Prayers in schools. The ban is a religion. | The Holy Bible

Catholics & Catholicism » The Holy Bible » Prayers in schools. The ban is a religion.

Prayers in schools. The ban is a religion.

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sinder) did inscribe into the ether: I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution. Jim Allison writes: Of the 13 original states, four never had any kind of established religions. Maybe those four states never had any kind of UNIQUE established religion. But they sure did favor religions equally. In fact, it took federal court orders to stop those four states from establishing religion. In 1964, Delaware had on the books a statute that penalized any teacher or principal in-charge who did not make sure that the Bible was read daily. It took a federal court order to stop that establishment of religion. In 1952, New Jersey had on the books a statute REQUIRING that "At least five verses taken from that portion of the Holy Bible known as the Old Testament shall be read . . . without comment, in each public school classroom . . . at the opening of school upon every school day." And in 1952, the New Jersey supreme court held to the original 1791 wording of the First Amendment in concluding that the Old Testament of the Bible is not a "sectarian book" and a teacher reading the Bible does not constitute establishing religion. Later on appeal in 1952, The Supreme Court avoided certain political fury by the trick of finding that the complaining New Jersey taxpayer did not show that the Bible reading "is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school." Thus, by trickery, the whole case was thrown out of court. And the New Jersey public school students continued to live under the requirement that they hear at least five verses from the Bible every day. But in 1963, the Supreme Court finally caught up with Pennsylvania who required discharging any teacher who did not daily cause the public school students to hear TEN whole verses from the Bible. The Pennsylvania courts repeatedly had held that the daily reading of the Bible as part of the opening exercises of public schools did not show preference to any religious establishment and hence did NOT violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania state defense that Bible readings would not advance religion, but would simply promote moral values, contradict the materialistic trends of our times, perpetuate our institutions and teach literature. And then New York! Ah New York. Just what New York meant by "free exercise . . . without discrimination or preference" was demonstrated clearly again in 1937 when the highest court in New York held that the reading of portions of the Bible without note or comment at the daily opening exercises of the public schools was NOT in violation of the state constitution. Are you arguing that since it is (was) practiced, it is (was) correct and proper? EVERYONE! Get thee to an Aztec temple, we’re going to sacrifice someone so that the sun will rise tomorrow! Mike Turk Let us say that you are a Supreme Court Justice in 1947 and you want to keep teacher-led religion out of the schools permanently. Then you probably would not make the blatantly false argument that the Supreme Court tried in 1947 which was: "The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’" For in reality the churches were not separated from the original Thirteen states–not in 1790, not in 1868, and not in 1947. Had the Court wanted to construct its separation of churches from the states by some realistic argument, the Court might have taken any of several alternative routes. First, the Court might have declared a new constitutional right to be free of state-imposed religious observance. For example, a realistic 1947 Supreme Court might have said that No-religion would be henceforth protected under the Free Exercise Clause. And thus the person against All religions should have Free Exercise rights equal to the rights of religious people. At least then the argument would be in terms of the real problems giving rise to the controversies over teacher-led religion. Second, the Court might have declared a new privacy right that the state could not force a person to be in the presence of a religious observance that was repugnant to the person’s private beliefs. In either case, a whole host of subsequent suits would arise to define the contours of the new right. But at least the parties would be dealing with a close semblance of the real underlying problem. In contrast, the 1947 incorporation of the establishment clause, not only contradicts clear history and logic. The incorporation also prevents the parties from dealing with the problem because the incorporation enforces a "solution" that is wholly oblivious to the problems that caused the controversy. The same could be said for the legalization of marijuana. Since it was once legal, and because it’s a natural plant, the decision to allow the government to make it illegal to possess it is nonsensical. There is more to it than a person’s idea of what "contradicts clear history and logic." Surely there is a big difference between what the Supreme Court has done and what any local majority might do to criminalize the possession of marijuana.

Just how "local" does a majority have to be to decriminalize the possesion of marijuana? The whole state. It turns out that teaching religion at that level (within a state) would be establishing a religiion in that state. Your idea of "local" is controlled by the state in the case of marijuana, and if the supreme court released the right to establish a religion, it would then fall to the states to establish religion There just is no way that each town is going to get its own religion. It’s a foolish dream in which the downsides are much greater than the upsides. We’d have more than just "patriots" blowing up federal buildings. We’d have "oppressed" and "discriminated against" militia groups blowing up schools. Once it becomes accepted to hawk your denomination’s particular version of religion in class (as it once was until we became civilized) there would be no end to the erosion of diversity. Besides today’s "religious movement" is not a majority movement, stagnated by the supreme court. It is a fundamentalist zeal which has learned to use the media to make a big noise. It not only is a mouse in a lion’s suit, it points out its failure to do anything on a daily basis in order to get more power. "Just look at the crime!" they shout. "let us get at the children’s minds – we’ll make them over in God’s image." The plain meaning is "we can’t get them into our churches, so let us preach in schools, and THEN we’ll get them into our churches." Corporations do the same thing. They attempt to increase their customer base, and get people to believe in their products. But we don’t let them advertise every day using school time. The BAN on teacher-led prayer does not result from some local majority deciding NOT to have teacher-led prayer. The BAN is equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that the local majority MUST legalize ONLY marijuana and NOT tobacco. —

-frank —– I’m always right. Even when I’m wrong. How can that be? It’s a miracle!

Response:

[BIG snip] The kids who are taught creationism are going to fail their Science lessons. Then they can’t get into any University. Then they’ll sue their parents for destroying their future.

I would like to take the time to name a few of the people that Mr. Mitchell is talking about. Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday.Gregory Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, George Washington Carver, Wernher von Braun Boy, am I glad that our schools are not raising up failures like these. *Our schools are raising young men and women who think their ancestors are monkey’s. We know this because they tend to behave like their ancestor’s. *Our schools are raising young people that think that they they came from some primeval soup. And thus, again, students are behaving like their ancestor’s. We know this because of their high academic achievements. We can also observe this by watching the amount of TV, video games, heavy metal rock, and many times even substances that turn their minds in into the same primeval soup we came from. I thank God (oops!)…. I thank the Big Bang and Mother Earth that our Schools don’t teach Creation. Besides — we wouldn’t want to be sued!! Sarcastically Yours —- Teach the Bible in Schools!?! Unthinkable! What would our Founders have thought?!? For a FREE tract by a signer of the Declaration on what he thought, visit Books for a Better America’s home page at: http://www.wp.com/bba and sign our guest register. At Books for a Better America you’ll find books on the selectively omitted subject of American history — our Christian heritage, as well as, many reprints of early American classics.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sinder) did inscribe into the ether: I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution. Jim Allison writes: Of the 13 original states, four never had any kind of established religions. Maybe those four states never had any kind of UNIQUE established religion. But they sure did favor religions equally. In fact, it took federal court orders to stop those four states from establishing religion. In 1964, Delaware had on the books a statute that penalized any teacher or principal in-charge who did not make sure that the Bible was read daily. It took a federal court order to stop that establishment of religion. In 1952, New Jersey had on the books a statute REQUIRING that "At least five verses taken from that portion of the Holy Bible known as the Old Testament shall be read . . . without comment, in each public school classroom . . . at the opening of school upon every school day." And in 1952, the New Jersey supreme court held to the original 1791 wording of the First Amendment in concluding that the Old Testament of the Bible is not a "sectarian book" and a teacher reading the Bible does not constitute establishing religion. Later on appeal in 1952, The Supreme Court avoided certain political fury by the trick of finding that the complaining New Jersey taxpayer did not show that the Bible reading "is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school." Thus, by trickery, the whole case was thrown out of court. And the New Jersey public school students continued to live under the requirement that they hear at least five verses from the Bible every day. But in 1963, the Supreme Court finally caught up with Pennsylvania who required discharging any teacher who did not daily cause the public school students to hear TEN whole verses from the Bible. The Pennsylvania courts repeatedly had held that the daily reading of the Bible as part of the opening exercises of public schools did not show preference to any religious establishment and hence did NOT violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania state defense that Bible readings would not advance religion, but would simply promote moral values, contradict the materialistic trends of our times, perpetuate our institutions and teach literature. And then New York! Ah New York. Just what New York meant by "free exercise . . . without discrimination or preference" was demonstrated clearly again in 1937 when the highest court in New York held that the reading of portions of the Bible without note or comment at the daily opening exercises of the public schools was NOT in violation of the state constitution. Are you arguing that since it is (was) practiced, it is (was) correct and proper? EVERYONE! Get thee to an Aztec temple, we’re going to sacrifice someone so that the sun will rise tomorrow! Mike Turk Let us say that you are a Supreme Court Justice in 1947 and you want to keep teacher-led religion out of the schools permanently. Then you probably would not make the blatantly false argument that the Supreme Court tried in 1947 which was: "The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’" For in reality the churches were not separated from the original Thirteen states–not in 1790, not in 1868, and not in 1947. Had the Court wanted to construct its separation of churches from the states by some realistic argument, the Court might have taken any of several alternative routes. First, the Court might have declared a new constitutional right to be free of state-imposed religious observance. For example, a realistic 1947 Supreme Court might have said that No-religion would be henceforth protected under the Free Exercise Clause. And thus the person against All religions should have Free Exercise rights equal to the rights of religious people. At least then the argument would be in terms of the real problems giving rise to the controversies over teacher-led religion. Second, the Court might have declared a new privacy right that the state could not force a person to be in the presence of a religious observance that was repugnant to the person’s private beliefs. In either case, a whole host of subsequent suits would arise to define the contours of the new right. But at least the parties would be dealing with a close semblance of the real underlying problem. In contrast, the 1947 incorporation of the establishment clause, not only contradicts clear history and logic. The incorporation also prevents the parties from dealing with the problem because the incorporation enforces a "solution" that is wholly oblivious to the problems that caused the controversy. The same could be said for the legalization of marijuana. Since it was once legal, and because it’s a natural plant, the decision to allow the government to make it illegal to possess it is nonsensical. There is more to it than a person’s idea of what "contradicts clear history and logic." Surely there is a big difference between what the Supreme Court has done and what any local majority might do to criminalize the possession of marijuana. Just how "local" does a majority have to be to decriminalize the possesion of marijuana? The whole state. It turns out that teaching religion at that level (within a state) would be establishing a religiion in that state. Your idea of "local" is controlled by the state in the case of marijuana, and if the supreme court released the right to establish a religion, it would then fall to the states to establish religion There just is no way that each town is going to get its own religion. It’s a foolish dream in which the downsides are much greater than the upsides. We’d have more than just "patriots" blowing up federal buildings. We’d have "oppressed" and "discriminated against" militia groups blowing up schools. Once it becomes accepted to hawk your denomination’s particular version of religion in class (as it once was until we became civilized) there would be no end to the erosion of diversity. Besides today’s "religious movement" is not a majority movement, stagnated by the supreme court. It is a fundamentalist zeal which has learned to use the media to make a big noise. It not only is a mouse in a lion’s suit, it points out its failure to do anything on a daily basis in order to get more power. "Just look at the crime!" they shout. "let us get at the children’s minds – we’ll make them over in God’s image." The plain meaning is "we can’t get them into our churches, so let us preach in schools, and THEN we’ll get them into our churches." Corporations do the same thing. They attempt to increase their customer base, and get people to believe in their products. But we don’t let them advertise every day using school time. The BAN on teacher-led prayer does not result from some local majority deciding NOT to have teacher-led prayer. The BAN is equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that the local majority MUST legalize ONLY marijuana and NOT tobacco. — -frank —– I’m always right. Even when I’m wrong. How can that be? It’s a miracle! The kids who are taught creationism are going to fail their Science lessons. Then they can’t get into any University. Then they’ll sue their parents for destroying their future.

