Date: Mon, 11 Aug 1997 13:45:21 -0700 (PDT) From: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb> To: devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Joel N. Weber II) Cc: andrsn@andrsn.stanford.edu, jmb@FreeBSD.ORG, hoek@hwcn.org, softweyr@xmission.com, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FTC regulating use of registrations Message-ID: <199708112045.NAA28832@hub.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <199708110951.FAA12121@ethanol.gnu.ai.mit.edu> from "Joel N. Weber II" at Aug 11, 97 05:51:31 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joel N. Weber II wrote: > > (The > Constitutional question of separation of church and state is pretty > much taken care of by giving the vouchers to the parents and not > directly to the schools, although some people still consider it > unconstitutional.) > > My understanding is that the Constiution doesn't actually demand > a seperation of church and state; it's just htat some liberals would > like you to believe that. "establishment of religion" clause of the Constiution. the founding fathers were liberals. read madison's notes on the consitutional convention. exerpt from the 1st Admendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" has been interpreted by the supreme court for nearely 200 yars to mean that the govt many not fund religious organizations. that one of the esential aspects of "establishment of religion" is govt funding (viz the Church of England and the tithes Irish Catholics had to pay to the Church of England) > > Furthurmore, I think that the original arguement was that we wanted > to prevent the government from affecting the churches, not hte otherway > around. not affecting....adopting ;) religious organization affect the govt extensively. blue-laws for instance. why is the federal govt closed on Christmas and St Sylvester's Day (1 january). surely the reason is rooted in religious practice > OTOH, maybe if the expensive schools charge rich students extra, > and don't charge poor students anything beyond the voucher, we > might not have problems. I'd be wary of the approah though; > it will likely lead to more government regulation. it is popular to disparage govt regulation at the present time. perhaps we should look at a few regulations: safety glass in place of plate glass in cars. the auto industry decided against this in '37. govt regualtion forced the issue. everyone pays more for cars as a result, at least till factories gear up for production and economies of scale kick in. far fewer people bleed to death in auto accidents. milk must contain milk, not chalk mixed with water. food purity laws, in general. diseased cattle can not be slaughtered adn sold to the public. seatbelts were put in cars. some gvot regulations are excessive. many are necessary, based upon previous business practices. given the choice between govt regulation and not, i'll take govt regulation. jmb
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199708112045.NAA28832>