February 4, 2009
-
President Obama and School Prayer.
President Obama’s stimulus plan is coming under fire because of a provision that would ban money from being used to renovate schools that allow “religious worship.” Here is the link: Link
I guess religious people don’t pay taxes.
Do you think your tax dollars should go to renovate schools that allow religious worship?
Comments (147)
I don’t see why not..
I think it is a stupid clause…..maybe all people of all religions should quit paying taxes….why give them money if they want to exclude us
Hmmm, most schools that are religious are private schools not public schools. I don’t see where they would qualify. However, with that being said there is a scholarship donation that you can make to a specific school that is done through the IRS. Therefore even private schools are in a sense getting government monies straight from tax payers.
I guess that means . . . I don’t know.
that’s ridiculous.
no i don’t. think about schools…. not every family teachers their children the same thing. not everybody believes in god or any higher being. soooooooooo how would that work?? they cant push beliefs on other peoples kids!
It should go to renovate schools period. No school should be excluded.
I think public schools need great attention right now. Yet no school should be left out.
Allow religious worship and command it are two different things. As long as that school is available for anyone to attend (public) I see nothing wrong with it.
Renovating all schools, yes.
Wait what? So it wouldn’t go to, for example, catholic schools? that doesn’t seem to make sense.
Uhm. Private schools generate their own money. Their tuition is generally massive. They don’t need government supplements.
public schools need help.
my school isn’t doing too great,
so we should start there.
Well, if it’s a private school, then… I don’t really see the problem with Obama’s plan. Private schools have been without government money for years–I don’t see how this changes things. All public schools should get assistance though.
Absolutely it should go toward ALL schools, and as allowed by our Constitution, ALL schools should allow worship. Allowing and forcing are two different animals.
Well, “allow” and “promote” are a fine line. Government funds should not go to any organization that promotes a certain religion (yet Churches get 501(c)(3) exemption status — why?? First amendment shit apparently. If they already get an exemption, a subsidy would act as a double benefit. Not cool if you ask me).
Schooling is schooling. Period. Why should someone who prefers an education at a place that allows religious practices have to attend a less than satisfactory school. I think all schools should be treated equally…no matter what their color…um, I mean, religion.
Do religious institutions outside of churches pay taxes? If not, does
it makes sense for them to get a piece of the pie if they didn’t bring
any of the ingredients?
Besides, public schools are shit. They need all the money they can get.
most schools that are religious are private. so, no.
Public schools are a lost cause. Let’s move on to the private lifestyle.
I don’t think that’s right, all schools maybe, but not just certain ones.
Allowing is one thing, but to exclusively only allow one kind is different. And then there is the issue of having religion be a requirement. Simply allowing students to pray or worship is fine by me, but when a pubic school requires it or only allows one kind that is not ok.
We do have separation of church and state for a reason.
Like others have said allowing it and forcing it down people’s throats are two separate things.
The bill calls prohibits funding for facilities that offer “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity”. That actually covers a whole lot of post-secondary education, as even many secular schools have chapels and/or religious studies departments.
This is yet another example where Obama’s rhetoric sounds good, but turns out to be stupid once you really examine it.
all public schools, no matter what.
Terrible idea…
We have Separation of Church and State for a reason.
Is religious worship allowed or required?
No.
Only public schools.
I think it makes perfect sense. Most schools that ENFORCE religion are private, and the ones that don’t…fall under the separation of church and state clause. So I think it’s totally fine that Obama’s plan has that little drawback. I think the critics need to stop looking for something to complain about
Why should there be a difference? A school is a school…people try so hard not to descrimate that they end up descrimating more by doing things like this.
I don’t think it’s right to leave out certain schools just because they allow religious worship. Allowing isn’t commanding. So why leave them out?
Well, it’s different if they just ALLOW it, right? My school is a public school, yet we have religious clubs (Fellow Christian Athletes and also a club for Jewish students) who include religious worship as a part of their club activities. The school doesn’t promote their activities; it just provides them with a place to meet. I’m betting loads of other public schools do the same thing. I don’t understand Obama’s reasoning behind this.
What would the military academies do with their chapels?
The people whose children attend those schools pay taxes just the same as kids who attend public school.
Personally I don’t think school should be government funded at all. Like what Hitler said, “Give me the textbooks and I will control Germany.”