And the newly appointed members of the Supreme Court, selected from a pool of religious professionals who believe in Creationism will support the NSA having them incarcerated for National Security violations. -frank —– I’m always right. Even when I’m wrong. How can that be? It’s a miracle!

Response:

The kids who are taught creationism are going to fail their Science lessons. Then they can’t get into any University. Then they’ll sue their parents for destroying their future.

Response:

The same could be said for the legalization of marijuana. Since it was once legal, and because it’s a natural plant, the decision to allow the government to make it illegal to possess it is nonsensical. There is more to it than a person’s idea of what "contradicts clear history and logic." —

—– I’m always right. How can that be? It’s a miracle!

Response:

Surely there is a big difference between what the Supreme Court has done and what any local majority might do to criminalize the possession of marijuana. The BAN on teacher-led prayer does not result from some local majority deciding NOT to have teacher-led prayer. The BAN is equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that the local majority MUST legalize ONLY marijuana and NOT tobacco. —

Response:

: And in 1952, the New Jersey supreme court held to the original : 1791 wording of the First Amendment in concluding that the Old : Testament of the Bible is not a "sectarian book" and a teacher : reading the Bible does not constitute establishing religion. That’s nonsense. I’m sure that anyone on this newsgroup could probably name ten religions in which the "Old Testament" is as relevant as a hundred-year old newspaper. It IS sectarian. That should prove that this decision (if it really exists) is nonsense, just like Riley’s perennial thread: "Prayers in schools. The ban is a religion." Get a life, Riley. And butt out of ours. Read the sig. "The very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind. … In this field every person must be his own watchman for the truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the truth from the false for us." …Thomas v Collins, 323 U.S. 516 (1945)

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution. Jim Allison writes: Of the 13 original states, four never had any kind of established religions. Maybe those four states never had any kind of UNIQUE established religion. But they sure did favor religions equally. In fact, it took federal court orders to stop those four states from establishing religion.

Hahahaha, you continue to display you ignorance of what established religions meant. Dispite your flaky modern day court cases, the fact still remains as I stated it in the portion you did quote of what I actually said. Four of the original states NEVER had established religions. One, NY, as a whole also did not have a established religion, however four counties which include modern day NYC did have an established religion. This too was ended between 1776 and 1789. Jim

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greg May writes: First, let me make clear: I do not support organized prayer in school. That aside, ALL that the constitution prohibits is (1) establishment of religion by the CONGRESS (I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution, but I’m not sure); and (2) restrictions of the free exercise of religion (again limited to the CONGRESS). In other words, the constitution does not require "separation" of church and state. Any neutral observer can see that the Constitution does not require separation of the churches from the states. Such a neutral observer would be seriously mistaken, but of course you already know this don’t you Riley? And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." Ho hum, same old trash dragged out again. In fact, Congress has refused to adopt similar Amendments nineteen times between 1875 and 1930. And, and, come on Riley, for once drop the misleading headlines and soundbites and give the full story. Afraid of giving the full story, afraid that it will show just how misleading your headlines and sound bites really are? Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 1947 inverted the plain meaning of the First Amendment to take away the state’s power to establish the religion that the First Amendment was written to protect. Same old misleading Riley junk. Jim Of course we shouldn’t let religion into schools apart from educating

the kids of the fact that some of history’s greatest genocides are a direct result of religion. Kill the heathens!!!!!!

Response:

Oh Riley you are so funny, BTW, How is your re-inventing of America coming? Jim

Response:

Well – do you feel that Buddhism should be given equal time in school? Or do you feel that the freedom of religion in the US should be abolished? If you merely feel that each school should be allowed to decide for itself, I must point out that the kids cannot chose for themselves. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – —

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sinder) did inscribe into the ether: And then New York! Ah New York. Just what New York meant by "free exercise . . . without discrimination or preference" was demonstrated clearly again in 1937 when the highest court in New York held that the reading of portions of the Bible without note or comment at the daily opening exercises of the public schools was NOT in violation of the state constitution. Are you arguing that since it is (was) practiced, it is (was) correct and proper? EVERYONE! Get thee to an Aztec temple, we’re going to sacrifice someone so that the sun will rise tomorrow! Mike Turk

No, he is actually trying very hard to argue that what wasn’t, was. He is like David barton, he searches for court cases that he can toss out to try and show that disestablishment didn’t take place when it fact it had, or didn’t need to since no establishment had ever existed to begin with. All, he is really doing is showing that he doesn’t understand what establishment really was. What he is really trying to say is that all scholars, historians, legal scholars, political science scholars, etc are all wrong, and only he is correct. You know, sort of like those that run around saying that they are sane, but everyone else is insane. Jim

Response:

Let us say that you are a Supreme Court Justice in 1947 and you want to keep teacher-led religion out of the schools permanently. Then you probably would not make the blatantly false argument that the Supreme Court tried in 1947 which was: "The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’" For in reality the churches were not separated from the original Thirteen states–not in 1790, not in 1868, and not in 1947. Had the Court wanted to construct its separation of churches from the states by some realistic argument, the Court might have taken any of several alternative routes. First, the Court might have declared a new constitutional right to be free of state-imposed religious observance. For example, a realistic 1947 Supreme Court might have said that No-religion would be henceforth protected under the Free Exercise Clause. And thus the person against All religions should have Free Exercise rights equal to the rights of religious people. At least then the argument would be in terms of the real problems giving rise to the controversies over teacher-led religion. Second, the Court might have declared a new privacy right that the state could not force a person to be in the presence of a religious observance that was repugnant to the person’s private beliefs. In either case, a whole host of subsequent suits would arise to define the contours of the new right. But at least the parties would be dealing with a close semblance of the real underlying problem. In contrast, the 1947 incorporation of the establishment clause, not only contradicts clear history and logic. The incorporation also prevents the parties from dealing with the problem because the incorporation enforces a "solution" that is wholly oblivious to the problems that caused the controversy. —

Response:

Sinder) did inscribe into the ether: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution. Jim Allison writes: Of the 13 original states, four never had any kind of established religions. Maybe those four states never had any kind of UNIQUE established religion. But they sure did favor religions equally. In fact, it took federal court orders to stop those four states from establishing religion. In 1964, Delaware had on the books a statute that penalized any teacher or principal in-charge who did not make sure that the Bible was read daily. It took a federal court order to stop that establishment of religion. In 1952, New Jersey had on the books a statute REQUIRING that "At least five verses taken from that portion of the Holy Bible known as the Old Testament shall be read . . . without comment, in each public school classroom . . . at the opening of school upon every school day." And in 1952, the New Jersey supreme court held to the original 1791 wording of the First Amendment in concluding that the Old Testament of the Bible is not a "sectarian book" and a teacher reading the Bible does not constitute establishing religion. Later on appeal in 1952, The Supreme Court avoided certain political fury by the trick of finding that the complaining New Jersey taxpayer did not show that the Bible reading "is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school." Thus, by trickery, the whole case was thrown out of court. And the New Jersey public school students continued to live under the requirement that they hear at least five verses from the Bible every day. But in 1963, the Supreme Court finally caught up with Pennsylvania who required discharging any teacher who did not daily cause the public school students to hear TEN whole verses from the Bible. The Pennsylvania courts repeatedly had held that the daily reading of the Bible as part of the opening exercises of public schools did not show preference to any religious establishment and hence did NOT violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania state defense that Bible readings would not advance religion, but would simply promote moral values, contradict the materialistic trends of our times, perpetuate our institutions and teach literature. And then New York! Ah New York. Just what New York meant by "free exercise . . . without discrimination or preference" was demonstrated clearly again in 1937 when the highest court in New York held that the reading of portions of the Bible without note or comment at the daily opening exercises of the public schools was NOT in violation of the state constitution.

Are you arguing that since it is (was) practiced, it is (was) correct and proper? EVERYONE! Get thee to an Aztec temple, we’re going to sacrifice someone so that the sun will rise tomorrow! Mike Turk Ach! Warum versuche ich ueberhaupt?

Response:

Such a neutral observer would be seriously mistaken, but of course you already know this don’t you Riley? And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ."

Ho hum, same old trash dragged out again. In fact, Congress has refused to adopt similar Amendments nineteen times between 1875 and 1930.

And, and, come on Riley, for once drop the misleading headlines and soundbites and give the full story. Afraid of giving the full story, afraid that it will show just how misleading your headlines and sound bites really are? Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 1947 inverted the plain meaning of the First Amendment to take away the state’s power to establish the religion that the First Amendment was written to protect.

Same old misleading Riley junk. Jim

Response:

trimmed children, and the God to whom their children are required to pray. This is obvious stupidity in the extreme. *Why* on God’s Green Earth would *anyone* want the government to tell them when and how and to whom to pray? Do you really dream that the government religion will be Christian forever? It won’t. Susan

trimmed I think the point is that we don’t want the governent to tell us when and how and to whom to pray.

