Bill

We had Ed Buckner here in Kansas City last Saturday night. If you didn't make it, you should have....

One of the points that Ed made in his speech is that there are STILL two kinds of Baptists in this country: 1) the so-called "original" type, who is very much in favor of the separation of church and state; and 2) the so-called "fundamentalist" type, who is working (by and large) for a Baptist theocracy. These Baptists are generally separated by geography with the former being primarily in the northeast and the latter being primarily in the south.

The former sort is very active in the political arena through the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. Yes, there are still Baptists who do actively support and lobby for the separation of church and state!

=====

A little historical perspective from Ed's speech last Saturday:

Prior to the Declaration of Independance, the "state church" was the Church of England. Other churches might be tolerated, so long as they remained "invisible." The Church of England was an offshoot of Roman Catholocism where the only real issue dividing them from the Catholics was whether or not Henry VIII could get a divorce from one of his wives. As the titular head of the Church of England, Henry VIII obtained his divorce by splitting away from Rome and installing a new head bishop. So, by and large, the doctrines of the Church of England were pretty-much the same as the doctrines of Rome.

One of those doctrines was that Bibles were for Priests. I won't get into why this was so, but the Catholics only printed Bibles in Latin (the Vulgate Bible), and very few lay people could read or speak Latin. The Church of England followed that tradition.

And so it came to pass that, in the United States prior to the revolution, any Baptist could be arrested if he stated in public that somebody should go out and actually read the Bible for themself. It was a crime against the state (church) to tell somebody that they ought to personally read the Bible for themself as opposed to taking the priest's word for it as to what the Bible said on this or that matter. This naturally (through the process of evolution ) led to the Baptists of the "original" flavor wanting the state to have nothing at all to do with advocating in favor of or against anybody's religion. To those Baptists, religion was a very personal matter. This attitude led these Baptists (the latter "fundamentalist" sort basically didn't exist at this point in time) to be extremely strong supporters of the separation of church and state, and thus strong advocates in favor of the First Amendment's "wall of separation."

My how times do change......

== Bill

Bill

A few more points that Ed brought out in his speech last Saturday night:

1. To our founding fathers, atheism (as we know it today) was almost inconceivable (although Jefferson did at least acknowledge the possibility in a letter to his favorite nephew, Peter Carr). To them, the mere fact that humans walked the Earth was good and sufficient proof of the existence of the supernatural; a diety who was responsable for creating the Earth and humanity. This led directly to the words in the Declaration of Independance which acknowledged a "Creator."

2. Since all of our "founding fathers" believed in a God in at least some sense, and since atheism was "almost inconceivable" (above), the argument was over whether or not the state ought to be giving support (particularly with tax money) to the churches. Since the "founding fathers" were a very diverse group of men, religiously, they were intelligent enough to see that there was probably no good argument in favor of any one religious stance, and thus it was probable that any act to support any one religion would generate great offense to a large number of people who would not support aid to that religion.

3. It should not be forgotten that the Church of England was widely seen to have been ruined as a religious institution because of its close ties to the state (the English King). There was thus great sympathy for the view first expressed by Roger Williams (one of those early Baptists who advocated separation of church and state) that any entanglement of church and state would lead to the ruin of both! Thus, it was widely seen that the separation of church and state was to the long-term benefit of both churches and the state.

4. The "founding fathers" had just endured an era where the local building of the Church of England was the equivalent of the County Courthouse of today, with only "members" of the Church having any real right to protect their rights in that domain. This is widely viewed as the explanation for why George Washington was officially a Vestryman of his local Church of England, while never (to anybody's knowledge) actually taking communion at any church. Washington needed to have that sort of a relationship with the Church of England in order to have any sort of a say in the local government that directly affected his own property holdings.

By and large, few of the "founding fathers" were really committed to the Church of England (or the American Episcopal Church, as it came to be known after the revolution). The Church of England itself was for Loyalists, and the "founding fathers" certainly weren't in that camp! A recent almanac shows the Episcopal Church of today with about 2.5 million members, or about 1% of all of the Christians in the USA today. That is a long way to fall for the "mandatory church" of before the revolution.

