| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Michael Rippie
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:34 am Post subject: Smarter than a dog |
 |
|
You aint--- Science says most dogs can understand 250 words and
more.. Many dogs know even more.
Hell, 250 is about all the words I know. And many people know even
less. For some people living a dogs life is a step up.
I have 4 dogs now and they are my closest friends. I guess I have
really gone to the dogs.
In the mind of Christ,
Michael
...................
Michael@thelastchurch.org
alt.religion.the-last-church
Http://www.thelastchurch.org
A preacher is the blind leading the blind. |
|
| |
|
 Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:14 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Franks <none@none.com
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Enkidu wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote in
news:63opk.5030$dB6.3710@newsfe01.iad:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com
buckeye wrote:
Like it or not, public schools are a part of government, and
there are constitutional issues that that come into play with
regards to religion in such a setting.
Education is NOT an aspect of /legitimate/ government. Government,
when legitimately established, is for the protection
of rights, not the establishment of social programs.
Our government, legitimately established by the Constitution,
will equally legitimally acquire any aspect we the people
choose for it, within the limits of that Constitution.
And we have chosen to involve it in eduction.
Can you point out, constitutionally, where "we have chosen to
involve it in eduction"?
The same place we have constitutionally chosen to involve govenment
in flood control, fire supression, space flight, medical care for the
elderly, the interstate freeway system, air traffic control, the
"War on Drugs", etc.
Ok, /that/ imaginary place.
None of what you mentioned is specifically authorized by the
Constitution.
Anything not prohibitted by the Constitution may be addressed by the
Congress and signed into law by the President.
Sorry, you must be referring to some totalitarian regime.
WRT the US, take a look at Amendment X for further details.
Then read what those who understand it say about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source.
Good point. After all, Wikipedia suffers in comparison
to the scholarly sources you have presented, which include...
well, I mean, there was ... I seem to recall your quoting from...
say, help me out here ,will you?
|
Sure, no problem.
My sources: Declaration of Independence; US Constitution; Amendments to
the US Constitution. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:16 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 18, 9:01 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 16, 9:30 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
Spending Clause.
In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent
power; it
was powerless on its own.
So said Madison. But Hamilton disagreed.
Unfortunately, that original construct has been warped and twisted far
beyond its original intent.
The disagreement amongst the founders, along with the ambiguous
language, disprove any clear original intent.
And that is why we appeal to reason.
Madison was correct; Hamilton was wrong
That's a conclusion, not reasoning.
Those were two independent statements.
OK. So you have no reasoning to support yor conclusion.
|
It hasn't yet been discussed. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
| Quote: | On Aug 18, 9:02 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
Spending Clause.
In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent
power; it was powerless on its own.
Prove it.
1.9.7
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations /made by Law/..." (emphasis added)
Such laws/legislative actions are dependent on explicitly and
expressly delegated powers (see 1.8 and Amendment X).
So? That doesn't say one word about whether Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 1 (Spending Power) is a dependent power.
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury" is referring to spending,
and therefore and subsequently, establishes a condition for spending.
Yes. But, that does not say one word about whether the Spending
Clause (1.8.1) is an independent power which meets the condition of
1.9.7.
|
Are you implying that Spending uses sources other than the treasury? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
never in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
The right to life
There is no right to life.
|
?!
Wow. Are you a tyrant by chance?
| Quote: | and all of its subordinate rights.
Who's rights?
Humanity's.
Humanity has no rights.
Who decides?
Nature.
Nature has no right to decide anything.
I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
Freedom comes by fighting for what is right
People don't agree as to what is right. Therefore fighting about it
is either inconclusive or tyranny by the winners over the losers.
|
So, you concede and agree w/ the tyrant? |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:24 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
L. Raymond wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Franks wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
Who's rights?
Humanity's.
Who decides?
Nature.
How does nature, which is simply a label we give to everything that
exists, decide a question of rights?
|
If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here. The right to
life comes from Nature/the Creator, and we now exercise that right. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Mike Painter wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Franks wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
What rights?
The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
Who's rights?
Humanity's.
Who decides?
Nature.
So you want us all to live like animals and have all th "subordinate rights"
provided by nature.
|
I said no such thing. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:27 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
never in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
Who's rights?
Who decides?
Does a person have a right to an education?
Kids with disabilities are stated under IDEA special education law to
have a right to a "free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment".
Under the equal protection clause, it is at least arguable that
therefore ALL children have a right to a "free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment". But that question
has not been decided.
|
Rights don't come from clauses, constitutions, or amendments.
(Provided) education is a privilege, not a right.
A person has the right to educate themselves, but they do not have the
right to compel others to provide educational services. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Peter Franks
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:29 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
| Quote: | Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the constitution
and/or backed by the courts.
|
Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions, and courts. It
is precisely the recognition of that which lead to the establishment of
the US nation.
So, I'm gathering that in your perception, laws reign supreme.