They’re brainwashing us!
*Homeschooler*
yes
I agree with Obama to a point on this one. Our government is supposed to have separation of Church and State, so why should the government fund religious schools?
But then there is the part of me that says, if a school is in need of help, the government should help it–regardless of religious affiliation.
Although, if a school accepts funding from the government, I believe that they should teach the theory of evolution along with the theory of divine intervention.
This is not a surprising ban.
I didn’t think there were government-funded schools that did that, anyway. I was under the impression that religious schools were typically private.
Have we stopped and thought about the public education system lately? Why do we keep spending more and more money on these systems and the success rate for graduation and passing basic competency tests keep going down? Maybe we should overhaul the way our school systems recieve the federal money. If you want money, improve your scores. Throwing more money at them isn’t going to solve anything. Which brings me back to the original questions. Why do I want to give tax payer money to any school for renovation if they can’t produce a student with a good quality education. Coca Cola, Home Depot, Xerox don’t recieve money from the customer for a crappy product. They must constantly perform quality controls. If they fail they go out of business. (unless they are to big to fail, then the tax payer bails them out) Why should the tax payer keep paying for ingorance.
Word.
For those of you who are going to cling to the old ‘separation of church and state’ claim, where exactly are you getting your information? And what are you basing your ‘we have separation of church and state for a reason’ on?
Is this another case of twisting the Constitution into what you want it to read? Because most people who use ‘separation of church and state’ have no idea what the Constitution actually says.
I suppose this should be an indicator that public schools do need funding, so that kids can learn what the Constitution really says (just not by way of a ‘stimulus’ package).
@musinuite - This would include colleges and post-secondary institutions. Think of a State college that allows worship of any sort or has religious-based extracurricular programs (which many do) – a state college is not a private school. Those would be included in this restriction.
I don’t think that religious schools should recieve government funding such as this, but there are A LOT of religious schools that do need more help than they are getting. I’m not saying it should come from the government, but a lot of people have misconceptions about religious schools.
I attend a small all girl school that is run by a convent of nuns. These nuns have an oath of poverty and a lot of students are on scholarship money, so they’re losing a ton of tuition money right there. Every year between 1 and 3 teachers leave because they just can’t afford to pay them and sports team hardly get anything. It was just last year that the track team got hurdles. Most of what we have has been donated, such as our gym and tennis courts. My parents didn’t even want my sister going there this year as a freshman our of fear it was going to close before she graduated. There are a lot of private schools that do fine, but not all of them.
On the other hand, the public school has money to burn. They have an indoor and outdoor track, a rock climbing wall, multiple weight rooms, computers in every classroom, so on so forth. I had grown up with the idea that private schools were shitty whereas the public schools were the ones that everybody wanted to attend.
i go to public schools, so yeah. go public.
something is terribly wrong here…with this country and the new administration.
if they are exempt from taxes why give them money?!?!?!
As long as it isn’t a private school…
They are Americans…..
I didn’t even know that religious public schools existed.. how weird!
There is a huuuuge difference between allowing religious worship and REQUIRING religious worship. I don’t see anything wrong with a school allowing it, assuming it is private. But you didn’t make that distinction very clear; are they private or public?
I give tax money that gives kids grants to go to religious schools so don’t even go about griping about how they’re getting the short end of the deal.
ifitz a publik skool ther shudnt be eny wership goin on end of diskushun
There is a critical distiction here that Dan missed his summary of the anti-religious clause of the stimulus bill:
The clause does not ban money going to rennovate schools with religious purpuse but buildings within the school for that purpose.
The Harvard University has 45 buildings, only their church and whatever building houses the divinity department would be barred from public funding. The other 43 buildings are OK for funding.
when tax money goes to renovate schools, it should go to renovating ALL schools. to do otherwise is discrimination and just really ridiculous in general.
@huginn - Can you tell me where you found that information, about it only pertaining to religious buildings? I am not challenging you, I just can’t find anything that says that. All the reports I’ve found so far say it also pertains to public schools that choose to allow students to gather for voluntary Bible studies, etc.
Not at all.
Private schools are private. Unless public schools, government ran institutions, are being cut in funding – I don’t have a problem.
These religious schools and private institutions are entities of their own. They are not ran by the state, nor are you forced to attend. Those schools are alternative facilities which are dependent from the government.
They should not be given aid to begin with.