Response:

<deletia The banning of teacher-led prayer is certainly not neutral. For the Supreme Court by some as yet unrevealed measurement has determined that teacher-led prayer is harmful. Now perhaps teacher-led prayer IS harmful, particularly if you fear what some of those untested gods will do when they are invoked in prayer. But the Supreme Court certainly is NOT neutral on religion. And the intervention certainly is NOT a separation of church and state. The intervention is a stifling imposition of the will of the Court against the democratic wishes of the local majority.

the religious right has this arrogant idea that if they strip themselves of this basic constitutional protection that *they themselves* will remain in control of the goverment and the prayers it imposes upon their children, and the God to whom their children are required to pray. This is obvious stupidity in the extreme. *Why* on God’s Green Earth would *anyone* want the government to tell them when and how and to whom to pray? Do you really dream that the government religion will be Christian forever? It won’t. Susan — Doubt cannot injure or even perturb the truth. The truth is a citadel about which the breezes of doubt play.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Any neutral observer can see that the Constitution does not require separation of the churches from the states. And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." My sources disagree with this conclusion. From Eric Foner’s. _Reconstruction:_America’s_Unfinished_Revolution_1863-1877_, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1988, page 258: The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no longer infringe upon the liberties the Bill of Rights had secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments." Bingham said much the in the House. Some portions of the Bill of Rights were of little moment in 1866 (no one was threatening to quarter soldiers in a home without consent of the owner.) But it is abundantly clear that Republicans wished to give constitutional sanction to states’ obligation to respect such key provisions as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by impartial jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable search and seizure. This idea wasn’t a new idea. James Madison, the drafter of the Bill

I deleted the rest of your comments. They were far too long for all I had to say in return. Your comments are quite good, and very factual. However, you are wasting your time trying to tell Riley anything. he is completely convinced that his revised view of American History is the only "correct" view, and it doesn’t matter what anyone says, what facts they provide, etc, they are gonna be wrong. After all, he is on a mission, he has to re-invent America. Generalizations, distortions, deletions, and revisions are always important tools for those who wish to re-invent something. But, I happened to like your comments. Jim

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Greg May writes: First, let me make clear: I do not support organized prayer in school. That aside, ALL that the constitution prohibits is (1) establishment of religion by the CONGRESS (I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution, but I’m not sure); and (2) restrictions of the free exercise of religion (again limited to the CONGRESS). In other words, the constitution does not require "separation" of church and state. Any neutral observer can see that the Constitution does not require separation of the churches from the states. And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." In fact, Congress has refused to adopt similar Amendments nineteen times between 1875 and 1930. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 1947 inverted the plain meaning of the First Amendment to take away the state’s power to establish the religion that the First Amendment was written to protect. What does it all mean to the neutral observer? The outcome does not matter much one way or the other. But it is curious to watch the modern Supreme Court pretend that the BANNING of teacher-led prayer despite the express wishes of the local majority is neutral.

First, in this country we do *not* have *pure* majority rule. We have a rule of law which means even the majority cannot choose to violate law. We faught a war over a (so called) majority’s right to have slavery in some states. The SC is there to make judgements, when ask by someone, on violations of Constitutional law whether by Congress, the Administration, or even the "majority" of the people. As for leacher-led prayer, you seem to think you have the right to decide what religious practice someone else’s child should have to participate in. Well there are those of us who believe you do not have that right. I, and only I, will decide what religious practices *my* child shall participate in; not you or any so-called community majority. The truth of a proposition has nothing to do with its credibility. And vice versa. Religious practice is an individual’s right; *not* a right of the public to be imposed on other individuals.

Response:

I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution. Jim Allison writes: Of the 13 original states, four never had any kind of established religions.

Maybe those four states never had any kind of UNIQUE established religion. But they sure did favor religions equally. In fact, it took federal court orders to stop those four states from establishing religion. In 1964, Delaware had on the books a statute that penalized any teacher or principal in-charge who did not make sure that the Bible was read daily. It took a federal court order to stop that establishment of religion. In 1952, New Jersey had on the books a statute REQUIRING that "At least five verses taken from that portion of the Holy Bible known as the Old Testament shall be read . . . without comment, in each public school classroom . . . at the opening of school upon every school day." And in 1952, the New Jersey supreme court held to the original 1791 wording of the First Amendment in concluding that the Old Testament of the Bible is not a "sectarian book" and a teacher reading the Bible does not constitute establishing religion. Later on appeal in 1952, The Supreme Court avoided certain political fury by the trick of finding that the complaining New Jersey taxpayer did not show that the Bible reading "is supported by any separate tax or paid for from any particular appropriation or that it adds any sum whatever to the cost of conducting the school." Thus, by trickery, the whole case was thrown out of court. And the New Jersey public school students continued to live under the requirement that they hear at least five verses from the Bible every day. But in 1963, the Supreme Court finally caught up with Pennsylvania who required discharging any teacher who did not daily cause the public school students to hear TEN whole verses from the Bible. The Pennsylvania courts repeatedly had held that the daily reading of the Bible as part of the opening exercises of public schools did not show preference to any religious establishment and hence did NOT violate the state constitution. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court rejected the Pennsylvania state defense that Bible readings would not advance religion, but would simply promote moral values, contradict the materialistic trends of our times, perpetuate our institutions and teach literature. And then New York! Ah New York. Just what New York meant by "free exercise . . . without discrimination or preference" was demonstrated clearly again in 1937 when the highest court in New York held that the reading of portions of the Bible without note or comment at the daily opening exercises of the public schools was NOT in violation of the state constitution. [["Penalties upon any teacher or principal" courtesy Del. Code Ann. tit. 14, sec. 4103 (1953).]] [["Unconstitutional under establishment clause" courtesy Johns v. Allen, 231 F. Supp. 852 (1964).]] [["At least five verses daily" courtesy N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 18:14-77 (1940).]] [["The Bible is NOT a sectarian book" courtesy Doremus v. Board of Educ., 75 A.2d 880 (N.J. 1952).]] [["Cannot show any separate tax" courtesy Doremus v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 429 (1952).]] [["Shall be discharged" courtesy Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. sec. 1556 (1930).]] [["Repeatedly holding in Pennsylvania" courtesy the team of Hart v. Sch. Directors, 2 Chest. 521, 2 Lanc. 346 (1885); Curran v. White, 22 C.C. 204 (1898); Stevenson v. Hanyon, 7 Dist. 585, 4 Lack. L.N. 215, 9 Kulp 256 (1898).]] [["Seriously rejecting the Pennsylvania state defense" courtesy Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963).]] [["Free exercise" courtesy N.Y. Const. art. XXXVIII (1777).]] [["NOT in violation" courtesy Lewis v. Board of Educ., 12 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1937).]] —

Response:

The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no longer infringe upon the liberties the Bill of Rights had secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments." No disagreement there. Since Congress was forbidden, the First Amendment clearly protected the state monopoly power to make laws "respecting the establishment of religion." Look in the Foner works under "Blaine Amendment." You will find that this Amendment read "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." In 1875, this Amendment failed to get the votes required by Article V. On the other hand, essentially the same voters in Congress had overwhelmingly adopted the Fourteenth Amendment some seven years earlier. So evidently the Fourteenth Amendment meant something very different from "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion." —

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Any neutral observer can see that the Constitution does not require separation of the churches from the states. And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." John Lawrence Rutledge writes: My sources disagree with this conclusion. From Eric Foner’s _Reconstruction:_America’s_Unfinished_Revolution_1863-1877_, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1988, page 258: The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no longer infringe upon the liberties the Bill of Rights had secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments." No disagreement there. Since Congress was forbidden, the First Amendment clearly protected the state monopoly power to make laws "respecting the establishment of religion."

Please read again the above quote. It clearly states that the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to force the states to respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments." Also, see the end of quote below. The Court rejected as the idea that the Fourteenth only was intended to keep only Congress from establishing religions. Look in the Foner works under "Blaine Amendment." You will find that this Amendment read "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." In 1875, this Amendment failed to get the votes required by Article V.

As to this very argument, the Court address it in Abington School District v. Schempp (1963). From Justice Brennan’s concurring opinion: Finally, it has been contended that absorption of the Establishment Clause is precluded by the absence of any intention on the part of the Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment to circumscribe the residual powers of the States to aid religious activities and institutions in ways which fell short of formal establishments. That argument relies in part upon the express terms of the [*257] abortive Blaine Amendment–proposed several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment–which would have added to the First Amendment a provision that "[n]o State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." Such a restriction would have been superfluous, it is said, if the Fourteenth Amendment had already made the Establishment Clause binding upon the States. The argument proves too much, for the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion can hardly be questioned; yet the Blaine Amendment would also have added an explicit protection against state laws abridging that liberty. Even if we assume that the draftsmen of the Fourteenth Amendment saw no immediate connection between its protections against state action infringing personal liberty and the guarantees of the First Amendment, it is certainly too late in the day to suggest that their assumed inattention to the question dilutes the force of these constitutional guarantees in their application to the States. It is enough to conclude [*258] that the religious liberty embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment would not be viable if the Constitution were interpreted to forbid only establishments ordained by Congress. | | "If only it were a modern document, with | | John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching | | Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was | | Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and | | Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat | | Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor | | UMass – Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. | | 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. | | Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem | | | new words… In normal text you’d only | | (508) 934-3528 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the | | http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin’s _Earth_ |

Response:

[snip] In 1964, Delaware had on the books a statute that penalized any teacher or principal in-charge who did not make sure that the Bible was read daily. It took a federal court order to stop that establishment of religion.

[several similar cases snipped] So you do support the idea that the government should require the teaching of Christianity in schools. Don’t present that as religious freedom. Since you think you represent the dominant religion in the country you want the power of the government to support your religion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -[["Penalties upon any teacher or principal" courtesy Del. Code Ann. tit. 14, sec. 4103 (1953).]] [["Unconstitutional under establishment clause" courtesy Johns v. Allen, 231 F. Supp. 852 (1964).]] [["At least five verses daily" courtesy N.J. Stat. Ann. sec. 18:14-77 (1940).]] [["The Bible is NOT a sectarian book" courtesy Doremus v. Board of Educ., 75 A.2d 880 (N.J. 1952).]] [["Cannot show any separate tax" courtesy Doremus v. Board of Educ., 342 U.S. 429 (1952).]] [["Shall be discharged" courtesy Pa. Stat. Ann. tit. sec. 1556 (1930).]] [["Repeatedly holding in Pennsylvania" courtesy the team of Hart v. Sch. Directors, 2 Chest. 521, 2 Lanc. 346 (1885); Curran v. White, 22 C.C. 204 (1898); Stevenson v. Hanyon, 7 Dist. 585, 4 Lack. L.N. 215, 9 Kulp 256 (1898).]] [["Seriously rejecting the Pennsylvania state defense" courtesy Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 223 (1963).]] [["Free exercise" courtesy N.Y. Const. art. XXXVIII (1777).]] [["NOT in violation" courtesy Lewis v. Board of Educ., 12 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1937).]] —

What is the scariest line you know? Mine is: Hi, my name is Number 6, what’s yours?

