copernicus

S.E., one of the most distinguished authorities on the original intent of the 1st amendment is Leonard Levy. You might want to take a look at <a href="http://www.worldpolicy.org/americas/religion/levy-1stamend.html" target="_blank">this synopsis</a> of Levy's research. The claim that the amendment means "the government simply can't declare an established religion" is what Levy would call the "narrow interpretation" of the amendment. Levy argues at length that Congress rejected several drafts of the amendment that unmistakably supported the narrow interpretation. The final wording suggested strongly that they intended a wider interpretation--that Congress could pass no laws at all concerning religion. Modern revisionists argue that "establishment" was based on the European concept of a state church. However, at the time of ratification, no state (other than perhaps Massachusetts) had an officially endorsed state religion. There were laws on the books to give tax money to religious institutions, but these laws tended to be general establishments of religion. They allowed citizens to designate religious institutions (and some non-religious institutions) that could receive their tax money. The 1st amendment outlawed these general establishment laws, not laws that favored one particular religion over others. And there was clear evidence that many of the founders felt that the 1st amendment guaranteed freedom of conscience on all matters respecting religion, not just on what religion people could choose to believe in. If you want to read more in-depth analysis of the 1st amendment, look up some of Leonard Levy's publications. Most libraries should have copies.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: copernicus ]</p>

captainpabst

Maybe I can help play devil's advocate here.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

Demonic Advocation:

A) Congress does not have to pass a law respecting an establishment of religion for a teacher to lead students in prayer. In fact, it must pass a law to prevent this act (prohibiting the free exercise thereof - abridging the freedom of speech...?).

B) Is a school a law-making institution? No. A school cannot pass a law respecting the establishment of religion. Praying is not passing a law. (schools receive funding from the government, but are they an extension of it?)

C) Does teacher led prayer amount to a government endorsement of religion? (I believe the courts have said "yes" here)

D) Does the Constitution provide freedom from hearing things one disagrees with?

E) Whether a student faces ostracization or not, they are not forced to pray (or pledge).

Hmm. I'm certainly no legal scholar, but perhaps the school prayer debate is more a result of the "culture war" and the failure of certain groups of people to respect those who do not share their beliefs instead of a strictly Constitutional/legal one?

Toto

The Pledge of Allegiance is contained in an official act of Congress. Children recite the pledge because of legislative acts. When there was prayer in school, it was because of state legislatures passing laws mandating the prayer.

Even when a teacher spontaneously decides to pray in the classroom, this is not in accord with the First Amendment. Teachers are government agents and do not have the right to use their position to indoctrinate students in their personal religious beliefs.

Schools are run by local governmental bodies. They are under the control of an elected school board, and they spend tax money. They are usually run in accordance with state mandates. You can't get more governmental than that.

Yes

That is not the issue. There is no freedom from hearing disagreeable things. There is freedom of religion.

Forcing someone to pray violates their freedom of conscience, or the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment. But even when dissenters are not forced to pray, government sponsorship of prayer violate the Establishment Clause.

The Supreme Court struck down school prayer in the early 60's, before the "culture war" got started. It was a strictly Constitutional, legal decision. You could argue that the culture war was a response to Supreme Court rulings by the losers.

[ August 22, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

I simply would like to add that the laws that establish the school board, the taxing authority, and the school standards are made by state governments, which are bound by the amendments as much as the federal government.

This means that the money and other resources (including the paid labor of the employees hired to execute the law) may not be taken for private, personal use but must serve a state purpose. And indictrinating the population into the agent's religion is not a legitimate government use of those resources.

god-free-pen

Quote:

"Teachers are government agents and do not have the right to use their position to indoctrinate students in their personal religious beliefs".

This is my understanding of the law. They must also use their position of what is effectively governmental authority to prevent "prayer bullying" and proselytising of other students during class hours.

Teenagers can be more pernicious than fundie adults in "spreading the word" and the angst of teenage years is bad enough.

captainpabst

Teenagers can certainly be emphatic about spreading the word. It's a problem that they take information about court decisions based on logic and scrutiny of the law as personal attacks on their beliefs.

Another incidental story. My field is music. I once told my advanced group that on an upcoming Wednesday evening, the local university's top choir would be giving a free concert. I said, "I know many of you go to church on Wednesday nights, but church happens every week, and you'll only have a chance to hear this group 3-4 times per year; I hope you'll consider going." One student (this was a particularly outspoken one) said, "you never know when Jesus is coming and you better be ready!" Many others cheered at that statement, as if they'd managed to overcome a subversive attempt at destroying their faith. I was disgusted. How does one deal with that kind of bullshit? That's part of the reason I'm not a high school teacher anymore.