Vouchers for students on the other hand, is a separate issue on its own.
Separation of Church and State is not in our Constitution, the phrase is in a private letter written by one of the Founding Fathers.
Freedom OF Religion is in the First Amendment. It basically states that the government can not form a state church and force the citizens to worship there. It does not state that religion is outlawed.
Allowing religious worship is different than forcing religious worship. State colleges etc that allow a chapel or other forms of religious worship on campus do not require that students attend such. Specific denominations or religions that have buildings for student use are not owned, maintained, or otherwise funded by the state college or university but by the particular denomination or religion that supports them.
Funding for public schools should be given to all public schools that need it.
Tax dollars should go to renovate any and all schools that NEED it. If a public school needs renovations more urgently than a christian school, then that public school should get priority. The same should be applied if the roles are reversed.
Bad idea, dude. Not cool… I have enough trouble avoiding church on my own time. I don’t need to have to avoid it at PUBLIC SCHOOL too. Not cool.
Of course.
Is it legal to allow religious activity on school grounds? If yes, the schools should be funded. If no, the religious activities should be stopped AND the schools should be funded.
Either way, the school should be funded.
You expect anything less form that communist ass, just let me know when it’s time to ‘lock and load’ baby
heck no. Religious worship is a private matter. I dont want my money on that.
Most of the commentors are Christian/Catholic thats why they support the idea. Go figure.
If the school is promoting religious worship then it’s a private school and doesn’t receive federal dollars anyways.
If they’re a public school, then they shouldn’t be promoting religious worship in the first place.
@as_i_grow - That’s not necessarily true. State colleges are public schools, and yet they allow gatherings for Bible studies and other religious events. Most religions (of all types) have organizations within those schools. Just because a school isn’t private or religious based doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to have religious gatherings as afforded by our Constitution.
so by allowing prayer they don’t get money….
nothing like enforcing Separation of Church and State with a passion….oh wait, that is not a law LOL
Well, TECHNICALLY that violates the separation of church and state… there is not supposed to be religion in school led or encouraged by faculty/staff. But those schools that need renovations, is it really ethical to refuse the funds just because they break the rules? That’s like refusing medical attention to someone who’s on trial..
Of course not. Religion should be banned from ALL schools. We’re trying to EDUCATE people for goodness’ sake!
NO FEDERAL TAX MONEY SHOULD GO TO FUND RENOVATIONS FOR SCHOOLS!!! NO MONEY SHOULD COME FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!! the only reason why states are in need of federal government “bailout” is because states can not print money. their revenues are tied to bonds, taxes, and bonds and taxes. Federal government stay out.
@AllMyNamesAreTaken - @XXVl - find me a clause in the Constitution of the United States that specifically state separation of church and state.
@countryangel926 - i guess you are for universal health care.
@DirtyAndShaken - Can you tell me where you found that information, about it only pertaining to religious buildings? I am not challenging you, I just can’t find anything that says that.
Ha. Yeah, actually thought that at first. Even as a strong atheist, the rule (if banning entire schools) seemed really really unfair.
From the article linked:
According to the bill… funds are prohibited from being used for the “modernization, renovation, or repair” of facilities that allow “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity.”
A school may have multiple facilities, or buildings/structures. The following paragraph also implicitly supports the idea:
“It’s almost a restatement of what the Constitution requires so there’s nothing novel in what the House did in its restriction,” said Christopher Anders, senior legislative counsel to the ACLU. “For 37 years, the law of the land is that the government can’t pay for buildings that are used for religious purposes.”
This paragraph also supports the reading:
The House provided $20 billion for the infrastructure improvements, of which $6 billion would go to higher education facilities where the limitations would be applied.
@Kristenmomof3 - I think it is a stupid clause…..maybe all people of all religions should quit paying taxes….why give them money if they want to exclude us
This idea works better the other way around. We, the general public, are not paying taxes to fund denominational projects. The catholic may not like money going towards a Buddhist temple, and the Muslim may be horrified in money going towards a Jewis Synagogue.
Especially in a time of economic turmoil, where resources are limited, money should go towards project with the broadest societal benifits.
@roar2me0330 - It should go to renovate schools period. No school should be excluded
Schools aren’t being excluded, particular buildings are.
