Religion in schools: All or none?


log in

Advanced search

Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none?

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next
Author Message
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,500,221
RAC: 1,609
United States
Message 1340061 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 0:49:43 UTC - in response to Message 1340037.
Last modified: 22 Feb 2013, 0:50:04 UTC

The first amendment to the constitution, as follows

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Says that the us government can neither aid or appose religion.

so as long as pubic schools take federal money they must either teach no religion

or all of them as well as atheism and agnosticism.

down this slope would be the ruin of public education.

States can do as they like if they forgo federal money.

religions schools take no federal money and once again can do as they please.

If you want religion in your schools fund them locally that is all you have to

do, as long as you do not bar any one else from doing the same for their belief

system or lack there of.

then the fed will not have to pay for it helping to balance the budget.



NCLB = LB ===> GWB

Profile betregerProject donor
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 2492
Credit: 5,219,655
RAC: 8,285
United States
Message 1340077 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 3:41:03 UTC - in response to Message 1340037.
Last modified: 22 Feb 2013, 3:41:35 UTC

States can not do as they please. They can not ignore the constitution whether they take federal money or not.
____________

Profile Scary Capitalist
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 21 May 01
Posts: 7407
Credit: 76,672
RAC: 36
United States
Message 1340272 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 16:50:39 UTC

How about dissolving all government funds for education? Has anyone thought of that?

Duh!

Get your religion out of my gubmint and vice verse.

Of course, a sensible idea like that will never get any 'traction' since it pisses off everybody and the recipients of said idea are victims of 'gubmint' schools anyway.


____________
Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12720
Credit: 7,223,248
RAC: 16,112
United States
Message 1340287 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 17:14:29 UTC - in response to Message 1340077.

States can not do as they please. They can not ignore the constitution whether they take federal money or not.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


____________

Profile ignorance is no excuse
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9529
Credit: 44,433,321
RAC: 0
Korea, North
Message 1340325 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 17:54:55 UTC - in response to Message 1340287.

lets not forget the Supremacy Rule/Law. The Federal Gov't rules will always supercede any state law
____________
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

End terrorism by building a school

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12720
Credit: 7,223,248
RAC: 16,112
United States
Message 1340433 - Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 22:37:35 UTC - in response to Message 1340325.

lets not forget the Supremacy Rule/Law. The Federal Gov't rules will always supercede any state law

I thought I just addressed that by quoting the Tenth Amendment. If it wasn't given to Congress the Feds have no business, it belongs to the states. Interestingly there isn't the opposite, banning the states from things given to congress, hence



____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,159,602
RAC: 186
United States
Message 1340599 - Posted: 24 Feb 2013, 23:22:49 UTC - in response to Message 1340077.

States can not do as they please. They can not ignore the constitution whether they take federal money or not.



the first amendment specifically bars congress (the federal government) from interfering in religion or the lack there of.

so unless the state constitution has a similar clause it could legally adopt a state religion, much less allow a school, it is funding, to teach a religion.
____________

Profile dancer42
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 2 Jun 02
Posts: 436
Credit: 1,159,602
RAC: 186
United States
Message 1340602 - Posted: 24 Feb 2013, 23:35:36 UTC - in response to Message 1340325.

lets not forget the Supremacy Rule/Law. The Federal Gov't rules will always supersede any state law


only to the extent that the constitution does not bar it.



Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9020
Credit: 255,803
RAC: 122
Canada
Message 1342293 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 4:07:15 UTC - in response to Message 1340333.

How about dissolving all government funds for education? Has anyone thought of that?

Duh!

Get your religion out of my gubmint and vice verse.

Of course, a sensible idea like that will never get any 'traction' since it pisses off everybody and the recipients of said idea are victims of 'gubmint' schools anyway.


Well.......here is a contradiction for ya.......
I am a Christian man that supports the recognition of his name and beliefs in this society.

However.....
I do have a problem with the efforts of my own Governor John Walker, who I happen to support in most everything else, to further the issuing of vouchers to send the kiddies off to private or parochial schools on my tax dollar.

As a portion of my property taxes every year, I am taxed for my school district.
To support the public school system in my back yard.
And now, I am being told that those funds can be siphoned off to support those who do not wish to believe in public schooling because they think their kids are above that??? I call bullshit.

I am taxed and have payed moneys to support the local public school system, not your little brats that you think you want better for. If you truly think that your kids are above that, go for it. But do so on your own dollar. NOT mine.

I pay taxes for ALL of the school district, not to be taken by those that believe they should have special privileges.

Otherwise, if you want to take it another step, there would have to be a checkbox on the tax form. 'Do you wish your tax dollars to go to...


A. Public Schooling available to all. Even if it may not be the ultimate.
B. Parochial schooling available to only the devout.
Ba. And if so which, religion would you desire to support?
C. Private schooling. Which means you don't give a rat's petoot what your child learns. Or any oversight.

EDIT...
And let me say that I damned well have a say in this, even though I have no offspring.
I have been a property owner since 1980, and have paid my taxes on such every single year since. Every year, I have to check off on what school district my taxes are going to. I don't believe it is right to take that money and redirect it to others who do not wish to participate in the public school system.

You never went to school yourself???

____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,500,221
RAC: 1,609
United States
Message 1342327 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 7:02:40 UTC

I really don't understand that response, Es.

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32064
Credit: 13,744,769
RAC: 26,679
United Kingdom
Message 1342403 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 16:04:07 UTC

I'll bung my 2ยข worth in.