Fortunately for those that choose to be enlightened, we can look back on
history and see what happens to those civilizations that believe and
practice such foolishness. |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
L. Raymond
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks wrote:
| Quote: | L. Raymond wrote:
How does nature, which is simply a label we give to everything that
exists, decide a question of rights?
If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here.
|
Life is a mechanical process. If the necessary ingredients are present,
egg/sperm, uterus, nutrients etc., human life will arise. If there were
a "right" to life such as you describe, life - human and non-human alike
- would be spontaneously erupting into existence all over.
| Quote: | The right to
life comes from Nature/the Creator, and we now exercise that right.
|
You conflate nature, which we know exists, with a creator which you fail
to define. In doing so, you are giving sentience, manifested as the
ability to consciously create something, to something which doesn't even
exist as an entity. Why do you do that?
--
L. Raymond |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 18, 9:02 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
On Aug 16, 11:30 am, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
What is the constitutional basis for the No Child Left Behind Act?
Spending Clause.
In the original construct, the spending clause was a dependent
power; it was powerless on its own.
Prove it.
1.9.7
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of
Appropriations /made by Law/..." (emphasis added)
Such laws/legislative actions are dependent on explicitly and
expressly delegated powers (see 1.8 and Amendment X).
So? That doesn't say one word about whether Article 1, Section 8,
Clause 1 (Spending Power) is a dependent power.
"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury" is referring to spending,
and therefore and subsequently, establishes a condition for spending.
Yes. But, that does not say one word about whether the Spending
Clause (1.8.1) is an independent power which meets the condition of
1.9.7.
Are you implying that Spending uses sources other than the treasury?
|
Ever heard of deficit spending?
In this country, at the Federal level, appropriations (federal
expenditures) are entirely independent of income.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:53 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | L. Raymond wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
The right to life and all of its subordinate rights.
Who's rights?
Humanity's.
Who decides?
Nature.
How does nature, which is simply a label we give to everything that
exists, decide a question of rights?
If we didn't have the right to life, we wouldn't be here.
|
That does not follow.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Mike Painter wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
never in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
The right to life
There is no right to life.
?!
Wow. Are you a tyrant by chance?
|
Nope.
| Quote: | I hated the army but one valuable lesson learned was that if you have the
responsibility without the authority you are in trouble.
Freedom comes by fighting for what is right
People don't agree as to what is right. Therefore fighting about it
is either inconclusive or tyranny by the winners over the losers.
So, you concede and agree w/ the tyrant?
|
No. I do, however, accept that reality doesn't have a lot to do with
our ideals.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:00 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Bob LeChevalier wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Peter Franks wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but
never in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
What rights?
Who's rights?
Who decides?
Does a person have a right to an education?
Kids with disabilities are stated under IDEA special education law to
have a right to a "free and appropriate public education in the least
restrictive environment".
Under the equal protection clause, it is at least arguable that
therefore ALL children have a right to a "free and appropriate public
education in the least restrictive environment". But that question
has not been decided.
Rights don't come from clauses, constitutions, or amendments.
|
Yes they do, plus the courts. If a right is not recognized by
authority, it doesn't exist.
| Quote: | (Provided) education is a privilege, not a right.
|
In this country, it is stated in laws to be a right.
| Quote: | A person has the right to educate themselves, but they do not have the
right to compel others to provide educational services.
|
In this country, they do, if they are children.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
Bob LeChevalier
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: Re: Why should religion and education be seperate? |
|
|
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
| Quote: | Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Bob LeChevalier wrote:
Peter Franks <none@none.com> wrote:
Government, when legitimately established, is for
whatever "We the people" establish it to be for.
Perhaps in totalitarian or 'social contract' forms of bondage, but never
in a legitimate government.
In constitutional government, it is.
Not where rights reign supreme.
Rights don't reign anywhere, except as recognized by the constitution
and/or backed by the courts.
Sorry, but only in the twisted world of the tyrant.
|
No. In the real world of the human being, as opposed to the idealized
pseudo-world of the political dogmatist.
| Quote: | Rights exist independent of governments, constitutions, and courts.
|
Only in your imagination.
Your "right to life" ends when someone puts a bullet into your brain,
and that sort of thing happens much more frequently in the absence of
"governments, constitutions, and courts".
Likewise, if you contract a fatal disease, you will find out what
"nature" thinks of your so-called "right to life".
| Quote: | It is precisely the recognition of that which lead to the establishment of
the US nation.
|
No. You MIGHT legitimately claim that it was the "belief" in that as
an ideal that led to some key individuals being willing to lead a
revolt against the British crown. But belief and reality are often
(usually?) unrelated.
| Quote: | So, I'm gathering that in your perception, laws reign supreme.
|
This is a society of laws and not men.
In the absence of universal agreement on principles, that is the best
that we can do.
| Quote: | Fortunately for those that choose to be enlightened, we can look back on
history and see what happens to those civilizations that believe and
practice such foolishness.
|
They survive. The others fall apart into anarchy, or stay together by
the personal power of what you call a "tyrant".
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org |
|
| |
|
| Back to top |
|