@randomneuralfirings - The bill calls prohibits funding for facilities that offer “sectarian instruction, religious worship or a school or department of divinity”. That actually covers a whole lot of post-secondary education, as even many secular schools have chapels and/or religious studies departments.
Bill eliminates funding for the rennovation of particular buildings, and not necessarily entire schools.
This is yet another example where Obama’s rhetoric sounds good, but turns out to be stupid once you really examine it.
Rather than Obama’s rhetoric, it is your reading comprehension that needs the work.
@DirtyAndShaken - For those of you who are going to cling to the old ‘separation of church and state’ claim, where exactly are you getting your information? And what are you basing your ‘we have separation of church and state for a reason’ on?
Aw, come on. Supreme Court rulings. They interpret the constitution.
I’m actually horrified that the secularists of the thread actually supports entire-school bans. Drawing a large circle around the school perimeter, if there is in a speck of religious whorship in the circle, the entire school is deprived of its funding.
Beyond seperation of church/state issues, such a policy would be really fucked up.
@mcsms - Separation of Church and State is not in our Constitution, the phrase is in a private letter written by one of the Founding Fathers.
The damn phrase isn’t in the constitution, but it doesn’t mean that the meaning of the phrase isn’t in it.
From that letter in question, we can deduce the intent of the framers of the constitution– particularily Jefferson and Madison. From the Federalist papers, we have another avenue in judging their intent. And the experts who interpret the constiution (Supreme Court), support the seperation of church and state.
Freedom OF Religion is in the First Amendment. It basically states that the government can not form a state church and force the citizens to worship there. It does not state that religion is outlawed.
Dude, at least paraphrase the fucking amendment correctly. It’s laws or policies respecting a particular religion.
…Specific denominations or religions that have buildings for student use are not owned, maintained, or otherwise funded by the state college or university but by the particular denomination or religion that supports them.
Then that is reason enough to not fund that building. Allocation of funding to that specific religious building is tantamount to support for that particular religion. In a secular government, that’s a big no-no.
I don’t think they should withold money from schools because they allow religious worship. I get the whole church and state thing, but this just seems kind of unusual. Especially for a man who is supposedly religious himself.
@huginn - if federal money was used to build the church that i attend then i would likely find another church. apparently the congregants are not firm believers of God. God and God alone will provide. To introduce federal government is ridiculous.
@TheGreatOrange - what is his religious belief? has he reached out to Christians? he has reached out to the illegals, muslims, pro-choicers, liberals, marxists, terrorists, tax cheats, blacks, but can you say for certain that he has reached out to the whites who elected him. to the christians that chose to give him a chance. to the republicans that want to work with him?
I just have a semi-related question. What happened to the separation of church and state?
Uhm… you mean private schools, right? Religious schools are private. They should be able to fund themselves.
@xX_Punk_Princess - Thank you for that clarification.
@jada_marnew - who said anything about religious schools?
@ksnomad - but a lot of schools can’t improve their scores b/c they don’t have the resources to improve their scores and they don’t have the money to get those resources.
so it doesn’t really work like that.
the school’s most DEFINITELY need an improvement (especially where i live, 2 thumbs down to chicago public schools.) but that way isn’t the way to do it
If the school is a private school, then it is understandable, but if it is a public school, it deserves the money. As from the article, they think it may exclude public schools that allow group prayer, like clubs and at lunch. I guess we will have to just wait and see where the money goes before we can criticize.
I can totally understand not funding private schools, but all public schools desperately need the money
No. That’s why we have the separation of church and state.
no, most of those kids pay to go to those schools, they should use that money and renovate their own damn schools.
I don’t care, I just want people in our Senate, House of Representatives, etc to just start paying their taxes to fund things too.
yes
@supsoo - are you serious? *laughs at you*…THE 1st amendment…I’ll quote it for you since you seem not to know how to google things before you speak and embarrass yourself, “
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
kinds will always pray in school as long as their are tests; why not? crazy
If they are privately owned and not state or federally owned, then NO. Public money should not be used to renovate privately owned property.
@XXVl - wow, talk about embarrASSing, you forgot the portion that actually applies to this. “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.”
refusing to help schools simply because they ALLOW religious activities would be a clear violation of this clause. i know we like to ignore those six words, but they are there so we do have to deal with them.
@DirtyAndShaken - That’s not what this is talking about. Public schools are, of course, allowed to permit students to form and run religious gatherings outside of school hours.
