Posted on 04/21/2017 5:49:39 AM PDT by blueplum
The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared ready to break down at least part of the longstanding church-state barrier that has prevented religious schools from receiving public funds.
The justices gave a skeptical hearing to a Missouri lawyer who was defending the state’s decision to reject a grant request from a Lutheran preschool seeking to participate in a state program that provides money to schools to rubberize the surface of their playgrounds.
Missouri’s constitution, like those in at least 36 other states, bars sending tax money to churches and church schools.
But most of the justices signaled they will rule for the church on the grounds that the refusal ...
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Nothing in the constitution suggests that religious schools should be punished for their faith. A strict reading of these state “separation” requirements would mean that the fire department could not respond to a fire at a religious school.
I’ve heard that it was an antiCatholic Klansman on the court who was behind the decision to block Catholic schools from using city school buses.
Yet the employers and customers is the schools are assessed the same taxes as everyone else.
Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists The Final Letter, as Sent To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.. . . and that is the ONLY reference in the founding era to a “wall of separation” between church and state. The First Amendment is the only real reference upon which to judge public policy.Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
For a state to pave playgrounds of religious and secular schools on a non-discriminatory basis is far from being an an “establishment” of religion. Discriminating against church schools is far more like “prohibiting free exercise” than it is like “establishing” religion.
- Amendment 1:
- 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.
Religious schools should NOT take Federal money... for their own sake.
You take their money, you come under their scrutiny.
I agree that they should avoid taking federal $$, but it would appear that religious schools are coming under gov scrutiny regardless of whether they take funding or not.
>
Nothing in the constitution suggests that religious schools should be punished for their faith. A strict reading of these state “separation” requirements would mean that the fire department could not respond to a fire at a religious school.
>
Logic? You’re looking for LOGIC? /s
Least police/fire/etc., while still a *service*, are for use by the community as a whole.
The service of schools are used, albeit temporarily, by those w/ children. One cannot use otherwise.
A strict reading of the 5th and 13th should make ‘FREE\public’ schools null/void; they should be paid by those whom use them.
They have been used by all or available to all. “No kids” wouldn’t be an effective argument because the judge would simply ask if they had been available to the person with no kids, and then ask if they believed their taxation rate + their parents’ entirely the current value of the education they had received.
There is no church/state barrier in the Constitution.
The Constitution doesn’t give us our rights, it restricts the government from violating them.
It’s not to control us, it’s to control the government.
And what does that have to do with the thread?
Are you just trying to stir up more issues on the RF with your *anti-Catholic* comment?
Cause that issue was irrelevant to the thread and hence unnecessary.
There shouldn’t be federal money for any education.
Public schools should be in the hands of the local community and the market will determine the quality of the education the kids receive.
If the parents demand it, it will happen and that’s what happens when the local school board answers to the community.
Actually, there are schools whose facilities are used by the community in them.
Some schools have their weight room open for public use after school hours.
And the athletic fields are used by town leagues and ordinary citizens whose tax dollars have funded the school.
I’m not anti catholic, I pointed out that one of the gods in black dresses was an anti catholic bigot and that the decision that opened the door to all of this separation nonsense should be reexamined.
For those of you who don’t think are founders were Christians. This is from the original Missouri Constitution in 1820. It is also a parallel to Jefferson’s letter.
4. That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to
the dictates of their own consciences; that no man can be compelled to erect, support, or
attend any place of worship, or to maintain any minister of the gospel, or teacher of
religion; that no human authority can control or interfere with the rights of conscience; that
no person can ever be hurt, molested, or restrained in his religious profession or
sentiments, if he do not disturb others in their religious worship.
5. That no person, on account of his religious opinions, can be rendered ineligible to any
office of trust or profit under this state; that no preference can ever be given by law to any
sect or mode of worship; and that no religious corporation can ever be established in this
state.
I cannot find that in the present Constitution. It would be interesting to know what year and/or revision took it out. BVB
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.