Thomas Paine

Well, the Founders disagree with you:

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever." -- James Madison

Madison didn't foresee taking my "three pence" and giving it to religious indoctrination centers, er, uh, I mean Catholic & other religious schools. And I'm not willing to give up his vision quite yet.

Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Advertising

lakeman

Using vouchers (some of which would be used in religious places of education) is not the same as supporting those places of education.

When the government buys something from someone they are not supporting that someone. If uncle sam buys staplers from a church money is going to that church but uncle sam is not supporting it in any sense that would be a problem for our founding fathers. (We need look no further than the expenses of the first fews congresses to see that)

And presently we have several programs in existence in which people can choose any school they want, even religious ones, and have their education paid for by uncle sam. Military reimbursements for education are one example.

Money going to any organization in exchange for a service is not a problem. MOney going from the government in exchange for no service is a problem.

There can be neither an alliance between gov and church but also there can be no demand of an opposite relationship. When uncle sam is forced to have the opposite of an alliance with say the Episcopals then in comparison he is having an alliance with the Babtists. If he is forced away from the Episcopals and the Baptists then the Presbyterians are helped. This line of reasoning continues with all religious affiliations or forced anti-affiliations until religious groups like atheists (yes they are a religious group) is given the preferential treatment and then atheism is the state sponsored religion.

Government neutrality is required and vouchers take the decision about which institution gets the money away from gov. so government is then Neutral. Let the politicians make the decisions and they cannot help but be not neutral. Total abstinance of government is impossible as long as politicaians are making the decisions. They will invariably support one religious view or another even if the religious view they support is one that is hostile to religion - it is still a religious view.

Two quotes by Madison:

[i]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others. [James Madison, in a letter to Rev Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]

(I would add that inerference in any way whatsoever pro or con is still interference. Assisting atheistic or non-religious views or anti-religious views or views that think they they are neutral when in fact they are not is just as bad as assisting religious views that cliam to be so)

(15) Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. [James Madison, Section 15 of A Memorial and Remonstrance, June 20, 1785

When citizens, who in persuing their religious exercise, wish to send their kids to a religious school, but must first pay taxes that cannot be used for an education in a religious school and then must pay tuition again to do what should have been available to them in equal measure as it is to the non-religious folks (who might choose to send their kid to some other private school) have to pay twice as a result of a church state separation, which is not really a separation - that is wrong. The "non-religious" folks are sending thier kids to a school that teaches a world view which cannot help but have religious elements but these people are only paying once. Like it or not everyone has religious views and every school teaches them but some are avoided by the state and some are not. This is not an equal right. The only way to make it equal would be to let each person decide for themselves which of the many options they choose.

"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians [or any other religious view], in exclusion of all other sects?"

That last one was also a quote by Madison by I added the section in "[]" to demonstrate that gov can establish any religious world view and just because it is not officially named a religion doesn't make it any less of an establishment.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

The Realist

I feel that social privatization is key to the creation of a better school system. To explain this point I will break down my seemingly contradictory statement of "social privatization"
> Social < the state would still distribute money to the schools via taxes that it collects from the people.
> Privatization < the only catch to the above statement would be that the individual parent would be able to shop around with the taxes (the moneies in essence still being their's to spend as they see fit) this would create competition in the schools thereby forcing schools to keep up with standards and have constant new and better curiculum.
My "perfect" system I guess would resemble more of a college campus where the parents and students have the power to say what they want to study and which schools are best instead of the state being the only purchaser of what students get to learn.

Thomas Paine

Dear lovers of the merging of state & church,

Your argument falls consistently flat.

James Madison flatly rejected the argument you espouse here, noting in a July 10, 1822 letter to Edward Livingston: “We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government.”

He added in that same letter, “I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together.”

Most sincerely,

Thomas Paine, Esq.

Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

Citizen Ross

One idea I would love to kick around is a tax break for parents based on their child's GPA. Maybe even a monetary fine for students that fail. That would be one sure way to get a parent interested in their child's education.

Encourage us in our endeavor to live above the common level of life. Help us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong.

lakeman

Vouchers would do more to advance the separation of church and state than any other proposal here.

Allowing individual people to make the decsion about where and what kind of school their own kids go to without government restrictions and tax incentives will let all schools stand on an equal footing.

Our present system encourages the religious people (both in an out of politics) to involve themselves in the public school as much as they can. Our present system encourages anti-religious people who also have religious ideas to involve themselves in public school as much as they can. And the battle between them encourages politicians to take sides.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Thomas Paine

Let churches start paying taxes then. . .

Thomas did not believe the resurrection [John 20:25], and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas. [Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason]

lakeman

I believe the constitutional supporters already covered the reasons for this one when they voted on it.

But it basically is the same as what I just said regarding vouchers. When the government taxes religious institutions it has the power to influence them one way or another. No taxes - no entaglements.

When the government taxes orthodox religious individuals as well as individuals with a different religious perpective but then uses all the moneys for public education of a different religious perspective then they are mixed together with religious affiliations of some sort.

For the greatest degree of separation of church and state the government must be restricted from taxing religious institutions and from making decisions about whether or not money is spent on religious institutions or not. As long as politicians have the power to tax or not (take money or not) or to give money or not (reverse taxation) the the politician is mixed up in religion.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.
-James Madison-

Goldwater

Fine parents whose Children misbehave and get bad grades. Fine them alot, you'll see changes

faster

Some here believe that we should not have school vouchers because then the state would be involved in "religious" activity. Well I went to both private and public schools in the 50's-60's-70's and I remember many a teacher pushing their opinions on us. My kids who today are in 6th and 8th grades respectively in a public school are always telling me about one of their teachers who spouts off their beliefs on liberal or conservative views which has nothing to do with what is being taught as a lesson. All schools/teachers push an agenda if they can get away with it.

Your beliefs are your religion and it is not possible to separate your beliefs from you. Religion/beliefs will always play a part in education, government, work and society. Not forcing them down another's throat is the only separation you can hope for. You should be free to choose what and whom you want your kids influenced by. Obviously within reason and the law.

As to the original topic of this thread we need to weed out those that don't want to learn and place them in separate groups. There will be screams of discrimination and racism but base it on the desire of a student to do the work required for the class. If a student is working their heart out but failing or behind than special help will be given to insure success. But those that just don't want to do the work should not be allowed to hinder those that do.

On a personal note we had a single mom move in across the street from us with three kids three years ago. Her youngest son and my oldest son were the same age (10 years old) and immediately hit it off and spent much time together. The two oldest took off. He was a great kid, polite, respectful, hard working always offering to help me around the house. I treated him like my own. He had no father influence and so I sort of adopted him and he was over here all the time. I coach little league and bought him the gear and helped pay for his dues and he loved being part of a team and worked hard to improve and catch up with the abilities of his teammates. I brought him to practice and the games and his mom never showed up but one time in four seasons (we play two a year here). She would go out and lock the house and he would have to wait on the front porch till she got home (2-3 AM) when we would return from a game. We made sure he got dinner, understood the schoolwork, did his homework, got a retired teacher down the street to tutor him and he slept here when his mom was out all night. His grades stated coming up and the fights at school were less frequent. One night he asked my wife if we would adopt him (my wife in tears said he was always welcome here), he told that to his mom and she went nuts. She came over screaming we were racist (he was black and we are white) and he was not allowed to be around us or my son or the tutor ever again. The point being is 'he' wanted to succeed and she was not going to let him. He was never allowed to play ball again either.

Kids want to succeed.

Mikey