@huginn - Look at you and your little ad hominems. You’re so kee-yoot! I could just eat you up!
The problem, we’re both right. The wording is open to interpretation depending on who’s doing the execution of the law. And I trust this current government even less than I did the last one.
But this thing is probably the least of our concerns. I’m far more concerned with the culture of corruption in our new Cabinet and this porker of a spending bill that, no matter how much lipstick the Democrats try to smear on it, will do virutally nothing to stimulate much of anything.
Yes, I would think it would be discrimination to not renovate on such grounds. And while I believe separation of church and state to be an over blown myth, it only says that the government may not establish one religion over another, so if we renovate one religious school then all of them should be renovated.
It’s not under fire due to that one little piece, but I won’t go into that… And no… the question isn’t should we help schools that allow religious worship with our tax money? The question is should private schools be able to have the same help from the government, no. If a school excludes itself in such a way how can they even argue for the help? seperation of church and state… and so the school rose on its own, fine, if religion is needed in school in the eyes of those of faith so be it, but our government has set up the school system to educate in areas of science history, math and language… it is not a place to worship, though it isn’t forbidden… no one will tell a child they are not allowed to pray, they are, I don’t understand the issue at all. Our tax money should go to help those schools our government has established for the public students, or special needs private students of this country, not to help the religious exclude themselves even farther.
Sounds good to me! Why should my tax $$’s go toward funding for private schools, if I can’t afford to send my kid to one?
@BelinaRising - I don’t disagree here completely, but Baltimore just paid out $12mil to fund Obama’s visit on Inauguration Day. If that’s not a misuse of taxpayer money for private reasons, I don’t know what is.
@ionekoa - There is and always has been a Separation of Church and State (i.e., no religious group dictates policy in our country based merely on a religious text or dogma; aka The Bible, nor The Koran, nor The Roman Catholic Church, nor The Southern Baptist Convention, etc., etc., is (=) the constitution of the U.S. and is the rule of law). However this statement has been used more and more to sideline anyone with religious inclinations in favor of and benefiting only those without any allegiance to the same. This is outrageous, as everyone believes something, even if you believe in nothing (atheism). We are all religious, no matter how you slice it. “Separation of church and state” has come to be interpreted as, “if you are religious, you have no business in State affairs, cannot benefit from the State, so therefore have no opinion on anything.” Hogwash.
Oh, and in my opinion, Obama is about as religious as rice pudding, at least in relation to how rice pudding is Christian, which Obama claims. He swore the oath of office on the Holy Bible as the standard by which he holds to be the ultimate truth, and yet immediately set to remove all barriers to the murder of innocent unborn children just so his supporters can have sex without contraceptives and without accountability. Immoral, unethical, and definitely un-Christian, imho. Don’t even get me started on the GLBS agenda!
I think presidential nominations should not be accepted unless there are no outstanding personal taxes that need to be paid to the IRS: That is to say, the president should not even consider a candidate unless his choices have been all caught up on their taxes.
Public (and private, if their are to be considered) schools should probably get their act together before they can get any money. It’s more about numbers than actual learning, and administrative staff receive 6 figure salaries despite the actual success of students.
we should just start taxing gawd … i’m sure that dude has easy access to money and then take that money and fund the prayers . wait , i thought faith was free ? no , sorry , i am mistaken , that’s common sense .
Absolutely not.
A lot of those (if not all) religious schools don’t pay taxes. Ergo, they shouldn’t benefit from taxpayer’s money.
@randomneuralfirings - Look at you and your little ad hominems. You’re so kee-yoot! I could just eat you up!
Okay, yeah threw a verbal rock.
The problem, we’re both right. The wording is open to interpretation depending on who’s doing the execution of the law. And I trust this current government even less than I did the last one.
Well, if you’re right, I would support your position. But I gave the article a couple careful readings, and I think as a whole, it unambigiously implies that it’s only the funding of buildings that are effected.
It makes sense. I don’t think fundings works by the government giving schools and arbitrary lump sum for rennovaations. The school either has to draft a plan with itemized allocation of money or that the money is earnmarked a la carte by the building.
But this thing is probably the least of our concerns. I’m far more concerned with the culture of corruption in our new Cabinet and this porker of a spending bill that, no matter how much lipstick the Democrats try to smear on it, will do virutally nothing to stimulate much of anything.