Response:

Greg May writes: First, let me make clear: I do not support organized prayer in school. That aside, ALL that the constitution prohibits is (1) establishment of religion by the CONGRESS (I’ve heard some states had official religions when they ratified the constitution, but I’m not sure); and (2) restrictions of the free exercise of religion (again limited to the CONGRESS). In other words, the constitution does not require "separation" of church and state.

Any neutral observer can see that the Constitution does not require separation of the churches from the states. And any neutral observer can witness the clear fact that the same Founders that created the Fourteenth Amendment rejected in 1875 the express Amendment that "No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion . . . ." In fact, Congress has refused to adopt similar Amendments nineteen times between 1875 and 1930. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 1947 inverted the plain meaning of the First Amendment to take away the state’s power to establish the religion that the First Amendment was written to protect. What does it all mean to the neutral observer? The outcome does not matter much one way or the other. But it is curious to watch the modern Supreme Court pretend that the BANNING of teacher-led prayer despite the express wishes of the local majority is neutral. The banning of teacher-led prayer is certainly not neutral. For the Supreme Court by some as yet unrevealed measurement has determined that teacher-led prayer is harmful. Now perhaps teacher-led prayer IS harmful, particularly if you fear what some of those untested gods will do when they are invoked in prayer. But the Supreme Court certainly is NOT neutral on religion. And the intervention certainly is NOT a separation of church and state. The intervention is a stifling imposition of the will of the Court against the democratic wishes of the local majority. —

Response:

My sources disagree with this conclusion. From Eric Foner’s. _Reconstruction:_America’s_Unfinished_Revolution_1863-1877_, Harper & Row Publishers: New York, 1988, page 258: The states, declared Michigan Sen. Jacob Howard, who guided the Amendment to passage in the Senate, could no longer infringe upon the liberties the Bill of Rights had secured against federal violation; henceforth, they must respect "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight Amendments." Bingham said much the in the House. Some portions of the Bill of Rights were of little moment in 1866 (no one was threatening to quarter soldiers in a home without consent of the owner.) But it is abundantly clear that Republicans wished to give constitutional sanction to states’ obligation to respect such key provisions as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, trial by impartial jury, and protection against cruel and unusual punishment and unreasonable search and seizure. This idea wasn’t a new idea. James Madison, the drafter of the Bill of Right, also supported the idea that all states should guarantee at least these rights. In fact, Congress has refused to adopt similar Amendments nineteen times between 1875 and 1930.

Which Amendments are you referring to? Also, Congress is not an authority on the Constitution. Final authority on the Constitution rest with the Supreme Court. If Congress and the Supreme Court disagree on any constitutional issue, the Court view wins, period. Congresses’ view becomes a purely academic question which has no legal significance. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court in 1947 inverted the plain meaning of the First Amendment to take away the state’s power to establish the religion that the First Amendment was written to protect.

Actually the Court started back with Twining v. New Jersey (1909) by suggesting that the Bill of Rights is applied to the states under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Gitlow v. New York (1925) free of speech was applied to the states. Freedom of religion was applied to the states by Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940). So, by the time Everson v. Board of Education (1947) came along, the Court had original intent and several previous rulings to concluded that the states must not have any establishment of religion. The banning of teacher-led prayer is certainly not neutral. For the Supreme Court by some as yet unrevealed measurement has determined that teacher-led prayer is harmful.

Go read Thomas Jefferson’s bill for religious freedom which was past by James Madison in 1787. Having a person paid from tax money to teach religion is harmful for several reason. Jefferson felt that this is not only harmful to the rights of non-believers, it is also harmful to the religion being taught. Madison, the drafter and the driving force behind the Bill of Rights, agreed with Jefferson’s view so much that he personally lead the effort which got the bill past unamended while Jefferson was in Paris. Now perhaps teacher-led prayer IS harmful, particularly if you fear what some of those untested gods will do when they are invoked in prayer.

So you do know how a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, etc., feels when then hear a Christian teacher-led prayer. They consider Jesus to be one of these untested gods. But the Supreme Court certainly is NOT neutral on religion. And the intervention certainly is NOT a separation of church and state. The intervention is a stifling imposition of the will of the Court against the democratic wishes of the local majority.

Please read Federalist Papers numbers 9 and 10. You will see that the purpose of the US government is to protect the rights of minorities from the wishes of the majority. One purpose of the Court is to kept the majority from enacting laws which violate the rights of minorities. What you are complaining about is the Court working as advertised. If you don’t like this, get a constitution amendment pasted stating that the majority rules over the Court. Until then, the Court is well within its powers to strike down laws it feels are a violation of minority rights no matter you and the majority of the US citizens think. | | "If only it were a modern document, with | | John Lawrence Rutledge | a smart index and hyper links stretching | | Research Assistant | all through the world data net. It was | | Distributed Multimedia | terribly frustrating to flip back and | | Systems Lab | forth between the pages and crude flat | | Computer Science Department | illustrations that never even moved. Nor | | UMass – Lowell | were there animated arrows or zoom-ins. | | 1 University Ave. | It completely lacked a feel for sound. | | Lowell, MA 01854 | "Most baffling of all was the problem | | | new words… In normal text you’d only | | (508) 934-3528 | have to touch an unfamiliar word and the | | http://www.cs.uml.edu/~jrutledg | from David Brin’s _Earth_ |

Response:

snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why? I would rather my daught were taught creationism in Spanish. That way she could learn a language and not have to pay attention to the content. Matt Silberstein [...] Matt, you criticized me for failing to provide documentation, and now you choose to ignore it. Do you really want your daughter to learn to read and write in Spanish, so she can get a job flipping burgers? I want my daughter to learn English, so she can succeed in college. Taking authority away from the parents and moving it up the political food chain is harming a lot of kids (and that is the topic of the post I originally replied to). I think you are burying your head in the sand. Vouchers give parents the power to protect their religious liberties and force the schools to give their children a useful education.

How do vouchers protect religious liberties? "The good news is, a bus loaded with supply-siders went over a cliff. The bad news is, Jack Kemp wasn’t on it." Bob Dole

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] I am sorry that you think learning Spanish makes your daughter only prepared to flip burgers. I would imagine that having a second language would help my daughter. She already speaks and reads English, so Spanish would be nice. Taking authority away from the parents and moving it up the political food chain is harming a lot of kids (and that is the topic of the post I originally replied to). I think you are burying your head in the sand. Vouchers give parents the power to protect their religious liberties and force the schools to give their children a useful education. I am for giving parents more control. I like school choice and the charter schools they have started in the LA school system. But I think that vouchers would destroy the education of our children. And that even if we had vouchers they should not go to religious schools. And the topic I was commenting on was vouchers for religious schools. [...] I don’t think you are getting it. My daughter was taught was not taught English at all. I know that will have a serious effect on her job prospects (although I don’t think many employers will care if she knows creationism or evolution). Those parents were boycotting that public school because their children were not taught English. "Bilingual" programs mean big money for the schools and teachers. They have no incentive to teach English to Hispanic children. Vouchers give the schools a reason to listen to parents because reduced enrollment costs the schools money (as the article pointed out). No need for a boycott! Let parents decide what is best for their children. Big Brother is doing a bad job. And I think parents can also do a better job defending their kids’ religious rights!

What religious rights do you believe children have that need to be protected? With religion, all things are permissable. John Boston Former Christian Evangelical Atheist XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX "A vote for any candidate created, backed, or hijacked by the Christian Coalition is a vote for the Pat Robertson political agenda"–Paula Xanthopoulou, editor of "c.c.watch"

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Are you suggesting that the schools in L.A. do a paper bag test? What do they do, if the child is lighter than a certain color they get taught in English, lighter than a darker color, they get taught in Spanish, and darker than that, they get taught in Jive? The Catholic shools do a great job in some areas and a poor job in others. Ask anyone who has survived a Cathlic school education. Washington cannot run the school system. Vouchers give parents some influence. And for the most part Washington does not, the local boards do. [...] Of course they are using the paper bag test. Why else are the schools forcing English speaking American kids to learn in Spanish? Last year, at one LA school, parents pulled their kids out of class and picketed to pressure the school to teach in English. A $3000 or $4000 voucher would have allowed these parents to just send their children to a Catholic school or a Montesouri school or whatever. The public schools would have to consider the welfare of the students if they wanted to compete. The local school board may run the school, but they care more about lobbyists in the capitol.

Let me get this straight. Your child was put into a ESL class because of the color of her skin, not because of her language usage? Could you tell me the school and other details. I happen to have good contacts in the LA school system. Matt Silberstein Verbing weirds language – W. W.

Response:

[...] You dont really believe the Republicans are going to give each and every child that wants to attend another school a voucher for $3000 or $4000 apiece do you. Thats a laugh. They will be lucky to get $500. You dont think the Republicans want those poor black, white or hispanic children to be able to go to school with those wealthy Christians do you. No, there will be no voucher for that amount because the Republicans want the rich to get richer. Those wealthy will just get the extra $500 break while that amount won’t get the poor little kids foot in the door. They know that but if its passed only the wealthy will be able to use it because the poor won’t have the money to add to it. Lu Wilson

I don’t expect any help from the Republicans or Democrats. The $3000 or $4OOO figure came from the original anti-voucher poster. And I don’t think the wealthy are worried about poor kids going to their schools. The wealthy tend to live in good neighborhoods with good public schools. If they want their kids to go to private schools, they can afford the expensive private schools.

Response:

[...] My daughter is bilingual, but she was lucky. I understand that third generation American kids are learning in Spanish even though they don’t speak Spanish at all. My daughter went to Betty Placentia School from grade 1 through 4. Her mother went in many times to ask (in English) that her daughter be taught in English, without effect. If you have contacts, ask them about that boycott. It was only about 9 months ago, and I’m sure it even made the national news!

Response:

} Last year, }at one LA school, parents pulled their kids out of class and picketed to }pressure the school to teach in English. Full bibliographic references, please.