I really think an educational revolution may be necessary. Say what you will about vouchers, but if it will change up the current structure of the educational system with more choice for parents, then I'm all for it. Change has to start somewhere, and it certainly isn't going to happen within the context of the current system. Just my view, of course.

Buffman

captainpabst

I really think an educational revolution may be necessary. Say what you will about vouchers, but if it will change up the current structure of the educational system with more choice for parents, then I'm all for it. Change has to start somewhere, and it certainly isn't going to happen within the context of the current system. Just my view, of course.

Hmmmmm? I thought the purpose of education had something to do with teaching students...not parents. Evidently you know something that I don't about the advantages of a Voucher program. From what you have shared so far, you seem to desire that all the radical Christians get paid by every taxpayer to pull their children out of the public school system so they can be sent to private Christian schools.

What has caused you to give up your confidence in our public school system? Isn't it the only place/system that strives to educate "all" children, regardless of race, creed, ability or disability, or family income? Isn't it the only system staffed by professional educators and run by democratically elected boards with input from the parents and the larger community? (Remarks plagiarized from my latest AU "Send Money" letter.) And this was the real kicker, "...the extremists aren't trying to take over the schools, they're trying to destroy them." Vouchers are a major weapon in that destruction...as well as being a 1st Amendment violation regardless of what those five Supremes claim.

Aren't you simply turning tail and running because the local Christian Taliban have beaten you? --- When the elected school board and the school administration are all card carrying members of the CT, and your students are primarily brainwashed little Brown Shirt CT's, life can be less than you once hoped it would be like as a teacher.

I didn't want to pledge a fraternity in college because they all (but one) had white, gentile, clauses in their By-Laws. However, the President of one who had offered me membership had a long, very candid, discussion with me. He pointed out that it was just wonderful that I was willing to stand by my principles. However, how could members of the fraternity who felt much as I did about that clause ever hope to make a change at the National level if they were unable to increase their numbers within the local chapter? I pledged to that fraternity. I was elected to the Sophomore Rushing Chairman position. That next year we made brothers out of three Jews, one Chinese from Hong Kong and one of the two black students on the campus. However, by the time the National Headquarters discovered what we had done when one of their reps came to visit with us, we had already been selected, on the basis of other criteria, as the most outstanding chapter of the national organization. It put them between a rock and a hard place. At the very next national convention, the clause was taken out of the by-laws, although not a total victory because of a local option provision...that did not get removed until many years after my graduation.---The point, the very same as that being used by the fundamentalists... bring about change from within. (That's how the minority Communist Party was able to control much of the world at one point.)

(PS: I thought Richard Morley and you were right on the money about the choir song selection advice. Christianity has helped to inspire a great deal of creative genius in this world. Music is only one example.)

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]

[ August 23, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

captainpabst

Of course, but what I meant by 'choice for parents' was that the option to more easily send one's child to a school of one's choice appeals to me. More in a sec...

Oh please! Desire? LOL! Obviously not. I certainly understand that there is a C/S separation issue there. But, if I had children (and I don't), I would love it if I had the option to send them, somewhat affordably, to a private art magnet school. Or a private high school that stressed science and technology. Maybe they could even choose.

Pragmatically, what harm does it do me if another couple sends their kid to a Christian school? At least they're not proselytizing to my kid. I don't claim to possess knowledge of ANY specifics on any proposed school voucher bills (I should do my research, I know) - maybe you can come up with a reason it should seriously bother me if the government allows for a specified sum to fund each school-age child's education at a school of their parent's (or possibly even own (at the H.S. level...?) choice. The only drawback I can see is the possible further decline of the public school system...but I'm not sure that bothers me much...more on that later. I don't see how, by giving the public more options concerning their child's education, the government would be condoning religious schooling any more than any other schooling.

I certainly don't portend to have any hard and fast solution to anything, Buffman, so take me with a grain of salt here. Let me also admit that I am young-ish (25), impatient, most probably idealistic, and frustrated by my recent dealings with the educational establishment. Let me limit my comments to High School, since that is what I have the most experience with.

