Posted on 07/11/2002 12:42:32 PM PDT by Lance Romance
What is this daft beee-ach talking about?
Does anyone in this administration respect the First Amendment? I'm beginning to wonder.
Yes, Helen, but your senilic ranting are a direct case of First Amendment abuse.
Kennedy said, "Private school vouchers may pass constitutional muster, but they fail the test when it comes to improving our public schools.
Isn't this the guy who got thrown out of Harvard for cheating? What's next? A lecture on abstinence?
Private school vouchers may pass constitutional muster, but they fail the test when it comes to improving our public schools.
That’s because federal government involvement in public schools doesn’t pass constitutional muster, you old drunk.
Since he took office, President George W. Bush has been promoting an agenda that chips away at the constitutional wall between church and state.Let's draw a line in the sand on pillars of the wall between civilization and sloppy metaphor.......
What a legacy for our republic after two centuries of keeping separate, for the most part, two pillars of our society -- government and religion. I believe that by drawing a line between the two, our society has maintained individual freedom.
That's completely off the wall - even for the decrepid Ms Thomas.
Old gasbag forgets about all those vets who used the GI Bill to attend private schools, many of which were religious.
Well someone sure failed to notify Jackson and Sharpton about this, LOL!
Sorry Helen, but the SC overuled you on vouchers and they are correct.
As far as charitable choice goes:
First of all, the system was already in place under the Clinton Administration..."Section 104 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193), the so-called "Charitable Choice" provision, specifically addresses the use of contracts, vouchers and other funding to arrange for "charitable, religious or private organizations" to provide services under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid, Supplemental Security Income and Food Stamps (and has been interpreted as applying to certain other programs as well). The statute also requires that religious organizations be permitted to receive such funding "on the same basis as any other non-governmental provider." In addition, the interim regulations for the new Welfare-to-Work Program explicitly permit faith-based organizations to apply for and receive competitive grants.Private Industry Councils and other entities administering the formula Welfare-to-Work grants are required to coordinate those activities with faith-based organizations."
And it IS constitutional under the guidelines:
Section 104 (the Charitable Choice provisions) of P.L. 104-193 includes various protections for both religious organizations and welfare recipients in an attempt to find a balance between the rights and religious liberties of both parties. Any state or local welfare agency considering a financial arrangement with a religious organization for welfare or certain related programs must follow the requirements of Section 104, which include arranging for alternative providers if welfare recipients request them and not discriminating against religious organizations in contracting procedures.
The Center for Public Justice and the Christian Legal Society have published a brief guide of the statutory provisions. It holds that Section 104 is constitutional and offers guidance to both government agencies and congregations on complying with the law.
The guideline can be found at:
Charitable Choice rests on the constitutional concept that government must not discriminate against religion when it carries out its programs and interacts with nongovernmental groups.
So Helen...I suggest you sit down and shut up already!
Brown v. Board of Education said that "separate but equal is not equal". So, Helen, darling, with compulsitory education laws, where children are forced to to poor, crummy schools, they are not getting an "equal education". I find the parrallel appropriate, myself.
More than likely the Office for Faith Based Initiatives, since she was speaking to that issue at the moment.
The First Amendment is fine and dandy. No one is establishing a religion with this (and certainly not the federal government). No one is coercing anyone into accepting anything at all, religious or otherwise. It's a voluntary program, which parents can accept or reject. If they accept, they can send their kids to any school they want. What liberals can't stand is that some parents might want to send their kids to a religous school - as opposed to a public school.
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.