5. But, again, the "founding fathers" were, to a man, believers in the monotheistic diety they called either "God" or the "Creator" or similar words. So, the Christians are correct when they assert that the "founding fathers" didn't mean to implement state atheism as a religion.

6. In this era when most political power collects in Washington, DC, it is hard to believe, but the "founding fathers" lived in an era when the state governments, individually and collectively, were the only entities that were important to the average person. The national government under the Constitution was to be only a vehicle for collective state action. This is why the nation was called the United STATES of America.

7. For the first four-score plus years, the national government was very weak and all real power resided in the individual state capitals. As somebody else pointed out, some of those states did have state churches (not all the same state churches, either, thus lending credance to the idea that the "founding fathers" had "irreconcilable differences" of opinion when it came to matters of religion). In his lecture, Ed Buckner mentioned that Massachussetts was the last to abolish the formal endorsement of a state church, and that was in the 1830s.

8. The turning point in all of this was the Civil War. From a Constitutional perspective, the Fourteenth Amendment, passed a few years after the end of the Civil War, took the national standards from the Bill of Rights and applied it to all of the states. It was only at this late date, in the late 1860s, that it became unconstitutional for any state to have a state church. And it would take many years before that fact would be recognized by the Supreme Court.

The Civil War turned the whole idea of the United States upside down. Before the Civil War, the United States had virtually nothing of a standing military establishment. Instead, the United States relied upon each of the states to have "a well-regulated militia" that it would VOLUNTEER to send to the aid of the nation. Thus, most units in the Civil War fought as instrumentalities of their own state's government. We had the thus and so New York regiment, and so forth. After the Civil War, we had a standing army of the United States of America, and it was that army which went out to occupy the west and fight the indians. And by the time the Spanish-American War erupted, there was no longer any need for the President to rely upon each governor to call up their own state's militia in order for the President to have an army to send out to war.

==========

These are all important historical facts that are, by and large, forgotten in modern discussions of the separation of church and state. It is largely impossible to discuss what the "founding fathers" meant by the First Amendment when it was enacted if you do not interpret the facts of that enactment along with the historical circumstances, such as that which I describe, above.

== Bill

Buffman

capnkirk

How does a school voucher program that enables me to take my kid out of a failing public school and put him in another school OF MY CHOICE, be it parochial or not, public or private, violate this clause? It is not government that is directing where the money will go. I AM!!

Let me see if I understand what you are really saying before approaching the 1st Amendment issue. You appear to be saying that since the government has declared that a school is failing based on a government test, then you demand the right to place your child in any school you wish using voucher money because it is "your" money and "your" decision where your child goes to school. Is that correct? (You might wish to reconsider why you should receive voucher money for placing your child in another "PUBLIC" school.)

To the best of my knowledge there are only three categories included under PRIVATE schools. These are Catholic, Other Religious, and Non-Sectarian. As of the year 2000, there were 8,102-Catholic, 13,268-Other Religious, and 5,853-Non-Sectarian schools teaching 5.3 million students.

http://nces.ed.gov/

Additionally, I would like to know why you think some public schools are failing when others are not. (Please keep in mind that I live in Florida which has a voucher program that was enacted by the legislature/government not the public...which voted against the program in other states.)

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/nov96/molnar.html

http://www.sepschool.org/edlib/v2n6/against.html

http://www.adl.org/vouchers/vouchers_main.asp

http://www.au.org/vouchers.htm

(Extracts )
MYTH: Vouchers will ensure "parental choice" in education.
FACT: When it comes to private schools, the concept of parental choice is meaningless. Private school administrators have the only real choice concerning which children are admitted to the schools and which are not. They may reject virtually anyone applying to attend or to teach in private schools. No voucher plan will change this fact.

MYTH: The American public school system is failing our children.
FACT: New studies indicate that American students are among the best educated in the world. The U.S. has one of the highest graduation rates and U.S. schools steer more students to college than does any other country, even though many of those countries weed out mediocre students. Academic achievement among U.S. students - with the majority educated in public school - continues to rise. Moreover, according to a Money magazine study, private schools rank no better scholastically than comparable public schools. Recent studies of the Milwaukee and Cleveland plans have indicated that participation in choice programs does not result in significant educational improvement among students. Polls show that the vast majority of parents support the public schools their children attend and believe those schools are doing a good job. Vouchers will impede the public school system by draining the funding necessary to provide quality education for all children.
(End extracts)

Oresta

And I'll argue that it IS SO my money! It's a partial refund of tax monies I have paid! The Gov't doesn't have any other kind of money. It's ALL our money!