Overall, I do not see teens actively assisted by their schooling in becoming open-minded, tolerant, thoughtful people, much less knowledgeable and capable of contributing in a positive way to society - or more importantly - leading a fulfilling life! Rather, I see a micro-culture that is intimidating, structured impersonally, and tradition-bound.

Intimidating: I do not believe that herding +/- 1200 teenage, insecure, pubescent, societally indoctrinated kids into one building is a good idea. Never mind that they have no choice in the matter, or that 9-10 previous years of school have shaped (or damaged) their social outlook. Kid's attitudes in school are born of their social situation. There is constant tension - constant posturing - who is/isn't cool? What clothes, jewelry, attitude is/isn't cool? How should I present myself? How can I be popular? How can I piss off the popular people? How can I piss off authority? How can I ammuse myself? How can I ammuse myself at someone else's expense? It's a constant, sickening struggle that isn't conducive to a balanced, rational outlook on life. To say that's just the way kids are is basically to say there isn't a solution. I say get them somewhere with small class sizes, fairly low total enrollment, as much individual and small group attention as possible, and with nobody bound by the stigma of 'government agent' instructing them. A place where it's possible for them to have a chance to know their instructors, know what their views are and why. A place where they won't be intimidated by masses of other kids struggling for attention or dominance. An environment where they might actually be inspired to learn various subjects because it will teach them to think and help them become a well-rounded person. Encouragement to pursue their interests. Guided to knowledge not preached to. How does one accomplish this? I certainly do not know! But I don't believe the public schools are or will develop into what I described. To my knowledge, private schools aren't perfect solutions either. Something else must develop.

Structured impersonally: From age 5-6 on, children are required (unless homeschooled) by law to attend school. They are required to be subjected to the expertise or incompetence of many people who may or may not really care about their intellectual and personal development. Students have no choice but to be herded into a festering social situation everyday. Your mention of "professional educators" almost made me laugh. They may have degrees and get paid to educate, but that definitely does not make them good at what they do. Now, obviously some are good at what they do. But the saying "those that can't do, teach" often applies. What kind of people were education students when I was in college? Some of the best and brightest, eager to be a wealth of knowledge and a beakon of empowerment and integrity to the young minds of the world? ppbbtt. Women looking for husbands to settle down with. The teaching schedule works well when you have kids. Jocks who want to coach. Some people had a serious interest in their subject and a desire to share it. But it wasn't a guarantee that any of these people had people skills, or the patience and ability, beyond comprehension, to convey the the subject matter to another well. But once people are teachers, they find they are bound by political correctness. They cannot speak their mind, even with a disclaimer, because students (and parents) cannot wait to get offended. It is difficult and dangerous to engage a student personally - unfounded accusations abound, the school is afraid of lawsuits, and truthfully, what abuses of position might a teacher commit by a student, whether intentionally or unintentionally? So after awhile teachers become disillusioned - what they set out to do is inhibited by reality. I read once that 75% of all people entering the teaching profession out of college quit in the first 5 years. Hey, I'm a statistic! I feel like the ones that stay are very status quo, or they become automations - go through the motions and go home. Pay the bills just like any other job.

Tradition-bound: I'm running on rather long here and am running out of time also. Use your imagination. But I'll throw out a few things - pledge, electing senior superlatives (who's smartest? who's prettiest?), homecoming popularity contests, etc. This is the way we've always done things, we don't want to change...I went to high school and I've got a job - my kid will too - what's wrong with the system?

As far as school boards go, Christ, where to start? First, three words: Good Ol' Boy. Next, let me just say that even if they care and mean well (and they didn't get elected to the board just as part of a grown-up popularity contest in order to be in part of a town's 'elite' or visible culture) they are not in the schools everyday, they have no idea what teachers face, and therefore they don't really have viable ideas for solutions.

Certainly. Am I running away? I'd say it's more like dragging my ass. I can relate to your frat story. I guess I don't know if I possess the fortitude or desire to be subjected to the existence I knew as a teacher. It owned my life, and did not satisfy me. But maybe grad school will rejuvinate me, and possibly a teaching position (maybe in college) elsewhere will be more fitting. I hope so.

Sorry for the long-winded rant/introspective.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: captainpabst ]</p>

Dark Jedi

Source on this?

Buffman

captainpabst

Oh my! Where to begin? Where to begin? I know what a pain in the butt it is to look up a long list of URL's. However, it would serve little purpose for me to present my views if you were not as well informed about the fundamental issues as I might be. Soooo, I offer these as some background info. This is not a recent issue. It has been around for a very long time. (I think you will discover that it has been a battle between Protestants and Catholics over who will control the minds of the children ...and who will pay for that religious conditioning.)