[...] I found this on the LA Times Web site. Wednesday, February 14, 1996 Home Edition Section: Metro Page: B-1 80 Students Stay Out of School in Latino Boycott Go to: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/RESEARCH/ARCHIVES/simple.htm Search for ‘Parents seek more English-only classes at Ninth Street elementary campus’ for date ‘1996′. At this point, the service is still free. There are other free articles if you want to use their search engine. My wife went in many times to ask (in English) that her daughter be taught in English. That definitely doesn’t work.

Response:

Verbing weirds language – W. W.

Where did you hear that?? The last person I heard say that was Bill Watterson (Creator of Calvin and Hobbes in Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat…)

Response:

Verbing weirds language – W. W. Where did you hear that?? The last person I heard say that was Bill Watterson (Creator of Calvin and Hobbes in Homicidal Psycho Jungle Cat…)

Bill, Bill, let me think. Sounds like a nickname to me. Matt Silberstein Verbing weirds language – W. W.

Response:

FWIIW, Bill made an astounding claim about the racisim of the LA schools. When asked to document that claim he has disappeared. You can judge the truth for yourself. Matt Silberstein The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Response:

[...] Let me get this straight. Your child was put into a ESL class because of the color of her skin, not because of her language usage? Could you tell me the school and other details. I happen to have good contacts in the LA school system. Matt Silberstein FWIIW, Bill made an astounding claim about the racisim of the LA schools. When asked to document that claim he has disappeared. You can judge the truth for yourself. Matt Silberstein

[...] FYI, I replied to your post last week; I was wondering what happened to you. My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. Not bilingual and not ESL (English is her first language). My wife went in many times to complain (in English), but that didn’t help. We finally put her in a private school. There was a person on local TV news a few weeks ago complaining that her child was being taught in Spanish even though her family had not spoken Spanish in generations. The school explained that they could not afford both Spanish and English teachers, so everybody got Spanish instruction. If you really find this "astounding," check out the LA Times on the web: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/RESEARCH/ARCHIVES/ Search for: ‘80 Students Stay Out of School in Latino Boycott’ in ‘1996′ There was also an article in Readers Digest about four months ago on bilingual education, which pointed out that it is a big city problem, not just an LA problem. You might find it in your local library. Vouchers elimate the need for student boycotts. Religion is another issue, but I think the parents should decide, not Washington. I believe in evolution, but I would rather have my child taught creationism in English than evolution in Spanish.

Response:

[...] I think you’re right. Maybe it wasn’t racism, maybe the public schools use ethnic origin to justify simple greed. If you withdraw your claim that they did what they did because of her skin color we can drop this. I don’t find it impossible that it happended, but unlikely and, as the lawyers say, actionable. I agree with you that bilingual education should be dropped. I hold that position because of it education affect, not because of any political views. And if there were support for a voucher program that prevent the money from going to religious schools I would consider it.

[...] I thought you didn’t want to talk about bilingual education. But racism is a moot point. Thousands of Hispanic children are receiving third class educations, whether through racism, greed, or old fashioned stupidity. Vouchers could fix this by giving authority back to the parents. Limiting parent’s choices to non-religious schools will force most of them to keep their children in the public schools. You are trying so hard to prevent religion from being taught that you are allowing nothing to be taught.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. I have checked up a little on this. It is true that the school is almost entirely Spanish speaking. So it is possible that there were no English classes available. However, you original claim was that your daughter was put in the Spanish class because of her skin color. Not surprising I can’t get any information on this. What I have been told is that you could have put her in a different LAUSD school. I understand that would have been a signifcant bother. What I would like you to substantiat is your claim that this was done based on skin color. [...] I think you’re right. Maybe it wasn’t racism, maybe the public schools use ethnic origin to justify simple greed.

If you withdraw your claim that they did what they did because of her skin color we can drop this. I don’t find it impossible that it happended, but unlikely and, as the lawyers say, actionable. I agree with you that bilingual education should be dropped. I hold that position because of it education affect, not because of any political views. And if there were support for a voucher program that prevent the money from going to religious schools I would consider it. Matt Silberstein The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. I have checked up a little on this. It is true that the school is almost entirely Spanish speaking. So it is possible that there were no English classes available. However, you original claim was that your daughter was put in the Spanish class because of her skin color. Not surprising I can’t get any information on this. What I have been told is that you could have put her in a different LAUSD school. I understand that would have been a signifcant bother. What I would like you to substantiat is your claim that this was done based on skin color.

[...] I think you’re right. Maybe it wasn’t racism, maybe the public schools use ethnic origin to justify simple greed. The "bilingual" program was probably the largest source of funds on the school’s budget. That was why they wouldn’t teach my daughter English even though it was her primary language. That was also why they didn’t mention that she could be moved to a different school (if that’s really possible). Most of the private schools in Los Angeles manage to teach in Engish only, spent less on each student, and beat the public schools on the standardized tests. Vouchers would allow many more Hispanic students receive an English education. Declining enrollment would give the public schools a financial incentive to provide English educations to those families who still couldn’t afford private schools. Taxpayers would spend less money under a voucher system (because private schools are much more efficient), and all students would receive a better education.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Let me get this straight. Your child was put into a ESL class because of the color of her skin, not because of her language usage? Could you tell me the school and other details. I happen to have good contacts in the LA school system. Matt Silberstein FWIIW, Bill made an astounding claim about the racisim of the LA schools. When asked to document that claim he has disappeared. You can judge the truth for yourself. Matt Silberstein [...] FYI, I replied to your post last week; I was wondering what happened to you. My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only.

I have checked up a little on this. It is true that the school is almost entirely Spanish speaking. So it is possible that there were no English classes available. However, you original claim was that your daughter was put in the Spanish class because of her skin color. Not surprising I can’t get any information on this. What I have been told is that you could have put her in a different LAUSD school. I understand that would have been a signifcant bother. What I would like you to substantiat is your claim that this was done based on skin color. The message ids in question are: Matt Silberstein The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Response:

[...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I am sorry that you think learning Spanish makes your daughter only prepared to flip burgers. I would imagine that having a second language would help my daughter. She already speaks and reads English, so Spanish would be nice. Taking authority away from the parents and moving it up the political food chain is harming a lot of kids (and that is the topic of the post I originally replied to). I think you are burying your head in the sand. Vouchers give parents the power to protect their religious liberties and force the schools to give their children a useful education. I am for giving parents more control. I like school choice and the charter schools they have started in the LA school system. But I think that vouchers would destroy the education of our children. And that even if we had vouchers they should not go to religious schools. And the topic I was commenting on was vouchers for religious schools.

[...] I don’t think you are getting it. My daughter was taught was not taught English at all. I know that will have a serious effect on her job prospects (although I don’t think many employers will care if she knows creationism or evolution). Those parents were boycotting that public school because their children were not taught English. "Bilingual" programs mean big money for the schools and teachers. They have no incentive to teach English to Hispanic children. Vouchers give the schools a reason to listen to parents because reduced enrollment costs the schools money (as the article pointed out). No need for a boycott! Let parents decide what is best for their children. Big Brother is doing a bad job. And I think parents can also do a better job defending their kids’ religious rights!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] FWIIW, Bill made an astounding claim about the racisim of the LA schools. When asked to document that claim he has disappeared. You can judge the truth for yourself. Matt Silberstein [...] My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. Not bilingual and not ESL (English is her first language). My wife went in many times to complain (in English), but that didn’t help. We finally put her in a private school. There was a person on local TV news a few weeks ago complaining that her child was being taught in Spanish even though her family had not spoken Spanish in generations. The school explained that they could not afford both Spanish and English teachers, so everybody got Spanish instruction. If you really find this "astounding," check out the LA Times on the web: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/RESEARCH/ARCHIVES/ Search for: ‘80 Students Stay Out of School in Latino Boycott’ in ‘1996′ I found the article. It was about bilingual education not your daughter and not her school. There was also an article in Readers Digest about four months ago on bilingual education, which pointed out that it is a big city problem, not just an LA problem. You might find it in your local library. I know a lot about bilingual education. I happen to be against it. But that was not the topic of this thread at all, so I won’t bother to look up the article. Vouchers elimate the need for student boycotts. Religion is another issue, but I think the parents should decide, not Washington. I believe in evolution, but I would rather have my child taught creationism in English than evolution in Spanish. Why? I would rather my daught were taught creationism in Spanish. That way she could learn a language and not have to pay attention to the content. Matt Silberstein [...] Matt, you criticized me for failing to provide documentation, and now you choose to ignore it.

What did I ignore. I looked up the article you reference. It was about Latino parents protesting bilingual education. We were not talking about binlingual education. The article had nothing that I could find about your daughter’s situation. Do you really want your daughter to learn to read and write in Spanish, so she can get a job flipping burgers? I want my daughter to learn English, so she can succeed in college.

I am sorry that you think learning Spanish makes your daughter only prepared to flip burgers. I would imagine that having a second language would help my daughter. She already speaks and reads English, so Spanish would be nice. Taking authority away from the parents and moving it up the political food chain is harming a lot of kids (and that is the topic of the post I originally replied to). I think you are burying your head in the sand. Vouchers give parents the power to protect their religious liberties and force the schools to give their children a useful education.

I am for giving parents more control. I like school choice and the charter schools they have started in the LA school system. But I think that vouchers would destroy the education of our children. And that even if we had vouchers they should not go to religious schools. And the topic I was commenting on was vouchers for religious schools. Matt Silberstein The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Response:

It did not appear on talk.origins which is where I read this stuff. It is Friday. I will not be able to get any information about this until next week. So I will probably post around W or TH. My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. Not bilingual and not ESL (English is her first language). My wife went in many times to complain (in English), but that didn’t help. We finally put her in a private school. There was a person on local TV news a few weeks ago complaining that her child was being taught in Spanish even though her family had not spoken Spanish in generations. The school explained that they could not afford both Spanish and English teachers, so everybody got Spanish instruction. If you really find this "astounding," check out the LA Times on the web: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/RESEARCH/ARCHIVES/ Search for: ‘80 Students Stay Out of School in Latino Boycott’ in ‘1996′

I found the article. It was about bilingual education not your daughter and not her school. There was also an article in Readers Digest about four months ago on bilingual education, which pointed out that it is a big city problem, not just an LA problem. You might find it in your local library.

I know a lot about bilingual education. I happen to be against it. But that was not the topic of this thread at all, so I won’t bother to look up the article. Vouchers elimate the need for student boycotts. Religion is another issue, but I think the parents should decide, not Washington. I believe in evolution, but I would rather have my child taught creationism in English than evolution in Spanish.

