Bill Armstrong wants tax money for religious schools
I wonder if Bill gave even a fleeting moment of thought to the various religious groups that might be thrilled to receive tax money even if tax payers are outraged. How many Americans want to pay taxes to support Wahabbist schools teaching young Muslims hatred of Western culture? How many war-loving right wingers want our tax money to support a Quaker education teaching pacifism? Imagine my outrage if I heard that CCU was using my tax money to teach creationist nonsense instead of science.
The founding fathers got it right by separating church and state. Religion is much too divisive for government to be taking sides.
How many "Wahabbist schools teaching young Muslims" to hate America do you think there are in Colorado? How many students do you think such a school would have? How much money do you think the oil-rich, royal House of Saud family would need from the state if they decided to open one? How many Mercedes 600-class limos would it take to carry the Saudi money into the state to fund this school? How different do you think their curriculum would be from, say, Ward Churchill's brand of "hate America" philosophy, which he was allowed to teach at CU for so many years? How big a house of cards do you want to build for this argument?
Michael T.
No house of cards at all. That's what the whole "voucher" business is all about; money for "private education" - read parochial/religious - and has been what the "voucher" business is all about right from the git-go.
The letter writer may have used an extreme example - and he probably did; but, extreme or not, it was a valid one. NO TAX MONEY for church schools!
And Armstrong is supporting the drive for tax money to fund religion/religious works. Just as the Right-wingnuts have called for since parochial education began to compete with - and try to destroy - the Public School system.
Posted by Old Grouch on March 31, 2007 04:14 PMOld Grouch-
Are you sure this is the argument you really want to make? You would probably do better to settle for saying the writer was using hyperbole to make his point; that would be a defensible argument.
To say that the “Wahabbist school” example is merely the furthest extreme of legitimate examples of what could happen begs conservatives to give actual examples of extremism from the public school system as it is- like, geography teachers that compare modern America to Nazi Germany and say they are similar, like writing political letters as a class project in grade school- including telling the students what (leftist) political position they will take in the letters, like a public university professor who writes into the course catalog that conservative students should take a different section, etc. There is no shortage of that sort of thing.
Your assertion that people who support vouchers are out to destroy the public school system is another example of the kind of extremism that really happens in the system we have. It not only miss characterizes the “pro-choice on schools” position, but it also doesn't make sense mathematically. So far as I know, no school voucher system awards vouchers in the same amount as what the public schools spend per pupil already. That means that every time a student gets a voucher and leaves public education for private, there is a higher per capita total left in the budget for the remaining students. Since the teachers' unions tell us that higher spending is the key to better education, that should help the public school system give a higher quality of education, not hurt it. And in fact, one of the main arguments in favor of vouchers is that competition helps to spur excellence. Most pro-vouchers types that I have ever heard or read believe that the result will be a better public school system, not a destroyed public school system.
Old Grouch, only one side of this argument wants to control what other peoples children get for education- and it is not my side, but yours.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 31, 2007 06:53 PM"An extreme example", "hyperbole", so . . . ? One of many, over-stressed or exaggerated. Synonymous. As was your reply, when you brought up Saudi Arabia.
Having read a good many of these postings, I know I would be "shot down in flames" if I actually wrote the history of the "voucher" - or "grants in aid", or "alternative programs fudning" - movement(s). Suffice it to say that the purpose was - has always been - that of using tax monies to support private (read religious) schools. Today's fragmentation of private interests, and competing demands for tax money, is only a part of the long running, and continuously agressive , attacks on the separation of church and state that have marked the years.
You spoke of "not making sense mathematically". Yet you went right on to to say that "every time a student gets a voucher and leaves public education for private, there is a higher per capita total left in the budget for remaining students." Or, in other words, each time a $1,000 is taken out of the till, there is more left in for use than was there in the first place. DUH!
Seems as if we had a town (or other taxing entity or district) in these parts that tried that kind of "sense in mathematics" recently. Went broke, and had to be bailed out, and have its whole fiscal management overhauled and restructured, if I remember correctly.
But then again, I had my arithmetic by way of public schools - and hard knocks in business - so I guess I shouldn't criticize.
