I bored with your antics, Setanta.
Later, snood.
How very sad for you, you don't get to force your antics on others, to you're going to take your antics and go home . . . don't let the door hit ya in the ass . . .
Momma
Edgar wrote
Quote:As I say, in any setting other than a publicly owned building, go for it.
To that I would add not as part of the schools curricular or during the school day.
Another of those gnat moments, eh Edgar? I have them often :wink:
au1929,
Seems you keep adding more and more restrictions. So much for compromise.
Momma
There can be no compremise. The study of the bible has no place in public education. It never has and never should.
Edgar,
Earlier in this thread I used the wrong word and then you said something about me being sneaky. I meant fallible and not infallible when I was referring to the constitution.
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=64534&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30
Just wanted to clear that up as I didn't catch it earlier.
au1929,
Well, so much for compromise then.
Why should anyone compromise on the issue? Religion has a place, and that place is not in a public school supported by the tax revenues of citizens who do not all profess the same creeds. It's not hard to understand--and it's only hard to swallow for those who wish to impose their religious agenda on others.
I would agree with you if it weren't for the fact that this class would be PURELY ELECTIVE, not taught as religious truth, and taught to age appropriate, etc.
If those things were adhered to, then why not let it be taught? It is then a choice. This time, your side wants to take away a choice.
Because it would have been supported with public money. Do you think that Jews, Muslims or Pagans want to have their tax dollar spent to propagate your preferred imaginary friend superstition?
You remark about my "side" is an idiotic assumption on your part. You're making an assumption that i have an agenda which makes a special concept of "choice"--and that is an assumption which is unwarranted on your part. Nothing is being taken away, either. This is a proposal to institute that which does not now exist. You aren't losing anything, because you currently don't have the right to insist upon such a course. It would use facilities paid for by taxpayers--taxpayers in a secular state with plural tolerance. It is at the least unjust, and at the worst an attempt at religious imposition.
Setanta,
Down boy! Hey, I mean your side as in doesn't think it should be taught and my side as it does think it should be taught. Geesh! Cool your jets, will you?
My compromise involved no taxpayer's money. And we could go one further and rent the space for the class. I was just seeing if there were any circumstances where this might be accepted.
Will your side (one assumes from your explication, the typically anti-choice side) pay for the services of a janitor, pay for a portion of the HVAC, the electricity? Will "your side" pay amortisation on the physical plant, the furniture, any AV equipment used? It's not as though any part of the entire edifice, its requisite staff, utilities, equipment, furnishings and other ancillary features are something which fell into place from on high. Every penny which has gone into providing the facility and making it run comes from the public purse.
Setanta,
If our side foots 100% of the cost to your satisfaction, would you then accept the class being taught?