Why? I would rather my daught were taught creationism in Spanish. That way she could learn a language and not have to pay attention to the content. Matt Silberstein The opinions expressed in this post reflect those of the Walt Disney Corp. Which might come as a surprise to them.

Response:

[...] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – FWIIW, Bill made an astounding claim about the racisim of the LA schools. When asked to document that claim he has disappeared. You can judge the truth for yourself. Matt Silberstein [...] My child spent grades 1-4 at Betty Placencia School learning in Spanish only. Not bilingual and not ESL (English is her first language). My wife went in many times to complain (in English), but that didn’t help. We finally put her in a private school. There was a person on local TV news a few weeks ago complaining that her child was being taught in Spanish even though her family had not spoken Spanish in generations. The school explained that they could not afford both Spanish and English teachers, so everybody got Spanish instruction. If you really find this "astounding," check out the LA Times on the web: http://www.latimes.com/HOME/RESEARCH/ARCHIVES/ Search for: ‘80 Students Stay Out of School in Latino Boycott’ in ‘1996′ I found the article. It was about bilingual education not your daughter and not her school. There was also an article in Readers Digest about four months ago on bilingual education, which pointed out that it is a big city problem, not just an LA problem. You might find it in your local library. I know a lot about bilingual education. I happen to be against it. But that was not the topic of this thread at all, so I won’t bother to look up the article. Vouchers elimate the need for student boycotts. Religion is another issue, but I think the parents should decide, not Washington. I believe in evolution, but I would rather have my child taught creationism in English than evolution in Spanish. Why? I would rather my daught were taught creationism in Spanish. That way she could learn a language and not have to pay attention to the content. Matt Silberstein

[...] Matt, you criticized me for failing to provide documentation, and now you choose to ignore it. Do you really want your daughter to learn to read and write in Spanish, so she can get a job flipping burgers? I want my daughter to learn English, so she can succeed in college. Taking authority away from the parents and moving it up the political food chain is harming a lot of kids (and that is the topic of the post I originally replied to). I think you are burying your head in the sand. Vouchers give parents the power to protect their religious liberties and force the schools to give their children a useful education.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – [...] Are you suggesting that the schools in L.A. do a paper bag test? What do they do, if the child is lighter than a certain color they get taught in English, lighter than a darker color, they get taught in Spanish, and darker than that, they get taught in Jive? The Catholic shools do a great job in some areas and a poor job in others. Ask anyone who has survived a Cathlic school education. Washington cannot run the school system. Vouchers give parents some influence. And for the most part Washington does not, the local boards do.

[...] Of course they are using the paper bag test. Why else are the schools forcing English speaking American kids to learn in Spanish? Last year, at one LA school, parents pulled their kids out of class and picketed to pressure the school to teach in English. A $3000 or $4000 voucher would have allowed these parents to just send their children to a Catholic school or a Montesouri school or whatever. The public schools would have to consider the welfare of the students if they wanted to compete. The local school board may run the school, but they care more about lobbyists in the capitol.

Response:

You dont really believe the Republicans are going to give each and every child that wants to attend another school a voucher for $3000 or $4000 apiece do you. Thats a laugh. They will be lucky to get $500. You dont think the Republicans want those poor black, white or hispanic children to be able to go to school with those wealthy Christians do you. No, there will be no voucher for that amount because the Republicans want the rich to get richer. Those wealthy will just get the extra $500 break while that amount won’t get the poor little kids foot in the door. They know that but if its passed only the wealthy will be able to use it because the poor won’t have the money to add to it. Lu Wilson

Response:

} Last year, }at one LA school, parents pulled their kids out of class and picketed to }pressure the school to teach in English.

Full bibliographic references, please. } The }local school board may run the school, but they care more about }lobbyists in the capitol.

How are the members of the school board selected in your locality? — — Herb Huston — http://www.access.digex.net/~huston

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – (previous trimmed) Teaching religion in science class or taking money away from public schools will destroy us as an economic power. School vouchers wiil only serve to make the rich richer and make the poor poorer. Private schools, even religious schools charge a lot more than what a voucher will pay. Yes there are many small religious schools, but they are built more on parental involvement and religious instruction than quality of education. here in Washington is a private, well regarded religious school that charges over $10,000 a year. And it is probably average in cost. Only the upper middle class and rich can afford to send their kids there. Even with a voucher everyone would still have to kick in another 6 or 7 thousand bucks. not many can do that. the main proponents of this idea seem to think that vouchers will make every thing wonderful, but in fact it will make things even worse. (sig trimmed) Here in Los Angeles there are private schools that charge $10,000. But a three or four thousand dollar voucher would cover the cost of a Catholic school with room to spare.

The Church subsidizes the schools. And the fees are just one part of the cost of a private school education. They ask for money constantly and in many different ways. And quality of education is a great point. The public schools taught my daughter in Spanish (she has brown skin); the Catholic school is English only. Scores on national tests in the Catholic schools are far better than the public schools in L. A. My daughter is not Catholic, and I am not "upper middle class".

Are you suggesting that the schools in L.A. do a paper bag test? What do they do, if the child is lighter than a certain color they get taught in English, lighter than a darker color, they get taught in Spanish, and darker than that, they get taught in Jive? The Catholic shools do a great job in some areas and a poor job in others. Ask anyone who has survived a Cathlic school education. Washington cannot run the school system. Vouchers give parents some influence.

And for the most part Washington does not, the local boards do. I would be willing to consider a voucher concept if it has a few rules. No religious content in a voucher supported school. No religious, racial, or gender discrimination in entry. Some reasonable minimum standards for the schools. I could think of a few more, but these suffice to make my views unacceptable to most voucher advocates. Verbing weirds language – W. W.

Response:

Under a voucher system Buddhist kids could go to Buddhist schools if that is what they wished. At a minimum I would suspect that they would be sent to schools where their beliefs would be respected. What’s wrong with that? Everything is wrong with that. You would be promoting segregation, a very _UN-JUST_ thing which happened MANY years ago, which red-blooded Americans fought to abolish.

You would be promoting freedom of choice which many red-blooded Englishmen fought their parent country to gain. Just because ignorant,

now, now… short-sighted Christians want to force religeon on

their own children doesn’t mean it’s right. The act of forcing different religeons into different schools is a MAJOR act of repression, segregation, and bigotry.

And forcing them into public secular schools is…? _JUST_ the fact that you will have different schools which teach different religeons would lead to confilcts between.

Yeah, put them in a jar and shake them up. The state government here, in New Mexico where I go to school, can’t hardly keep up funding to make education adequate here.

This is a non-seq. Anyway, I’m sure people would be willing o pay moree if they thought the schools were teaching their children want they wanted and needed to learn, instead of provoking conflict in the name of tolerance. Some food for thought, Eric, 15 y/o Highschool student.Well spoken, Eric. Also, I, and all other Americans, have a strong interest in seeing that all children receive as good of an education as we can give them.

And you’re for the current system? The next generation will have to shoulder the burden of competing with the world in the marketplace, and continue to defend our shores against any who would seek to invade us. We must insure that our youth get a good grounding in science in order to do this. In any area of economic competition it is only by leading in new technology that we will be able to compete. Teaching religion in science class or taking money away from public schools will destroy us as an economic power. School vouchers wiil only serve to make the rich richer and make the poor poorer.

So you give a poor person a check for 3000 dollars a year for education, giving them the opportunities only the rich have now and that’ll make them poorer by…? Private schools, even religious schools charge a lot more than what a voucher will pay.

You’re wrong. There will be new schools, perhaps even schools for profit that will result from the vouchers. Yes there are many small religious schools, but they are built more on parental involvement and religious instruction than quality of education. here in Washington is a private, well regarded religious school that charges over $10,000 a year. And it is probably average in cost. Only the upper middle class and rich can afford to send their kids there. Even with a voucher everyone would still have to kick in another 6 or 7 thousand bucks. not many can do that. the main proponents of this idea seem to think that vouchers will make every thing wonderful, but in fact it will make things even worse.

Worse? How can it be worse? Jehoviah! Jehoviah! (sorry, monty python’s in my veins) — all opinions are mine and mine alone. I worked hard for them, I deserve them, and noone may use them without specific permission from me. dickc

mdb I can’t think of anything to add to that.

Response:

(previous trimmed) Teaching religion in science class or taking money away from public schools will destroy us as an economic power. School vouchers wiil only serve to make the rich richer and make the poor poorer. Private schools, even religious schools charge a lot more than what a voucher will pay. Yes there are many small religious schools, but they are built more on parental involvement and religious instruction than quality of education. here in Washington is a private, well regarded religious school that charges over $10,000 a year. And it is probably average in cost. Only the upper middle class and rich can afford to send their kids there. Even with a voucher everyone would still have to kick in another 6 or 7 thousand bucks. not many can do that. the main proponents of this idea seem to think that vouchers will make every thing wonderful, but in fact it will make things even worse.

(sig trimmed) Here in Los Angeles there are private schools that charge $10,000. But a three or four thousand dollar voucher would cover the cost of a Catholic school with room to spare. And quality of education is a great point. The public schools taught my daughter in Spanish (she has brown skin); the Catholic school is English only. Scores on national tests in the Catholic schools are far better than the public schools in L. A. My daughter is not Catholic, and I am not "upper middle class". Washington cannot run the school system. Vouchers give parents some influence.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Under a voucher system Buddhist kids could go to Buddhist schools if that is what they wished. At a minimum I would suspect that they would be sent to schools where their beliefs would be respected. What’s wrong with that? Everything is wrong with that. You would be promoting segregation, a very _UN-JUST_ thing which happened MANY years ago, which red-blooded Americans fought to abolish. Just because ignorant, short-sighted Christians want to force religeon on children doesn’t mean it’s right. The act of forcing different religeons into different schools is a MAJOR act of repression, segregation, and bigotry. _JUST_ the fact that you will have different schools which teach different religeons would lead to confilcts between. The state government here, in New Mexico where I go to school, can’t hardly keep up funding to make education adequate here. Some food for thought, Eric, 15 y/o Highschool student.Well spoken, Eric.

