theoretical. My kids go to parochial school, and every day they pray the rosary, led by principal and teacher. And I still have to pay a fortune into the government school system, which locally offers (thanks to our tax dollars) such exotic fare as down-hill ski teams, crew, cross-country skiing, indoor pools, field hockey, and, I would imagine, arithmetic. And every year they whine about how they don't have enough money, and our taxes go up. (They did try to cut the alpine ski team this year, but the parents complained, and it was kept). All this finery doesn't do me a LICK of good, but if I don't cough up the money, I lose my home. Just the cost of the governement school buses (loans to purchase, interest, insurance, upkeep, gas, driver's, etc.) is enough to buy every kid in the district a VAX computer. And I've taught my kids to read myself (start with phonemes, then have them memorize all the two letter words, and they're off and running). But government schools with their ski teams, like cluster bombs for Kosovo, are things I can't NOT pay for, without becoming an outlaw. So I will mutter my outlaw sentiments privately, till the day when we can toss off our tax shackles.

-- Spidey (in@jam.com), May 21, 1999.

Spidey it really worries me when I find myself agreeing with you. Although my kid, who is grown, went to public schoo, it just burns me up the amount of school taxes that we pay. We recently voted down a multi-million dollar school bond. One of the "must haves" was a new professional tennis court, and football is God at this school, and you'd better not forget it. If they cut three fourths of the fluff out of schools, and stuck to education, our taxes would shrink over night.

Two days ago we got a notice of increased assessment value on our property.

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), May 21, 1999.

Rulers always require input into the lives of those being ruled, in fact it happens all over the place; try a little GOD save the QUEEN to start your day.

-- Sibola (sibola@hotmail.com), May 21, 1999.

David,

You stated:

"I am very, very close to being a Libertarian myself. My reticence is philosophical; it seems to me that the Libertarian philosophy enshrines the individual as the highest moral authority."

This may PO more than one person, but I submit that an individual should be the highest moral authority! Now before you all flame me, shouldn't this be so? At least insofar as how an individual should conduct his private life? (so long as he causes no harm to others)

In other words, even if a man is highly devout, and follows his church's religious teachings nearly to the letter, does not each individual reserve some amount of religious interpretation to himself?

And if so, does this not make him, the individual, the final moral authority on how he conducts his peaceable behavior?

And if that is so, should we not limit the state from stepping in to regulate his life, until he trespasses on the rights of others?

-- Unc D (unkeed@yahoo.com), May 21, 1999.