The "argument" is not about "control (over) what other people's children get for education", Mike. That's one of those wonderful fallacies that hides the fundamentals under false rhetoric.
The matter is one of use of tax dollars to support religious education - or indoctrination, which it really is - contrary to the 1st Amendment which calls for separation of church and state.
Or, if you prefer it by way of slogans: Tax support for Colorado University, Colorado State University, Northern Colorado University, Southern Colorado University, Metropolitan State College, etc., etc.? FINE AND DANDY!
Tax dollars for Colorado Christian University, Colorado Catholic University, Rockmont Bible University, etc.? NOT JUST NO, BUT H--- NO!
Posted by Old Grouch on March 31, 2007 09:19 PM
Okay, let me help you with your math:
If you have 100 students, each funded at, say, $6000/year funding from the state. That's $600,000- are you with me so far? (The real funding is actually higher than that- stunning when you think of it.)
Now, lets say 10 of these students leave, and get a voucher for $4000 each. We are left with only $560,000 total for the public school of 100 kids- but there are only 90 students left there. That means that now each student is funded at the level of a bit over $6,222 each- a net increase of funding per student of $222, or, a 3.7% gain in funding per student. Understand? By the way, if you were right and it destroyed public schools, then al students would go to private schools, and the budget would leave a $200,000 surplus, per 100 students. This could be used for special education students'needs, or to cut taxes, or whatever. We should be so lucky. Do you follow the math now?
Glad I could help you with that. Now let's move on to our English lesson:
“Hyperbole” is not really the same thing as “an extreme example.” Here's a dictionary definition for hyperbole:
1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”
An "extreme example" could be something that could conceivably happen, like this:
“How big is a horse? Horses vary in size and weight. Most would probably fal btween 800-1200 pounds, but, as 'an extreme example,' a Clydesdale horse may go as high as 2200 pounds in body weight.” The same question answered in “hyperbole” might be “Some of them seem as big as a house!”
So, if you wanted to say that “Wahabbist schools” are not really the issue, but are an obvious exaggeration by the author to make a point, then my answer is equally exaggerated and doesn't really address the issue in any practical way. Had you said that, I would have to reformulate an argument. But, if you say, “Wahabbist schools” are an actual concern, or, in your words, “a valid example,” then we're back to that house of cards again, aren't we? Because the reality is that we do have standards for education that even private schools have to follow, and we do have county Social Services that would call suicide-bomber training for school-age kids “abusive,” and, frankly, because it's silly to compare American parochial schools to Wahabbist madrassahs to begin with.
Now, I realize this is getting long, but indulge me for a moment more and we will get to Applied Anthropology, or Cross-Cultural Sociology. Because one group that tends to favor school vouchers is African-Americans. Is that because they are all Southern Baptists? No, sorry to disappoint you. It's because their kids are disproportionately trapped in inner-city schools where education is poorly accomplished and which are sometimes even a dangerous environment. And throwing money at the problem hasn't helped much so far. Most of those folks aren't interested in what you call “religious indoctrination.” They are interested in getting their kids into learning environments that give their kids a chance to make it into college, or get a better job, or just plain be well-educated, and be safe at the same time. So, you see, “vouchers” aren't only about parochial schools after all, though there's no reason parochial schools shouldn't be allowed to compete. I would want my kids in the best school available, whether you think they should be taught religion there or not.
Posted by Michael Trimble on March 31, 2007 10:13 PMThere is a problem with your math. The cost to the school of teaching the 90 kids is the almost the same as the cost of teaching the 100 kids. Assuming that the ten "missing" kids are from different classes, the school would have to have the same number of teachers, it would still have to heat the building, provide buses, stock the library, have special education services, etc., except with less money,. The only savings would be a slight cost savings in buying textbooks and workbooks, except that most districts buy those books in bulk, so the savings is negligible. Because the school has fewer students, however, it might get fewer teachers, increasing class sizes.
Posted by Jane on March 31, 2007 10:59 PMJane, it doesn't quite work out the way you paint it.
Let's use Douglas County public school figures. Of the $600,000 for 100 kids, how much goes for each part of the budget (2006 figures)?