Also, I, and all other Americans, have a strong interest in seeing that all children receive as good of an education as we can give them. The next generation will have to shoulder the burden of competing with the world in the marketplace, and continue to defend our shores against any who would seek to invade us. We must insure that our youth get a good grounding in science in order to do this. In any area of economic competition it is only by leading in new technology that we will be able to compete. Teaching religion in science class or taking money away from public schools will destroy us as an economic power. School vouchers wiil only serve to make the rich richer and make the poor poorer. Private schools, even religious schools charge a lot more than what a voucher will pay. Yes there are many small religious schools, but they are built more on parental involvement and religious instruction than quality of education. here in Washington is a private, well regarded religious school that charges over $10,000 a year. And it is probably average in cost. Only the upper middle class and rich can afford to send their kids there. Even with a voucher everyone would still have to kick in another 6 or 7 thousand bucks. not many can do that. the main proponents of this idea seem to think that vouchers will make every thing wonderful, but in fact it will make things even worse. — all opinions are mine and mine alone. I worked hard for them, I deserve them, and noone may use them without specific permission from me. dickc

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -Dr. J.E. Freed writes: Pardon me, folks…but I’m a bit confused. First of all…WHAT religion are we talking about here? Betcha it’s the Christian one…just a guess. And, your statements about the government’s banning religion in schools actually BEING a religion…er…may I ask exactly which deity is being worshiped in this case? GET REAL! Even if the government does banish prayer in schools, what stops a child from a silent, individual prayer? I think the point is that the government has not the right to say which religion will be practiced by our children. For example, if "the church of Bob" were the issue, I have a feeling that this would not be an issue. Aren’t we, as parents, responsible for the proper upbringing of our children? Why then, is it so important that the same teachers who teach our children math also teach them in what way they may or may not pray? The entire issue is absurd. Read the constitution, morons!

The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what religion they choose to teach in their public schools. And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings. Even so, the 1947 Supreme Court decided to separate the churches from the states. There is no secular reason for banning teacher-led prayers. Perhaps, there is a secular reason to ban NONSENSE from the schools. But the only nonsense that the Supreme Court has banned is RELIGIOUS nonsense. There are many RELIGIOUS reasons for banning teacher-led prayer. First, many religions teach that the state should never pray–that prayer should be made in "thy closet." Second, banning teacher-led prayer preserves the parent’s monopoly over the religious practices into which the child is coerced. Since there are NO secular reasons for banning teacher-led prayer and ONLY religious reasons, the banning works an establishment of religion. [["Make Prayer in Thy Closet" courtesy Matthew 6:6.]] —

Response:

Okay: explain it too me. I don’t see the relevance: Amendment I (1791) 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. Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void. Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. Even so, the 1947 Supreme Court decided to separate the churches from the states.

And high time! There is no secular reason for banning teacher-led prayers. Perhaps, there is a secular reason to ban NONSENSE from the schools. But the only nonsense that the Supreme Court has banned is RELIGIOUS nonsense. There are many RELIGIOUS reasons for banning teacher-led prayer. First, many religions teach that the state should never pray–that prayer should be made in "thy closet."

Well, Jesus said it. Which other religions hold this view? Second, banning teacher-led prayer preserves the parent’s monopoly over the religious practices into which the child is coerced. Since there are NO secular reasons for banning teacher-led prayer and ONLY religious reasons, the banning works an establishment of religion.

Fairness isn’t a secular reason? [["Make Prayer in Thy Closet" courtesy Matthew 6:6.]] —

– Dan Ashlock

Response:

writes: [snip] The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what religion they choose to teach in their public schools.

I beg your pardon? Where exactly might we find that. And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings.

I’ll make book, bro, that you can’t name a "framer" of the 14th Amendment, much less cite anything one said advocating that states should establish fundamentalist Christianity as the state religion. There is no secular reason for banning teacher-led prayers.

Let’s try just one. The *principal* purpose of the public schools is the socialization of good citizens. Citizens of the United States live in a society where there are hundreds of different religions practiced, many of which are fervently held to by signigicant numbers of persons. One of the prime aspects of good citizenship is not engaging in gratuitous insults toward one’s fellow citizens. There are few insults more deeply felt than disrespect for one’s religion. There is no better way to show disrespect for the many religions practiced in the U.S. — and to teach our future citizens that such disrespect is perfectly all right — than for the state to pretend that every one in the room can be required to pretend they believe what the most powerful person in the room believes. [snip] There are many RELIGIOUS reasons for banning teacher-led prayer. First, many religions teach that the state should never pray–that prayer should be made in "thy closet." Second, banning teacher-led prayer preserves the parent’s monopoly over the religious practices into which the child is coerced.

Of course, if Christians took either of these tenets of their religion seriously, teacher-led school prayer would not be an issue; the problem is that the people who want school prayer are those who have no real interest in their religion. They want the state to teach their kids what they believe, because they are to lazy to do it themselves. Since there are NO secular reasons for banning teacher-led prayer and ONLY religious reasons, the banning works an establishment of religion.

Major premise already refuted. Ergo, syllogism collapses in heap of meaningless words.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The opinions here are mine, alright? <<<<< Not my tagline. Let’s hope not.

Response:

Get involved in my kid’s school? No way! That’s the teacher’s job. I got my own job, and I work hard at it all day. Why the hell should I come home and spend my private time making sure my kids are getting a good education? I pay taxes. I deserve a quality product, but I sure don’t need to spend any more resources than I should. You know, if they’d just use the Good Book, these kids today would learn something! And they’d be much more moral, too. A hunnert years ago, they never had problems. MJ The opinions here are mine, alright?

MJ – I feel sorry for your children. Do you spend any time with them at all? You have made it clear that you do not want to spend time with them in regard to school – it’s someone elses job.. Do you also want to pawn the job of raising your children to the good book? What role, exactly, is it that you think a parent takes? BTW – don’t fool yourself into thinking that a hundreD years ago that there weren’t problems. There have always been problems some more at the forefront of consciousness than others. GG

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First, many teachers and school officials have little or no say in the choice of textbooks. They are given a book and told to use it. Are they, then, responsible for errors? Even those who write a text may not be responsible for the errors resulting from the actual printing of the book. Second, if you are concerned about the quality of education your daughter is receiving, you may want to consider some degree of involvement with your local school system. Some systems have committees which work on developing curricula and the adoption of text books. These committees include educators, parents, and members of the community. If the system your daughter attends does not have a method such as this, petition for it. Get involved in my kid’s school? No way! That’s the teacher’s job. I got my own job, and I work hard at it all day. Why the hell should I come home and spend my private time making sure my kids are getting a good education? I pay taxes. I deserve a quality product, but I sure don’t need to spend any more resources than I should. You know, if they’d just use the Good Book, these kids today would learn something! And they’d be much more moral, too. A hunnert years ago, they never had problems.

Nice troll. — KEN FAIR – U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I’m w/in McQ – R U? "My vulva is wide opened, a cave of darkness where the people . . . hang out at night . . . . There is music playing in my Womb." - Doctress Neutopia

Response:

You know, if they’d just use the Good Book, these kids today would learn something! And they’d be much more moral, too.

Are you going to lay the responsibility of instilling morals and values in the good book or are you going to take that responsibility on yourself??? A hunnert years ago, they never had problems.

A hundrend years ago society has similar problems. The key difference between now and then is socieities focus and ability to transmit information in a shorter period of time, over a greater area of the earth. I have one question: Why wouldn’t you WANT to help your children? It seems to me that regardless of whose fault it is that your child is having trouble in school that you would want (and presumably have the ability) to help him or her. GG

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – First, many teachers and school officials have little or no say in the choice of textbooks. They are given a book and told to use it. Are they, then, responsible for errors? Even those who write a text may not be responsible for the errors resulting from the actual printing of the book. Second, if you are concerned about the quality of education your daughter is receiving, you may want to consider some degree of involvement with your local school system. Some systems have committees which work on developing curricula and the adoption of text books. These committees include educators, parents, and members of the community. If the system your daughter attends does not have a method such as this, petition for it. Get involved in my kid’s school? No way! That’s the teacher’s job. I got my own job, and I work hard at it all day. Why the hell should I come home and spend my private time making sure my kids are getting a good education? I pay taxes. I deserve a quality product, but I sure don’t need to spend any more resources than I should. You know, if they’d just use the Good Book, these kids today would learn something! And they’d be much more moral, too. A hunnert years ago, they never had problems. MJ The opinions here are mine, alright?

I rest my case.

Response:

Mr. Becker, You are right Einstein, school is for real education. Too bad they don’t teach it anymore. I have just a BS in Geology and when looking through my daughters 6th grade yearbook I caught 8 typos or grammatical errors. What does that say for the level of education my daughter is receiving? It is time to hold the teachers and school officials accountable for the quality of their work. Walt Becker

First, many teachers and school officials have little or no say in the choice of textbooks. They are given a book and told to use it. Are they, then, responsible for errors? Even those who write a text may not be responsible for the errors resulting from the actual printing of the book. Second, if you are concerned about the quality of education your daughter is receiving, you may want to consider some degree of involvement with your local school system. Some systems have committees which work on developing curricula and the adoption of text books. These committees include educators, parents, and members of the community. If the system your daughter attends does not have a method such as this, petition for it. MJ

Response:

The opinions here are mine, alright?

Response:

Let’s hope not.

Response:

Religion should be banned from any and all course curriculum in the public school system. Although we all have the right to talk about our religion, no one has the right to subject someone to religious acts outside thier own religion. I’m not saying it should be banned from the schools however. Being that we also have the right to have our religion preached, it should be allowed into schools. Just, not as required learning. This way, people get thier religion in school without infringing upon other peoples rights not to hear it.

Response:

Religion is not something that should be banned from shools in of itself. The problem is that the school systems are so diverse, that we can not teach just ONE religion, primarily that of the majority – Christianity (unless you are in a private religious school of course, and you can do what you wish). The cunundrum is as follows: if you teach one religion, you must teach ALL religions, and not favor ANY of them. So, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Confuscism, Judaism, etc., all get the same amount of stage time, and none of them get favored. Because we are human and most of us can’t do this in an objective fashion. we are not allowed to do any of it in a government institution. Period. Gonzalo Gonzalo del Real, B.A. Spanish Major On my way to grad school! Intenational MBA at University of Oregon, here I come!

Response:

: Sinder) writes:

: The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to : interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what : religion they choose to teach in their public schools. It’s funny. I can always tell from the subject line when a new thread has been started by the guy with the one-track mind, Riley "atheism-is-a-state-religion" Sinder. And starvation is a type of food, too! Give it up Riley. Get a life and butt out of mine. | Can you trust a government that subsidizes tobacco and tries to | | ban vitamins to make intelligent choices about YOUR health care? | "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" … Benjamin Franklin * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Live long and prosper — without government interference!" …Mr. Spock, before the NBC censors got to him, stardate 1966 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dear Slick Willie: Yeah, I feel your pain! Sure!!! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!! * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sinder) writes: The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what religion they choose to teach in their public schools. And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings. So what’s your point? That if the Constitution can be interpreted such that school prayer isn’t banned, public schools should once again force their students to pray? Which God would you have them pray to anyway? Jesus? Allah? Jehovah? And why should teachers just read the Bible, and not the Koran? After all, there are Moslem kids and Jewish kids in many school systems. Are we just going to ignore their offense when we make them pray to another god?