Well, it’s just people not having paid their taxes. There were far worse characters under Bush. (But I’d suppose we’d have to give Obama time to see if his peeps can catch up)
And I suppose you’re not a Keynesian.
NO! That is just ridiculous.
I feel that, as many have stated in their comments above, separation of church and state requires that the government not fund religious activities, the building of churches, seminaries, and other religious buildings, etc. This would mean that, per our Constitution, tax benefits and other government funding should not be given to schools with a religious affiliation. This is another case where I would have to examine the actual wording of the bill myself to determine whether the outraged conservatives or the ecstatic liberals are correct (although I’m sure they both have at least some valid points.) Personally, as someone with no religious affiliation, I don’t want any of my money to fund any religious activity, building, or group. Unfortunately, I don’t have much of a say as to where my tax dollars go. I hope that this bill creates a descent debate bringing to the forefront the idea which have been avoided- that of religion being entirely left out of any public schools, which is only fair given that our country allows freedom of religion, but does not allow religious instruction or religious activity to be publicly funded.
Honestly, No.. since the schools that are religious are usually the private schools, Those schools are funded by the parents that want their kids to go to them schools and pay the tuition for them to go. If they need renovations, up the tuition some and there ya go. That money should be used towards public schools.
The ban on federal resources does not exclude schools that ”allow” religous worship to gain federal aid. The provision is a ban on federal money being used to modernize, repair or renovate areas used for religous worship. And rightly so, as we have a seperation of church and state that does not allow goverment to pay for religous endeavors.
With the U.S.’s lagging educational standards, I find it funny (not really) that some people would take offense to using federal education money to educate as opposed to making accomadations for certain religious groups (but, only theirs of course).
It should come as little surprise that Fox News is reporting on this (in the “no spin zone” way that they do). They clearly would like as little effort to go into education as possible. Mostly out of the fear that, if the general public is well educated, they may lose their core audience.
Not if they don’t pay taxes…
No.
I don’t see anything wrong with “allowing” religious worship at a school. How can you not allow it? Are we going to start giving tickets to people who pray quietly to themselves somewhere on campus? This doesn’t make any sense. I will have to read more about this to see what is actually going on.
I think if a school needs to be renovated, it should be renovated. For everyone’s sake. I think that denying tax money to schools just because they have a chapel on campus or something is kind of silly. I would be opposed to tax dollars being spent on renovating a “place of worship” on campus instead of actual school buildings, though.
@Strangebrain - Right on. Thanks for clearing some of that up.
Yeah, the people complaining about that are the same people who don’t see any reason for their tax dollars to be contributing to someone else’s health care. I think Obama is correct.
well technically nearly ALL schools ALLOW some form of religious worship–they just may or may not endorse it, so that’d be a pretty idiotic move–unless the new prez has a thing for run-down schools.
besides most schools devoted to a specific religion are private, and they don’t get much/any money from the government anyway. so basically, argument is null and void imo.
No.
@ionekoa - Oh how how clever, you capitalized ASS in the word embarrassing to give it a double meaning! You must be one of the most original souls I have ever encountered on xanga! Listen bro, read more carefully next time if you don’t want to make an ass of YOURself… the other person (who I think might just be your perfect soulmate) was asking me to “find me a clause in the Constitution of the United States that specifically stated separation of church and state” which I did. I’m under no obligation to quote more than asked and give any more free lessons to americans who don’t even know the gist of the ammendments.
Don’t be so lazy next time. Click around..and see what’s going on before you comment.
@supsoo - The separation of church and state is in the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. It’s also upheld by the Supreme Court in case law, like in Wallace v. Jaffree, where the Supreme Court ruled against a law allowing teachers in Alabama to lead prayer. In the court’s opinion, it was stated: “The First Amendment requires that a statute must be invalidated if it is entirely motivated by a purpose to advance religion.” Since “state” is government-sanctioned, and religion can’t be the sole purpose of statute, or be promoted thereby, there is a separation.
And also in case law, it is illegal for teachers to lead prayer, conduct prayer groups with students, etc. If it’s organized by students, it’s fine, but people in power over the students may not encourage or require any specific religion or religious activity, since they are employees of the state.