<a href="http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=08privats1.h19" target="_blank">http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=08privats1.h19</a>

(At this next URL, please note the percent of voucher students attending sectarian private schools.)

<a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou.htm" target="_blank">http://www.religioustolerance.org/sch_vou.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/listcatitems?cat_id=61" target="_blank">http://www.religion-online.org/cgi-bin/relsearchd.dll/listcatitems?cat_id=61</a>

<a href="http://www.teach-nology.com/edleadership/school_vouchers/anti/" target="_blank">http://www.teach-nology.com/edleadership/school_vouchers/anti/</a>

<a href="http://www.weac.org/resource/vouchpg.htm" target="_blank">http://www.weac.org/resource/vouchpg.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.au.org/field/actionalerts/vouchertalkingpoints.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/field/actionalerts/vouchertalkingpoints.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.au.org/field/actionalerts/vouchermythsfacts.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/field/actionalerts/vouchermythsfacts.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr080502.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/press/pr080502.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/public_private_schools.htm" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/inexileau/public_private_schools.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.rethinkingschools.org/SpecPub/vouchers/vdeba.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rethinkingschools.org/SpecPub/vouchers/vdeba.htm</a>

(Extract)
Vouchers have been a bedrock of the conservative education agenda and its goals of privatizing the public education system and of providing tax dollars for religious education. The ability to move that agenda forward has been hampered by the legal cloud hanging over vouchers, however. In December 1999, a federal district court found that the Cleveland voucher program violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision a year later. [Changed by the 5-4 Supreme Court decision.]
End extract)

<a href="http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march02/index.php3?ft=gaylor.html" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/march02/index.php3?ft=gaylor.html</a>

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table1.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/table1.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/02/19/ncguest2.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/02/19/ncguest2.htm</a>

(This next URL addresses several of your concerns.)

<a href="http://www.pta.org/events/legconf/00/downloads/LBCard2000_BW.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.pta.org/events/legconf/00/downloads/LBCard2000_BW.pdf</a>

&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&g t;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

Now I will attempt to respond to some of your sincere and candid views in a like manner.

Pragmatically, what harm does it do me if another couple sends their kid to a Christian school?

I guess a great deal would depend on your definition of "harm." Personally I feel harmed when tax money is used to promote religious indoctrination ...of any kind. I have nothing at all against parents electing to have their children indoctrinated in the family supernatural faith belief...at their own expense...but not mine. The more tax money that goes to religious schools, the more money is available to that religious institution (Sect or Denomination) to dedicate to promoting and expanding their religious dogma programs. Additionally, private schools, whether secular or sectarian are not required to meet the same reporting or administrative criteria as are the state public schools.

Overall, I do not see teens actively assisted by their schooling in becoming open-minded, tolerant, thoughtful people, much less knowledgeable and capable of contributing in a positive way to society - or more importantly - leading a fulfilling life! Rather, I see a micro-culture that is intimidating, structured impersonally, and tradition-bound.

In how many public schools have you taught...across the country. --- I know! That was an unfair question based on the information you thoughtfully provided. However, given the religious/scientific myopia in your school district, it isn't difficult for anyone to see why you have arrived at the beliefs you have just expressed. I guess I would like to know if you thought that public schools had ever accomplished the any of the items you list above? If so, what went wrong? Why aren't they doing today what they were able to do yesterday? Too much government interference? Too much social engineering promoted by the "liberal" left administrators/teacher's unions? Too much dereliction of parental responsibilities...foisted off onto the public schools? Too many law suits? Too much/too little parental interest? Exactly what happened to bring about this BS that America's public education system is failing? What percent of it is actually failing? Does anyone "honestly" know? Why were promotion/graduation standards lowered? Why aren't incompetent teachers fired..or forced to take remedial teaching skills courses in order to remain within the profession? So many important questions and so few accurate answers.

An environment where they might actually be inspired to learn various subjects because it will teach them to think and help them become a well-rounded person. Encouragement to pursue their interests. Guided to knowledge not preached to.