Teaching: 70% That's $420,000 for “direct teaching.” How many teachers do 100 kids NEED? Even with books and supplies, that's a staggering sum for every 100 kids. With 6 teachers (more than current averages for that number students) that leaves something near $200,000 per 100 kids past eacher salaries.
Operations and maintenance: 8% $48,000. I could buy a new building for 100 kids every 5 years with that budget (to be fair, this figure also goes for football fields, gymnasiums, pools, libraries, etc.- but still, that's A LOT of money each year for every 100 students).
Administration: 7% $42,000 This one is hard for people to put into scale, but figure you have $42,000 for someone to do the paperwork, write the checks for the bills, deal with teachers benefits, etc., for every 100 kids. Since even one person could hardly be kept busy full time for the support of 100 students, it leaves a lot of slush.
Transportation: 4% $24,000. That's $133/day for each school day for 100 kids. This may be the most realistic part of the budget- except most kids don't need the school to provide transportation. I don't know what that works out to per student that actually takes the bus. At $13 a day per kid, if half of them need a ride ($26/day per kid transported), you could probably send a taxi for each one- and then they would have seat belts!
There's another 11% in stuff called “Transfers” (Fed Ex-ing transcripts? Or what?) and “General Administration” and “Other Central Services” (I suppose that means administration outside of the school building itself, but I don't know that for sure)
The fact is, our system is fat, like everything else government does. And that's okay, because nothing is too good for our kids. But since too many people are NOT getting anything like, at least, “just good enough,” I want them to have a chance to go outside the system, and I want the money that is supposed to be going for this to still go for this- WHEREVER the kids go to school. If 10% of students leave, and the schools still get 93% of the money anyway, then they should be able to take that out of everything other than direct teaching costs, have the same number of teachers and books and pencils, and still be ahead.
BTW, the $6,000 per student number was a guess. In 2002-2003, the real expenditure per student was $7384, so we are actually working with more money than my figures show- $130,000 more for 100 students, 3 years ago. Also, my estimate of 75% for proposed vouchers was not far off, but not exact. The 2003 voucher law signed by the governor, but killed in court before implementation was for 37.5% of the yearly cost per student of kindergarten, up to 85% of the yearly cost per student of high school (we should probably expect more parents to request vouchers as students go up in grades, but we don't know how many more, so it is conceivable that the cost would exceed 75% of public school costs, but unlikely, under the previous model). In 2002-2003, there were an average 17.1 students per teacher.
Your ignorance of the Constitution is typical of thos in the anti-choice movement.
There's no 1st Amendment issue with vouchers...the SCOTUS has already ruled on that.
Read the Amendment, it limits the power of the Government from prohibiting the FREE EXCERCISE of religion. When a parent gets to choose the religious school - that's FREE EXERCISE.
If you're going to speak for the Founders, get it right. The Bible was a classroom text for the 150 years in American schoolhouses.
It wasn't until the turn of the last century when the authors of our modern government school monopoly began implementing their plan to dumb-down American children with Soviet-style socialist indoctrination that things changed.
"Teaching school children to read was a perversion and high literacy rate bred the sustaining force behind individualism."
- John Dewey, Marxist/Atheist
"The Department of Education should be "revolutionized, cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism, and the general ethics of the new Socialist society."
- William Foster
The architects of government schooling have succeeded, that’s proven by the illiteracy rates of public school graduates.
A reader yesterday further illustrates this point in her comment to Rachel Norwoods Excessive CSAP Testing letter...
"My child’s last year CSAPS were a total disappointment. She scored proficient, but I don't understand how you are proficient if you score a 445 out of a 950."
"She scored below proficient in grammer [sic] and spelling. I kept asking her 1st,2nd,and 3rd grade teachers why they were not correcting spelling and teaching grammer[sic] when grading writing. I was told we don't do that. We like to encourage the children to write any way they want without grading or correcting spelling and grammer.[sic]"
Looks to me like it's time for some separation of Education and State.
Michael T,
Thank you so much for the English lesson. The letter writer's example can't be "hyperbole", because it "can't happen", and is "not to be taken seriously". Also, it cannot be called an "exterme example", because it's not "really an issue". Again, because "it can't happen". Very enlightening.