“Religious freedom, it has long
been recognized that government must be neutral and, while protecting
all, must prefer none and disparage none.” – Justice Tom Clark
All schools that are not privately funded should be allowed equal rights; I’m sure there are schools allowing religious worship that aren’t privately funded… somewhere.
They are not being told they have to worship anyone; students are told that they are ALLOWED to practice their religion in that school if they WANT to.
@randomneuralfirings - See? You say it’s prohibited if the schools OFFER sectarian instruction, religious worship, etc. It is not required. Nice job.
People complain about the separation of church and state, but that just means government can not establish a required or national religion; it doesn’t mean kids can’t worship in school if they want to.
@mulleina - Woo! Hit the nail on the head! *high fives*
No, I don’t think private schools should get taxpayers money. If the schools want to renovate their building, they could raise the funds themselves because they aren’t a public school.
@Sirius_Fan_Girl - Thanks!
Absolutely! It’s a part of life.
@AllMyNamesAreTaken - that to me is not separation. that to me is judicial activism.
@supsoo - Whether you believe it’s judicial activism or not, that makes it no less a separation. And until some Supreme Court in the future overturns the rulings, it’s Constitutional law.
@huginn - I refuse to get into a debate about the first two comments you made. However, since you maintained a civil wording on the third comment I will respond .
You state “Then
that is reason enough to not fund that building. Allocation of funding
to that specific religious building is tantamount to support for that
particular religion. In a secular government, that’s a big no-no.”
If you will read the statement of mine that you quoted you will see that this is the exact point I was making. If the buildings etc. don’t belong to the school, then they can not use any money the receive to do anything to those buildings.
so most religious schools are private and generate their own money just fine. ok, that makes sense to not include them in funding. but what about private schools that aren’t religious? does that mean they still get funding? sounds like a strange idea to me.
@AllMyNamesAreTaken - i’m sorry but it is not a constitutional law. there is no constitutional law. legislative branch is to make law. judicial branch is to interprete the law. executive branch is to execute the law. the people are to keep all branch in check. i’m sorry but judicial branch does not make law. ;apparently you have the wrong view of the branches. supreme court by making a decision on a court case only interpretes and applies the constitution as it sees fit. you have cited instances of where the supreme court has decided that religious act is not appropriate. but you have to agree that if the make up of the supreme court was different then the opposite may have happened. roe vs. wade would have never happened. so no. your citations of supreme court still does not show me where in our constitution “separation of religion and state” is found.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
find me a separation of state and religion in those few words.
@XXVl - are you serious?
Separation.
<table class=”the_content” cellspacing=”5″>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign=”top”>Synonyms:
<td>break, dedomiciling, departure, detachment, disconnection, disengagement, disjunction, disrelation, dissociation, dissolution, disunion, division, divorce, divorcement, embarkation, estrangement, farewell, gap, leave-taking*, parting, parting of the ways, partition, pffft, rift, rupture, segregation, severance, split, split-up
respect
<table class=”the_content” cellspacing=”5″>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign=”top”>Synonyms:
<td>account, adoration, appreciation, approbation, awe, consideration, courtesy, deference, dignity, esteem, estimation, favor, fear, homage, honor, obeisance, ovation, recognition, regard, repute, reverence, testimonial, tribute, veneration, worship
separation? respect and separation are two different animals. don’t mistake donkey for a zebra. zebra is not a jackass or a donkey.
@XXVl - add fail to your resume, prohibition from establishing religion is not a ban on supporting or participating in religion. so, you have yet to provide anything regarding a seperation of church and state, espescially in the manner in which it is used today.
@another_evil_person - why did we bail out the financial institutions? why did we attempt to bail out the home owners? why? isn’t financial institution a private entity? isn’t your finances your private issue? we are so quick to allow government into our lives when it is beneficial to us but so reluctant when it doesn’t fit in your box. we should have never bailed out financial institutions. federal government should not take our money to renovate our educational institutions. before the creation of department of education by jimmy “the worthless” carter our education system was doing well. money has no direct influence on the quality of education. the world is my classroom. so in short we should not even be discussing this issue. it is a non-issue. obama is grabbing power faster and more than bush. bush asked for his power.BO is buying his power.
@supsoo – Can you give me links of information of the school system before Carter? I don’t know much about it and I’m having trouble finding links.
I have no problem with it.
