Posted on 06/27/2002 6:29:18 PM PDT by RCW2001
New York, NY, June 27, 2002... The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) expressed disappointment with today's Supreme Court ruling permitting governments to continue to pay for private religious education, calling it "a step backwards for religious liberty." The League pledged to continue to oppose vouchers on policy and state constitutional grounds.
Glen A. Tobias, ADL National Chairman, and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:
The Supreme Court's decision to allow state funds to be given to private religious schools is a disappointment and a step backwards for religious liberty in America. However, our opposition to vouchers has never been limited to federal constitutional grounds alone, and we will continue to oppose them on policy and state constitutional grounds.
We view this decision as extremely limited in its impact. The ruling is narrow and applies only to the specific fact pattern presented in Cleveland. While voucher supporters were hoping for a green light for the use of vouchers in a wide range of contexts, that is not what this decision does.
We are confident that legislators and voters will continue to oppose vouchers on policy grounds. Indeed, wherever Americans have had an opportunity to vote on vouchers, they have rejected them outright. Americans support free and fair public education and are uneasy about government funding for religious schooling.
ADL filed an amicus brief in Harris-Simmons vs. Zelman, urging the Supreme Court to uphold earlier decisions by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court, which had rejected vouchers as unconstitutional. ADL had argued that separation of church and state is essential to religious liberty in America.
The Anti-Defamation League, founded in 1913, is the world's leading organization fighting anti-Semitism through programs and services that counteract hatred, prejudice and bigotry.
These state funds, otherwise known as taxpayers' money, are given to the parents in the form of vouchers. These funds are not given directly to the schools. The parents then decide what private school they want their child to attend, whether it be a religious school or a non-religious school. I wonder if it would be OK with the ADL if I took my state tax-refund money and donated it to a church or a religious charity, or would the ADL consider that a step backwards for religious liberty in America.
Cut the crap. I'm amazed that the moderator hasn't deleted your post, bonehead.
That was the original intent of the framers of the First Amendment, and we have records to show that they actually knew how to write and wrote what they meant to say.
They left no records instructing their heirs to review their writings and then make of what their intentions were, "whatever" may be the wish of their heirs. (Heirs would like that; to read a last will and testament and spin the wording around to however it pleases the heirs' "reality." Something to think about, if you're going to inherit all of Ted Kennedy's moneys.)
Yet, nowhere in the First Amendment or its foundations, was, nor are, anything affecting a separation of "church and state." Those words were Thomas Jefferson's, written years after the events of constructing The First Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution; when he occasioned to remind some people that the intent was that the federal government should not even attempt to exercise authority through a church, let alone of its making --- the First Amendment, according to Thomas Jefferson, was a direct prohibition to the federal/nationalists: Stay out of the church business; and it was not a prohibition upon any church;.
The First Amendment has never been amended, never changed. Supreme Court decisions cannot alter the foundations of the Amendment nor the wording to mean other than the Amendment's framers' intent.
The Supreme Court and those who subject themselves to its un-Constitutional decision-taking may act so, but their actions are not the law of the land nor case law but instead are the vapor of judge-made law which has no standing when the decisions are contrary to the purpose of writing itself, to fix, to state a position, to enter a contract, to have a compact, to establish an agreement --- all would be meaningless without our respecting original intent. (See heirs, preceding.)
Now lawyers will surely contrive for the public to believe in their fantasies that all law is subject to said lawyers lesser performing artist renderings, that is, that the words, once written, are free from the original intent, available to mean whatever is the wish of the spider who comes along.
Fine; go ahead; make the words to mean other than the original intent.
But be warned that when you break the glue between the words and original intent, you break the contract.
There is no contract absent its original intent; meaning, in this case, there is no union.
And under such non-recognition, as non-respecting the law and the meaning of law --- we are not obligated to pretend obedience. It would be pretending; because in honesty, we are not bound.
None of the Founding Fathers and Framers of the Constitutional union of these United States, intended the failure of their own words to mean other than their earnest desires for our healthy continuance upon the foundations they worked --- none of them wished that be counterfeit.
One of the very first acts of the new Congress within the new federal government of the United States, was to commission the publication of a Bible.
There are chaplains for both houses of the Congress.
Our dead warriors rest all around the world, beneath rows and rows of crosses, Stars of David, the Crescent of Islam, etc.
Ted Kennedy's deceased nephew, John F. Kennedy, Jr,, passed a Catholic ceremony at sea aboard a U.S. Navy ship.
But the leftists who continue to take away our rights, by stripping away the protections we have enjoyed from government power(s), would have us focus upon high-school students who want to say a prayer before a football game.
Somehow in the stretch of corruption which lawyers love, such a student has been made to be an agent of the Congress in the act of trying to make her church, The Official Religion and Church of the United States of America.
That stretch of judge-made law, is no lawful, it is not Constitutional.
It's just plain lost in extra-Constitutional space, with anybody who will follow.
Well said. I wonder if they think the same about the GI bill that allowed so many soldiers in the past to attend college. They probably wanted a stipulation that it could not be used for any college with a religious affiliation.