The operative word here is our. It's not your money, but ours. I don't know what you pay in taxes, but I would venture that the X-thousand of dollars that a voucher pays out per child in your state far exceeds what you pay out exclusively to the tax source of school funding each year.

Here in my state, I know I would have to had spent $63,000 at 6% sales tax before a voucher for one of my children would be a "partial refund" on what I paid out.

capnkirk

Actually, it doesn't. In Texas, school taxes are property valuation based, and my school taxes this past year exceeded the published cost/student for my school district by a factor of 3. On the other hand, that ratio does not represent the median household either. Actually, a more representative fiscal description of the reallocation of funds is this: Presently the school district receives $100 to educate 10 students. I remove my child from school and use my $8 voucher to send him to St Faust Academy. Now the district has only $92...but only 9 students to educate. The school district is not fiscally harmed, but now they ARE challenged to compete to keep students. I consider that a good thing.

Certainly, not all school voucher programs are equal. At the very least, each deserves evaluation on ITS own merits, not the blanket presumption that there is an inherent establishment clause violation. That is just as prejudicial as the views of those we disdain as bigots!

I suggest that the most rational role for (federal) govt is to establish reasonable protections to prevent abuse (like state legislation to give parocial schools advantage over secular private schools in competing for voucher students). And to prosecute violators (similar to the prosecution of current school prayer legislation violators).

Much of the failure of public schooling can be traced back to abuses arising out of its monopoly status. Providing some form of competition is an appropriate challenge. Vouchers represent the lowest risk way to do this. If you are truly interested in education, the task should be to find some way to make vouchers work...rather than pontificating about some potential establishment clause abuse.

On another thread (Fight "Against" and Lose) we are exploring the interactivity between our public image and our activist tactics. Implicit in that study has been a more critical analysis of our own "knee jerk" reactions both in the context of intellectual honesty and the success of our activism. This issue would make a good case-in-point.

Buffman

capnkirk

First, why are you avoiding direct answers to the questions I ask?

Second, are you a religious apologist seeking to have more public funds transferred into the coffers of the theists? If not, then you must not have given this Church-State separation issue as much investigation as it deserves. For every public dollar funneled into the religious nest, that is one less dollar that they must extract from their private funds to expand their operations. It is also one less dollar available to the public schools to meet the government imposed standards. Standards that do not have to be met by the Private schools. Thus, these public funds are being used to strengthen the religious grip on the minds of our nation while diminishing the ability of the secular advocates to improve the public education system.---Might I recommend you spend some worthwhile time reading and digesting ALL the information available at this URL in order to gain a better grasp of the "BIG PICTURE."

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm


Actually, it doesn't. In Texas, school taxes are property valuation based, and my school taxes this past year exceeded the published cost/student for my school district by a factor of 3.

Are there districts where school taxes ARE NOT property value based? Exactly how are the general school tax property funds reallocated to each school district in Texas? How are state and federal funds reallocated for the education of each student? What are the factors involved in the education of the students. (i.e.: Sufficient facilities and maintenance, transportation, books and equipment, teacher and administrative salaries, etc.) How many of those Public School items have standards and reports mandated by state and federal laws which Private schools are not required to meet? How many Private schools would be able to meet the requirements of your children if they had learning or physical disabilities? What are the academic qualification standards of the teachers in the private schools?

On the other hand, that ratio does not represent the median household either. Actually, a more representative fiscal description of the reallocation of funds is this: Presently the school district receives $100 to educate 10 students. I remove my child from school and use my $8 voucher to send him to St Faust Academy. Now the district has only $92...but only 9 students to educate. The school district is not fiscally harmed, but now they ARE challenged to compete to keep students. I consider that a good thing.

That is a very simplistic strawman argument which does not reflect reality. If you sincerely believe that it will increase competition and is a good thing, then it would seem that you have done very little sincere homework to understand the nature of the problems involved. (IMO, you have bought into the religious propaganda regardless of all the so-called Psy-Ops training you claim to have.)--- Given your previous position that it is simply YOUR money being returned to you, then by that token the government should be returning money for every child that is home schooled, shouldn't it?