@another_evil_person - it is just a general knowledge from listening to radio. jimmy carter created the department of education and department of energy. parochial schools educate students with far less money than our public schools. the amazing thing is they come out of the system better educated. if private schools did not educate students better than why would parents pay twice for their child’s education. remember property tax is paying for school system too. so if you pay property tax and tuition that is double taxation. even if you rent you are paying property tax because the landlord is rolling it into the rent.
@ionekoa - I am a taxpayer. I don’t want my money going to religious establishments. The part of the amendment I quoted states that the government is under no obligation to give $$ to such establishments. Honestly, I don’t know what you want. How much more can I dumb it down? I thought “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” was simple enough….
@supsoo - I don’t get what you’re talking about…did you try to define separation for me? Thanks that was sweet.
@XXVl - thanks but i don’t think religious organizations are asking for handout. this post is about renovating buildings that are used for or have religious purpose. remember no one is twisting your arm to give to religious organizations. also separation and respect is different. admit it and lets have peace
@XXVl - i think you dumbed it too much, so much so that you dont really get it.
1. this isnt money going to religious establishments, it’s money going to schools. the money isnt being denied to religious schools(in fact, the article SPECIFICLY states that this would affect public schools) but denied to schools that ALLOW people to pray or preach, in other words being denied to schools that do not prohibit the free excercise thereof. the wording of this thing states essentially, unless you prohibit the free excercise of religion, you get nothing.
2.while i would agree that the government has no obligation to give money to religious establishments(which is really irrelevant to this point since we are talking about schools and not religious establishments) no, the first amendment does not state that. the first amendment forbids congress from passing laws that force one religion on everyone or prohibit them from practicing their chosen religion.
i know it’s hard to understand when you are only willing to look at one part of the amendment, but they all go together. you cant establish atheism as the state religion(which is esentially what these laws do) or prohibit me from practicing my religion(which is what these laws expressly do) or inhibit my rights to speak about it. that is the first amendment in its entirety. the freedom OF religion and the freedom of speech. not the absolute rule of atheism.
@supsoo - If Congress can’t make law for or against any specific religion, that is a separation. And it’s called “case law,” which is respected and used in the legal system. If the Supreme Court ruled that religious activity is not appropriate in, as in, should be separate from, school, which is a state-sponsored institution, that is a separation.
@AllMyNamesAreTaken - is it for religion or for specific religion? how come they are allowing footbaths in universities? why are muslim students in our public school allowed to pray to allah? never mind you during school hours? why did a moment of silence and prayer in ohio public school get retracted?i’m sorry but religion is part of who this country is. religion is this country. you may not agree and say we are a secular society. but just look at your currency. everyone of them has IN GOD WE TRUST. who do we trust? we are a judeo-christian country. thank you. case law?
@supsoo – What if the parents can’t pay for the schooling, what then? It’s great that the private schools can educate the students better, but some people can’t afford the costs of going to one. Does the tuition of the private school pay for educating the student?
@another_evil_person - then why don’t we give the money back to the people and tell them to use the money as you want. if you want your child to attend public school good. just pay the tuition. if you want your child to be homeschooled then good. you can use the money for supplies and such as you see fit. if you want your child to be enrolled in private school then pay the tuition for it. if you want your child to go to vocation school, i.e. acting, sports, music. then good pay the tuition using the money you get. let me see what this concept is called. oh yeah. vouchers. something that the democrats are dead against because they are owned by the teachers’ union. unions are for the democrats because democrats don’t care about the cost. they just care about being fair and equal. so. if you say that a parent can’t pay for private school then don’t come to me. go to your congressmen and complain that you want vouchers for education.
@ionekoa - Your response uninteresting and too long. Maybe one day i’ll read all of it. When I’m bored.
@XXVl - lol, sad pathetic little liberal, once confronted with the facts they run and hide under their rocks of ignorance.
@ionekoa - This coming from a religious person? You’re hilarious!
@XXVl - lol again. “troll is troll”
@ionekoa - you’re of course entitled to your wrong opinion
Yes.
And I dont think “seperation of church and state” means you should discriminate educational funding based on the individual institution’s policies about religion in the classroom. Isn’t the state supposed to be neutral and not support or discriminate against any particular religious beliefs and practices????
@XXVl - i deal in facts my friend, of which you are in short supply, otherwise personal attacks would be unnecessary.
@ionekoa - is that a fact?
Fuck no.