Learning a specific subject doesn't necessarily teach a student to critically process that knowledge. I can appreciate why you choose to discuss secondary students rather then primary ones. However, it is in the home and the primary classrooms where the process of critical thinking skills should be first taught. By the time a student reaches high school, they should be prepared to hone the new knowledge and skills they are taught into citizenship uses. Whenever there is disharmony between a school's administrative and teaching staffs, that school is going to begin to have serious troubles carrying out its educational mandate. Then we run into the issue of whether the state is the appropriate level of responsibility/authority to set down the minimum standards which constitute a "well-rounded" high school graduate. What qualifies elected politicians to make this kind of determination? Is that not why we decide to have local, district, school boards? Perhaps the problem begins with our electing vested interest politicians to those positions rather than qualified educators.

To my knowledge, private schools aren't perfect solutions either. Something else must develop.

Hmmmmm? How about public schools capable of meeting the educational needs of the students and the community?

Your mention of "professional educators" almost made me laugh. They may have degrees and get paid to educate, but that definitely does not make them good at what they do.

True! That is a fact of life. It is also a condemnation of those programs that produce teachers for the classrooms. Further, it is a condemnation of those school districts who do not have the funds to attract the most qualified teachers to apply for positions. (And you wish to reduce the available funds by giving them to parents who may not be qualified to teach a dog to roll over.) No matter how hard some people will protest otherwise, we are dealing with a financial caste system when we talk about whom these vouchers are supposed to help. Failing public schools don't happen overnight. They happen because of years of neglect and under-funding...by those very politicians and parents who elect them. Florida went to a state lottery system because the monies were supposed to go to improving the public school system. HAH! Georgia's program puts Florida's to shame...but Jebbie Bush and his Christian Coalition legislature decided that Florida needed a Voucher Program to help improve education in the state. So now they can take what little lottery money does find its way into the public school system and give to individual parents to send their children to the Christian Coalition religious schools. (Naturally I'm exaggerating the situation slightly, but then I have lived here for over 22 years and have heard all the promises and lies. Prior to that, I had lived in or visited every state in the union, and many overseas nations. I feel rather strongly that I have had the opportunity to develop a broader basis of comparison than most folks.)

I read once that 75% of all people entering the teaching profession out of college quit in the first 5 years. Hey, I'm a statistic! I feel like the ones that stay are very status quo, or they become automations - go through the motions and go home. Pay the bills just like any other job.

I could view that statistic from an entirely different perspective. One could say that 75% of those coming out of today's colleges who enter the teaching profession simply don't have the proper credentials to be successful teachers/educators; but it takes then up to five years to grow up and discover this. That does not mean that many who do stay in the profession should not have left after the first or second year. However, I go back to my comment about the institutions that are producing these teachers and point my finger at them as one of the primary causes for this level of attrition. That does not mean that I don't appreciate the marching orders that they are given to produce more and more "qualified" teachers...in order to keep their Schools of Education filled with paying students. It is that quality control factor that needs a closer examination. (Here is one more of my personal asides.)

My Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) group started off with 120 of us reporting to Lackland AFB, TX. in Jan 1959. We had already fished college and passed the very rigid physical requirements which had already eliminated nearly 90% of those who desired to enter the program.. One year later, just slightly over 50% of us remained to receive our silver wings. If I had worked as hard in college as I did for that year in pilot training, I have every reason to believe that I would have graduated from college magna cum laude, laude, laude. (UPT was a real bitch when I went through.) However only a few short years later, when pilots were needed because of the War in Vietnam, many of the quality control features had been eliminated or softened to meet the manpower requirements.--- My point is that there are a goodly number of factors that contribute to why our public school education system is under review. Only the religious organizations, and their fellow travelers or propagandized innocents, are the ones claiming that it is failing. Education is a huge business with great sums of money at stake for many corporations. (Just look at publishing.) Vested interest educators, politicians, religious right zealots, far left ideologues, whatever, all wish to cash-in on those captive audience students. Most of these vested interests claim that they are placing the education of the students first. Hogwash! It will always remain the parent's ultimate responsibility for obtaining the best possible education for their children. The problem becomes in educating the parents on what is required to provide that education beyond financial aid. When the parents know the real requirements, that's when they can be more accurately, financially, quantified.

This isn't much of an answer to your very real and thought provoking post. However, as I mentioned at the beginning, there is an enormous amount of background information required in order to have a mutually beneficial discussion on why School Vouchers and Church-State are so closely related. Thank you for the splendid response...even if I don't agree with all your conclusions.

Added:

You might find the discussion I had with Alonzo. and several other posts, of some interest.

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000580" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000580</a>

[ August 27, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>