Certainly, not all school voucher programs are equal.

In what sense are they unequal? They all take Public tax money and give it to Private schools, don't they?

At the very least, each deserves evaluation on ITS own merits, not the blanket presumption that there is an inherent establishment clause violation. That is just as prejudicial as the views of those we disdain as bigots!

Balderdash! More religious apologetics! I just got through showing you that of 27,225 Private schools, 21, 370 are affiliated with religious sects/denominations. What right does the government have to provide you with OUR money that you can use to support the religious school of YOUR choice. There is nothing bigoted about that separation of religion and government...accept in the supernatural believing portion of the theist's mind.

I suggest that the most rational role for (federal) govt is to establish reasonable protections to prevent abuse (like state legislation to give parocial schools advantage over secular private schools in competing for voucher students). And to prosecute violators (similar to the prosecution of current school prayer legislation violators).

Please look at the numbers I have provided again. Start listing those reasonable protections and see now many Private schools would agree to accept them. Do you sincerely believe that the Catholic, Protestant or Jewish fundamentalist schools are going to allow the government to dictate how they operate or what they teach? Get real! That would be the ultimate C-SS violation.

Much of the failure of public schooling can be traced back to abuses arising out of its monopoly status.

Please provide your verifiable evidence for that allegation. (I see it as simply more radical right wing religious propaganda.) However, that does not mean that there wasn't a negative shift away from the basics in what the educational priorities should be. This battle between liberal and conservative educational policies, coupled with the migration of whites to the suburbs, are far more responsible for the conditions we find in some of our inner-city public schools than some imaginary lack of competition.

Providing some form of competition is an appropriate challenge.

A challenge to accomplish what? Specifically!

Vouchers represent the lowest risk way to do this.

Non-sensical!

If you are truly interested in education, the task should be to find some way to make vouchers work...rather than pontificating about some potential establishment clause abuse.

That is definitely radical right wing religious bullcrap. I am not the one who came strutting in here pontificating what we should or shouldn't be doing so the theists will tolerate and like us and believe that we are good people and not force any more of their supernatural beliefs on us because we refuse to worship their supernatural entities.

On another thread (Fight "Against" and Lose) we are exploring the interactivity between our public image and our activist tactics. Implicit in that study has been a more critical analysis of our own "knee jerk" reactions both in the context of intellectual honesty and the success of our activism. This issue would make a good case-in-point.

Yes it would!

Oresta

On the other hand, that ratio does not represent the median household either. Actually, a more representative fiscal description of the reallocation of funds is this: Presently the school district receives $100 to educate 10 students. I remove my child from school and use my $8 voucher to send him to St Faust Academy. Now the district has only $92...but only 9 students to educate. The school district is not fiscally harmed, but now they ARE challenged to compete to keep students. I consider that a good thing.

How is the school system not "fiscally harmed"? The cost of heating, lighting and capital maintenance doesn't go down with the decline in enrollment. Cost per pupil in any school system is based on more than desk space in a class room.
As Buffman has pointed out, schools cannot improve their effectiveness in the face of eroding revenue.

Furthermore, there is a direct relationship between social class and student performance. Put another way, the poorest school districts are the ones most likely to become even poorer if property taxes are the prime source of revenue. Put still another way: the tremendous inequities between school systems in the same state will not be corrected by vouchers; they will be aggravated.

And I haven't even gotten to the issue of public revenues vis. a vis. religion here. The failing schools straw man argument (c.f. Buffman, p. 1) obfuscates the true objective of the voucher movement: to privatize still another public institution, thereby further disenfranchizing the citizenry of participation and influence in public discourse.

capnkirk

buffman and oresta,

I am more than happy to respond to your questions on this subject. (For now, let me just say that IMHO our differences on this subject revolve around which should be the DOMINANT, OVERRIDING issue. i.e. The general failure of our education system, OR establishment clause issues.).

However this dialog is increasingly off-topic for this thread, I am going to take this issue to a new thread . I hope to get this done sometime in the next day or so.

I look forward to debating you there.