You are right that the ADL here seeks to control what the individual does with the money, socialists always do seek to control the individual. As you note, where the vouchers go is not the government's decision. 'Course the ADL would like nearly everything to be a government decision.
Some of these types are afraid that government involvement which appears to favor Christianity creates a "theocratic" environment where non-Christians would suffer discrimination or loss of self-esteem. A bit of a stretch, perhaps. Of course, the "establishment clause" only referred to preventing one Christian denomination from becoming the official "state church" (through an act of "congress") linked with dogma-specific loyalty oaths and citizenship, voting rights, etc., depending on membership in that one denomination. All the schools in the 1770s and 1780s had some type of religious orientation or instruction with Christianity, of course, forming that context.
ADL DISAPPOINTED WITH SUPREME COURT DECISION PROHIBITING GAY AND LESBIAN GROUP FROM MARCHING IN BOSTON'S
ST. PATRICK'S DAY PARADE
Wrong. It's a step forward for religious liberty in America since many families will be given the financial option for the first time to pull their children out of inferior public schools and allow them to be educated in a faith as well as in scholastics.
However, our opposition to vouchers has never been limited to federal constitutional grounds alone, and we will continue to oppose them on policy and state constitutional grounds.
I would hope not. There's no real constitutional grounds to oppose vouchers at either the Federal or state level.
What specious explanation, if any, has the ADL concocted to explain how opposing school vouchers is their business, anyway?
I wish.
Not much to ponder IMHO:
NCJW Decries Supreme Court Decision in School Voucher CaseJune 27, 2002, Washington, DC - The National Council of Jewish Women decries the Supreme Court decision upholding Ohio's school voucher program in Zelman v. Harris-Simmons. NCJW President Marsha Atkind today released the following statement:
"The Ohio school voucher program represents a particularly troubling attempt to funnel public funds to religious and parochial schools. The facts in this case showed that the vast majority of schools receiving voucher funds are sectarian in nature. Often their primary stated mission is to instill religious faith in their students, and participation in religious instruction, programs, and prayer is required. Checks made out to parents are actually sent directly to the schools and parents sign them over on school premises."The claim that this program does not violate the separation of religion and state outlined in our Constitution was rightly denied by the US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. The Supreme Court's reversal of the circuit court's decision in this case is deeply disappointing. It opens the door to those who wish to subvert time-honored principles in the false claim that vouchers are the only way to improve the schooling of our nation's children. The main task at hand - offering a quality public education to all, regardless of race, religion, gender, national origin, or income - will become infinitely more difficult due to this unfortunate decision.
"Proponents of using public funds to assist religious institutions and programs will no doubt redouble their efforts as a result of this decision. NCJW will stand fast with those who remain dedicated to the constitutional separation of religion and state that has served us so well for more than 200 years."
NCJW is a volunteer organization, inspired by Jewish values, that works to improve the quality of life for women, children and families and to ensure individual rights and freedoms through research, education and community service programs initiated by its network of 90,000 volunteers, supporters and members nationwide.
Contact:
Sammie Moshenbergsammie@ncjwdc.org
Who wants to check the American Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center?
Thank you for reafirming the reason why the ADL came into existance: anti-Semetism.
AS usual, you are affirming somehtin else, anti-semite are ignorant. Jews will benefit from vouchers just like every other faith community. This will allow the creation of or expansion of Jewish education.
Don't think that the ADL speaks for the majority of the Jewish community. In my view, the ADL served its purpose in the 1930's, 40's and 50's. I don't believe it is necessary at this point, and it has become so liberal that it has lost touch with where the majority of Jews are politically today.
I am Jewish and I can't figure out why the ADL thinks that school vouchers might not be good for the Jews. The ADL has become the Jewish ACLU.
I think vouchers are great for the country and will lead to superior education for all.
Bumpity-bump-bump-bump!
I'll venture a guess here... According to the relevant mentality at issue, there is some fear that some voucher funds will end up sending kids to Christian religious schools with "extreme" theological points of view. Keep in mind that some denominations entertain the idea that Jews cannot attain Heaven due to their lack of recognition of Jesus. That's guess #1. No. 2 would be a traditional uneasiness with the Catholic Church, the largest school-based denomination. There is not an anti-Jewish theological ideology active in mainstream Catholic circles, but memories die hard. No. 3 would be that, to the extent that it appears Christians will benefit, this triggers anxiety that Jews will be marginalized. This may be irrational, but that seems to be part of this mentality. That Jewish schools (and their students) would also benefit and that even Jewish students who attend non-Jewish private schools would benefit does not seem to enter the discussion. Obviously, of course, not all Jews are paralyzed by such anxieties and don't view American Christians with such suspicion.
"Congress sall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
The Bill of Rights didn't grant us the rights therein contained. These rights were ours to begin with. The bill of rights is a no trespassing sign were govt. has no authority.
Pray where ever you wish and display your religious symbols anywhere you want. Take a stand here.
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.