🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <326DC1DB.24D8@pond.com>, treeman@pond.com wrote:

> You mentioned the AMISH in a way that did not shed proper light on
> them.  A bad example or miss applyed.  You cpould have said the Amish
> did not want their children going to school where the use chemicals on
> the fields.  But thats not what you said.  But it is what you ment by
> your statement.

First of all, if you are going to continue this completely clueless
rambling, I feel I should point out that I didn't even say what you are
attributing to me.  Quite obviously, I said that the Supreme Court said
it.  I even put it in quotes in attribution to the court.  Even if the
Supreme Court was wrong, and the Amish petitioners didn't want to send
there kids to public schools that use chemicals on the fields (a
proposition I think absurd, but I will grant you for the sake of
argument), that has nothing to do with the substantive legal point that I
was discussing -- that compulsory school attendance violates the First
Amendment if the school teaches things repugnant to the student's parent's
religious beliefs.  In fact, if the only objection was the use of
fertilizer or pesticide on school grounds, the only relevance of your
point is that those particular Amish petitioners should of lost, unless
you are going to contend that fear of fertilizer is a "religious belief." 
Which I imagine was not your point.  But even if those particular
petitioners should have lost because said alleged fear of fertilizer is
not a religious belief, then it does nothing regarding the substantive
point of law I was making.

Now, go away before I taunt you a second time.

Cheers,

-- 
Jake Minas
Columbia Law School
jam81@columbia.edu