In Chicago, I recently read that there are now more Moslems than Jews in the city. I wonder how many Evangelical Christians or Babtists there are? (whoa, better close our borders fast fellahs) — TJBroder | How come when "Everyone says so" arteest & | it’s usually only you? rational anarchist <DARWIN L L

Response:

Yes as long as they offer classes to all types of religion ….. so that if I wanted to study krisha I could take that class or if I wanted to study satanism I could…… How much money would that cost ….. the place for religion is not in the classroom. It should be taught by preachers and parents …… School is for real education …. not to brainwash kids on religion! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Religion should be banned from any and all course curriculum in the public school system. I don’t agree with this. I think that religion courses should be allowed in public schools, but they should be *elective*, never required. The important thing to remember is that, even if public money is being used to teach a subject, as long as that subject is elective, then that does not constitute government endorsement of that subject. At least, that’s the way I see it. — | Russell Stewart | | http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ | If Rush is Right, then I’ll take what’s Left.

– "Imagination is more important than knowledge!" Einstein http://mars.superlink.net/einstein netscape 2.0 or better http://mars.superlink.net/einstein/einstein.html others

Response:

You are right Einstein, school is for real education. Too bad they don’t teach it anymore. I have just a BS in Geology and when looking through my daughters 6th grade yearbook I caught 8 typos or grammatical errors. What does that say for the level of education my daughter is receiving? It is time to hold the teachers and school officials accountable for the quality of their work. Walt Becker – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes as long as they offer classes to all types of religion ….. so that if I wanted to study krisha I could take that class or if I wanted to study satanism I could…… How much money would that cost ….. the place for religion is not in the classroom. It should be taught by preachers and parents …… School is for real education …. not to brainwash kids on religion! Religion should be banned from any and all course curriculum in the public school system. I don’t agree with this. I think that religion courses should be allowed in public schools, but they should be *elective*, never required. The important thing to remember is that, even if public money is being used to teach a subject, as long as that subject is elective, then that does not constitute government endorsement of that subject. At least, that’s the way I see it. — | Russell Stewart | | http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ | If Rush is Right, then I’ll take what’s Left. — "Imagination is more important than knowledge!" Einstein http://mars.superlink.net/einstein netscape 2.0 or better http://mars.superlink.net/einstein/einstein.html others

Response:

Prayer in school is a bad idea because all of the lazy Christians will be praying to Jesus for help on their exams and grades, and if Jesus does help them out, then all of those Christians will have an unfair advantage over the non-praying students. But then again, children praying in most schools will not likely have the benefit of an answer, because Jesus hates kids in public schools.

Response:

Religion should be banned from any and all course curriculum in the public school system.

I don’t agree with this. I think that religion courses should be allowed in public schools, but they should be *elective*, never required. The important thing to remember is that, even if public money is being used to teach a subject, as long as that subject is elective, then that does not constitute government endorsement of that subject. At least, that’s the way I see it. — | Russell Stewart | | http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ | If Rush is Right, then I’ll take what’s Left.

Response:

if you teach one religion, you must teach ALL religions, and not favor ANY of them. So, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Confuscism, Judaism, etc., all get the same amount of stage time, and none of them get favored. Because we are human and most of us can’t do this in an objective fashion. we are not allowed to do any of it in a government institution. Period.

Christians do not want religion taught in school nor do they want prayer in school. They want christianity and their prayer in school. This can be demonstrated by seeing if they would allow prayers by satanists or santa-ria people; I doubt it. They no doubt would be just as upset by a christian kid in a predominantly jewish school where the prayers were jewish.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – if you teach one religion, you must teach ALL religions, and not favor ANY of them. So, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Confuscism, Judaism, etc., all get the same amount of stage time, and none of them get favored. Because we are human and most of us can’t do this in an objective fashion. we are not allowed to do any of it in a government institution. Period. Christians do not want religion taught in school nor do they want prayer in school. They want christianity and their prayer in school. This can be demonstrated by seeing if they would allow prayers by satanists or santa-ria people; I doubt it. They no doubt would be just as upset by a christian kid in a predominantly jewish school where the prayers were jewish.

It bugs me just a little in these discussions that nature-based, "Goddess" type belief is never mentioned. While a don’t ascribe to a particular religion, the idea that all life is to be revered, and that care must be taken by humans in the way we live— because we are part of the natural world—-makes more sense than these mainstream religions’ teaching that the earth is just pre-school for our "souls". The empiricle evidence is in— there is one livable planet available, and humans are rapidly screwing it up; a change in our phylosophy could go a long way in improving our relationship with it. And one more thing— it was these mainstream religions that stamped out the earth-based ones by the most extreme fashion imaginable— the last spate of whitch burning was a tiny example. The new movement among Christians to revere all life and support the Endangered Species act, because of a Biblical interpretation now gaining ground is to be applauded (I believe just the reverence part was supported, not the ESA part— then again, if you look in Revalations, one might find the ESA there). Just a few thoughts. Dave Braun

Response:

| | |Sinder) writes:

| The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to | interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what | religion they choose to teach in their public schools. | | And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment | repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should | prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in | schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings. | | | |So what’s your point? That if the Constitution can be interpreted such |that school prayer isn’t banned, public schools should once again force |their students to pray? | |Which God would you have them pray to anyway? Jesus? Allah? Jehovah? And |why should teachers just read the Bible, and not the Koran? | |After all, there are Moslem kids and Jewish kids in many school systems. |Are we just going to ignore their offense when we make them pray to |another god? | |Actually, there are some very offensive verses in the Bible as well. Who |decides which ones are read and which ones aren’t? Presbyterians? |Baptists? Catholics? Mormons? | |But really, thanks for pointing out a flaw in our Constitution. Let’s get |a new amendment going, one that bans prayer in school (and any other |religious idiocy the narrow-minded of our nation want to inflict upon our |children), and doesn’t leave any room for interpretation. I teach, and prayer is NOT banned. Every Friday a huge Christian group takes over a wing of the school and "witness", sing, pray, hear sermons, etc. All on school time! I’m not a Christian and I’m for it. Besides, even if prayers are mandated by whatever forces there be, I know plenty of students who believe in freedom of thought enough to publically initiate public prayers to Satan. Whew! You’d see how quickly people would rethink public prayer!

Response:

Sinder) writes: The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what religion they choose to teach in their public schools. And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings.

So what’s your point? That if the Constitution can be interpreted such that school prayer isn’t banned, public schools should once again force their students to pray? Which God would you have them pray to anyway? Jesus? Allah? Jehovah? And why should teachers just read the Bible, and not the Koran? After all, there are Moslem kids and Jewish kids in many school systems. Are we just going to ignore their offense when we make them pray to another god? Actually, there are some very offensive verses in the Bible as well. Who decides which ones are read and which ones aren’t? Presbyterians? Baptists? Catholics? Mormons? But really, thanks for pointing out a flaw in our Constitution. Let’s get a new amendment going, one that bans prayer in school (and any other religious idiocy the narrow-minded of our nation want to inflict upon our children), and doesn’t leave any room for interpretation.

Response:

Dr. J.E. Freed writes: The Constitution is quite clear that the Congress is not to interfere with the decisions of the local majority in what religion they choose to teach in their public schools.

I do believe that the constitution talks about the government interfereing with INDIVIDUALS, and not just local elected or non-elected majorities. The state may not tell any group *OR* individual what religions they can or cannot follow. And the Framers of the infamous Fourteenth Amendment repeatedly REJECTED the idea that the Constitution should prohibit the states from establishing religious practices in schools, such as teacher-led prayer and Bible readings.

But there was no such thing as "public school" in those days. Public, federally-controlled public schools, as opposed to city-and-town funded schools, did not really exist until this century. Whenever the federal government funds anything, it should not be into promoting religions, or showing favor. Even so, the 1947 Supreme Court decided to separate the churches from the states. There is no secular reason for banning teacher-led prayers. Perhaps, there is a secular reason to ban NONSENSE from the schools. But the only nonsense that the Supreme Court has banned is RELIGIOUS nonsense.

Really? No secular reason? What if you are secular? What if you are Jewish? What if you are Islamic? What if you are atheist? By having teacher-led school prayer, you force a religion upon students — unless you can come up with a totally non- religious, non-denominational prayer (highly unlikely). I would even argue that the pledge of alliegience is a religious promotion, because when you pledge, you pledge to a symbol, the flag, instead of the ideal and country that it stands for. Before the 1964 descision to eliminate teacher-led school prayer, Jewish, Islamic, atheist, and non-christians would be sent out of the classroom by the teacher, thus disrupting the class, and alienating those students from the rest for no good reason. Since taxpayers dollars funded the schools, all students, reguardless of their race, color, creed, or RELIGION deserved equal treatment under the law. By leading an exclusively christian prayer, the non-christian students were unfairly treated. You cannot argue that they weren’t — when you have to leave the room just because you are Jewish or atheist, it is unequal treatment on the basis of religion, PERIOD. There are many RELIGIOUS reasons for banning teacher-led prayer. First, many religions teach that the state should never pray–that prayer should be made in "thy closet." Second, banning teacher-led prayer preserves the parent’s monopoly over the religious practices into which the child is coerced.

Yeah — EXCEPT IF YOU AREN’T A CHRISTIAN! Try telling Jewish or atheist parents that their monopoly over the religious practices into which their child is coerced, is preserved via school prayer. If you want your kids brought up Christian, send them to a private religious school, just like many parents do today, and just as my parents did back in the 60’s. Telling the minority to "stick it if you don’t like it" is just a smarmy, nasty way of castigating them without being direct about it. Since there are NO secular reasons for banning teacher-led prayer and ONLY religious reasons, the banning works an establishment of religion.

Why no explain exactly what would constitute a "secular reason", instead of making blind assertions. — / ___/ / /__ / / /__/ / Visit Psycho Dave’s Dark / http://www.xensei.com/users/psycho/DARK/default.htm

Response:

If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed. Subscribe via RSS

Posted in: The Holy Bible |

Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Leave a Reply

Recent Entries

Search

Categories