In the UK "Public Schools" are usually at the top of the educational tree, and are fee paying, in addition to some free scholarships. Here we are talking about Eton, Harrow, Rugby etc. The second tier are the fee paying Private schools, such as Marlborough College, Roedean, Woldingham etc. The rest of the national free schools open to the general public are Grammar schools, Secondary Moderns, and Comprehensives. There are Church run schools as well but they are usually patronised by religious adherents.

All pupils in the UK get a free education by law, and allocated upon ability. For those exceptional pupils, scholarships paid or free, are available at the Public Schools. But if the parents can afford private education for better than average pupils, to get a better than average education, then there are the private schools that have entrance exams.

Our taxes go towards the schools available to the general public, nowhere else.

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9020
Credit: 255,803
RAC: 122
Canada
Message 1342418 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 17:13:29 UTC - in response to Message 1342327.

I really don't understand that response, Es.

He's saying he shouldn't have to pay for a system he never participated in. I was just surprised that he never used the education system.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Terror Australis
Volunteer tester
Send message
Joined: 14 Feb 04
Posts: 1715
Credit: 205,755,694
RAC: 27,259
Australia
Message 1342426 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 17:30:06 UTC - in response to Message 1342418.

I really don't understand that response, Es.

He's saying he shouldn't have to pay for a system he never participated in. I was just surprised that he never used the education system.

Mark was talking about the diversion of funds from the public district schools to parochial and private schools. He was not complaining about his taxes supporting the public schools.

He wrote
As a portion of my property taxes every year, I am taxed for my school district.
To support the public school system in my back yard.
And now, I am being told that those funds can be siphoned off to support those who do not wish to believe in public schooling because they think their kids are above that???
(My emphasis)

From his post it is safe to assume that Mark attended a public school and has no problem with his tax dollars being used to support the public school system. His problem is with those tax dollars being used for purposes other than the reason they are collected. i.e. To fund Private schools.

T.A.

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9020
Credit: 255,803
RAC: 122
Canada
Message 1342440 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 18:27:47 UTC - in response to Message 1342426.

I really don't understand that response, Es.

He's saying he shouldn't have to pay for a system he never participated in. I was just surprised that he never used the education system.

Mark was talking about the diversion of funds from the public district schools to parochial and private schools. He was not complaining about his taxes supporting the public schools.

He wrote
As a portion of my property taxes every year, I am taxed for my school district.
To support the public school system in my back yard.
And now, I am being told that those funds can be siphoned off to support those who do not wish to believe in public schooling because they think their kids are above that???
(My emphasis)

From his post it is safe to assume that Mark attended a public school and has no problem with his tax dollars being used to support the public school system. His problem is with those tax dollars being used for purposes other than the reason they are collected. i.e. To fund Private schools.

T.A.

HMmm ok. I guess the paragraph is a little ambiguous, it took me several readings to get the mmeaning and i still got it wrong. My bad.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Chris SProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 19 Nov 00
Posts: 32064
Credit: 13,744,769
RAC: 26,679
United Kingdom
Message 1342448 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 19:24:22 UTC

It's all a question of degree isn't it. If I was asked would I agree to a proportion of my taxes going to fund an above average pupil going to a Private school if her parents could afford it, I would say no. If the pupil was exceptional and her parents couldn't afford it, then I think I would say yes.

Profile Ex
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 12 Mar 12
Posts: 2895
Credit: 1,796,354
RAC: 1,334
United States
Message 1342482 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 21:34:20 UTC - in response to Message 1342448.

It's all a question of degree isn't it. If I was asked would I agree to a proportion of my taxes going to fund an above average pupil going to a Private school if her parents could afford it, I would say no. If the pupil was exceptional and her parents couldn't afford it, then I think I would say yes.


+1

____________
-Dave #2

3.2.0-33

Profile Gary CharpentierProject donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 12720
Credit: 7,223,248
RAC: 16,112
United States
Message 1342496 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 22:01:38 UTC - in response to Message 1342448.

It's all a question of degree isn't it. If I was asked would I agree to a proportion of my taxes going to fund an above average pupil going to a Private school if her parents could afford it, I would say no. If the pupil was exceptional and her parents couldn't afford it, then I think I would say yes.

Interesting. Now suppose that the private school teaches creationism as truth and evolution as a fantasy.

____________

Profile Es99Project donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 9020
Credit: 255,803
RAC: 122
Canada
Message 1342531 - Posted: 2 Mar 2013, 23:28:52 UTC - in response to Message 1342448.

It's all a question of degree isn't it. If I was asked would I agree to a proportion of my taxes going to fund an above average pupil going to a Private school if her parents could afford it, I would say no. If the pupil was exceptional and her parents couldn't afford it, then I think I would say yes.


Problem with private schools is that not all of them are good. Quite a few of them get their reputations because they cherry pick their students. I know for a fact that one top private school that charges 100k per year kicks out students if they get less than a grade b average.

Private does not necessarily mean better, and they don't get the rigorous inspections that state schools get.

I sent my son to a small local private church school for a because he had outgrown his daycare and couldn't start regular school yet. It was dreadful and i made a mistake sending him there. It really was a very bad school.
____________
Are you a feminist? Take the test

Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester
Avatar
Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 9258
Credit: 1,500,221
RAC: 1,609
United States
Message 1342558 - Posted: 3 Mar 2013, 0:38:32 UTC

I am pretty sure "never participated in" (if that was the phrase) refers to being childless; i.e., he's never had a child to send to either apublic or private school.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religion in schools: All or none?

Copyright © 2014 University of California