Posted on 06/30/2002 5:25:11 AM PDT by The Raven
Question is this:
Why not challenge the basis that schools are an arm of the government? It seems that each court takes for granted that the government (in the form of public schools) can't force kids to recite the pledge, pray, etc) - but these are local/State community based schools. What right does the court have in directing actions and behaviors? Teachers aren't Congressmen.
Or better yet, if the government is caught between a rock and a hard place --- why not challenge the Constitutionality of public schools period. A school receiving ANY instructions whatsoever from the Federal/State government - whether for or against religions, or text books touting the political agendas or fad of the moment - coupled with the States forcing children into schools - is collectivism, not individual freedom.
If Congress must interfere with freedom to worship in schools so that Congress is not forcing religion in the schools, it's a rock and a hard place - since "Congress shall make no law".....[either way]
Written by men who believed the same about the Bible.
You can't really understand their intent for citizen interpretation of the Constitution unless you understand their ideas about the priesthood of all believers and the congregational model of worship.
The real question, as you correctly point out, is whether the government should be involved in education.
The 14th Amendment assures that nothing will change. Scalia, in a recent speech, told the audience that there was very little the federal courts could do to stop the increase in federal regulation and also pointed out that it was in no federal judge's interest, including his own, to limit federal power. His subtle point was that if federal encroachments are to be resisted, it is up to populist action by the states to do so. (Thanks to Am. XVII, the U.S. Senate no longer fills this role).
IMO, the federal constitution is no longer sufficient to guarantee limited government. You should read the Confederate Constitution. It is a remarkable document, with the exception of allowing slavery (though it also banned the importation of slaves).
My understanding was, that this was the reason "General" was created--so we don't have to deal with these trivial, "I've-Got-An-Opinion-That-Everyone-Needs-To-Hear-So-I'm-Posting-A-'News'-Article" posts on News/Activism.
I'm not sure but I suspect a lot of these are simply "newbies" who don't yet know the difference between Free Republic and an AOL chat room.
IMO, it is high time that Mr. Robinson dusts off one of his periodic "Please Don't Post Vanities" sermons.
Also, I would like to see more strict moderation on this subject. I log on to FR to read the NEWS and comment on the NEWS, not on someone else's comments. The etiquette has become, once again, woefully lacking on FR in this regard.
Thanks for listening to my rant.
The original Constitution acknowledged the substantial differences in culture and geography and States were pretty much left alone to develop their separate experiments in democratic republicanism. States which were successful would see their populations and prosperity increase. Others would be forced to change to preserve their tax base.
Now, there's just one generic governing philosophy for an even more diverse and larger collection of states. Western land and water policy is dictated by Eastern urbanites. Southern school curricula is mandated by Yankee Ed.D.'s. Such a system is unworkable and unsustainable.
A good case can be made that as an overwhelmingly believing society, our religous references and anchors within our institutions are of an organic and benign nature. It is only the establishment of Secular Humanism (designed as a religion by its founders) within the schools and elsewhere that then allows the prohibition of that incidental religous feature.
Our founders saw the moral dimensions of our character as being properly carried forward by public education. The notion of a public education that rejected basic common beliefs and general morals to placate a small minority of a contrived non-thiestic religion would have been a complete reversal of their intent and actions.
In other words, states couldn't pass laws discriminating against immigrants from other states. If the original Constitutional scheme had been otherwise, the 14th Am. would not have been deemed necessary. Its intent from the beginning was to bring the Southern States to heel. The 14th has never been "hijacked." It is performing exactly as intended.
Perhaps we could beat the liberals at their own game.
"Tax dollars used to promote religion" can be changed to "tax dollars to support liberal propaganda."
I can see the law suits now:
"John Doe is suing the government for forcing his child to participate in discussions of "Heather Has Two Mommies." His child felt uncomfortable discussing the topic in her first grade class at Pineview Elementary. . . Lawmakers are debating whether this constitutes the unlawful promotion of a political agenda in the public schools, which are supported by tax dollars. Doe is suing for $15 million. This landmark case could go all the way to the Supreme Court. . .
I don't think so at the State level. Remember, at that time there was even State funding of certain costs of maintaining churches and their pastors. Education was seen as much a relgious and secular duty to train up a moral citizenry. Its perversion in the past century would have been a total suprise to them.
What they would have felt was expressed well by Chief Judge Brevard Hand, who originally wanted Federal Courts to keep hands off of this whole issue and leave it to the States. As cited by Russell Kirk:
In conforming to the First Amendment, Judge Hand was saying at Mobile, the state must not impose a non-theistic religion upon public schools, anymore than it may impose a theistic religion upon all pupils. The judge's own words put the principle admirably: "If this court is compelled to purge "God is great, God is good, we thank him for our daily food,' from the classroom, then this court must also purge from the classroom those things that serve to teach that salvation is through mans's self rather than through a deity."
Well thank you!!..[thought I looked much older]
Actually, if you stroll over to General Interest and click the post button....then click the topics button...you'd be hard pressed to find where to put a 1st/14th amendement school/religion thread.
And you won't find this type of discussion in the liberal controlled media. AOL? Doubt that, too.
I plead guilty of an occasional humorous post but not very often.
And a re-read of JimRob's Vanity instructions says keep it to politics and stop trashing each other.
"You know who you are" he says.
LOL---I love it !!!
If Congress decides that a "privilege or immunity" of a U.S. citizen is a "living wage" of $15/hr, employers in Alaska must comply. If Congress decides that open professional golf tournaments in California must accomodate golfers who can't walk the course under the federal "privilege or immunity" granted by the ADA, they must do so. With respect to Martin v. USGA et al., no member of SCOTUS questioned the constitutional authority of Congress to pass the ADA. After all, the statute simply granted a "privilege or immunity" to U.S. citizens: the right to reasonable accomodation of their disabilities. The Martin case was completely about statutory construction.
You are trying to salvage the unsalvageable.
One thing we have to strive to end in this country is the sheepish "legal positivism" we apply to Supreme Court edicts. The Supreme Court may interpret the Constitution, but they are NOT the Constitution itself, and the Legislative branch also has the power to interpret the Constitution. I get hives when I read commentary that states that "separation of Church and State" is in the 1st Amendment, but psychologically, that's as much as true for most Americans.
That has NOTHING to do with the argument. The argument is by what means can the government force behavior one way or the other if the Constitution instructs government it can't touch the subject.
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.