As to the math: You assume that the voucher is going to be smaller than the local cost per pupil; while at one and the same time you want "competition" to provide a "better education". Or, in other words - of poor English of course - the private school is going to do a better job on less funding. And again you assume that what is left will be distributed "per capita" for those who don't leave the local public school.
As assumed, perhaps, you have made your point. I apologize for not recognizing that your assumptions over-ride some years of experience sitting on budget committees, and trying to actually come out with something workable in the real world.
"How many teachers do 100 kids NEED?", you ask. But, you certainly do not even attempt to answer. Are you asking this for 100 in a single-room, all subjects, grade? Or is the question directed to a school with a system that has separate classrooms for different subjects, and the requisite number of teachers to cover? Or - perish the thought - are you just saying that 100 kids in a classroom is a number that any teacher should be able to teach, to your specifications of performance as a teacher?
Of course, in a perfect world there are a lot of "should be" factors. Many of which you have covered. Since education has to deal with the real world, are you really saying that these "should be" factors would be better realized in private schools? Perhaps you would be kind enough to give some proof of this, since the argument for taking tax dollars out of the system does seem to hang on the assumption that this is so?
Tim Prince,
I can only suggest you read "Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, where you will find the Supreme Court decisions - both of State and Federal origin - concerning separation of church and state.
"The Federalist Papers", and Jefferson's writings concerning his work to establish separation in Virginia also might be of service here.
No one is suggesting that the "free exercise thereof (religion)" is being prohibited. Every religion has the right to preach, teach, and otherwise exercise its own ceremonies, etc., as guaranteed. This includes, of course, building schools, and requiring members of the cultus to have their children educated in them.
What is at issue here - as it has been for some 2 Centuries now - is whether or not public money (tax dollars) may be used in that free exercise.- including schools for the young - as it was in the Colonies, before the adoption of the Constitution and 1st 10 Amendments, where there were "established" religious groups, whose funding was from taxes.
The 1st Amendment was designed to eliminate ALL FORMS of "establishment". (Read Jefferson, who wrote most of it to begin with.) And, with the ending of "establishment", came also the ending of public money (taxes) to pay for any and all "exercise of religion".
That the Bible was used in classrooms as a form of text-book is no grounds for asking for tax dollars for private (religious) schools today. And in case after case, over the Centuries, the Supreme Court has made this clear. The Bible can be - and is - used as "literature", or in other ways, as a text. BUT, the private (religious) school cannot be funded from tax dollars. The two are not equal, either as propositions, or as issues.
It is easy to use labels and tags; but they are not always accurate. No one here is "anti-choice" when it comes to the RIGHT of parents to choose to educate their children outside the public school system - as many do, including "home schooling", for instance.
The basics here are, simply, that those who want to exercise their right of choice also expect everyone else to pay for it, by taking tax dollars for their own use. When it comes to those private schools that ARE NOT of specific RELIGIOUS character - and have some form of CIVIL (Secular) management and administration - i.e., Charter Schools in Colorado, as one example - the voucher system becomes a matter of local control over expenditure; and has been ruled to be within the framework of proper expenditure of tax monies.
The other part of that, however, is, simply, that tax monies - by voucher or otherwise - are still not to be spent for, or on, RELIGION; and/or "religious education" as such.
Sorry for my "ignorance of the Constitution", Mr. Prince. I had my Constitutional Law courses a while back; and I didn't know that things were so different today.
Posted by Old Grouch on April 1, 2007 08:26 AMOld Grouch-
“Thank you so much for the English lesson. The letter writer's example can't be "hyperbole", because it "can't happen", and is "not to be taken seriously". Also, it cannot be called an "extreme example", because it's not "really an issue". Again, because "it can't happen". Very enlightening.”
You are quite welcome, I'm happy I could help. There does appear to be some remedial work left to be done, though. You're gratitude is so rewarding, of course I'll be happy to continue. This time, let us undertake the study of Logic:
I did not say the original letter could not be hyperbole. In fact, I recommended that argument to you. Instead, you said it was an “extreme example” and that it was “valid,” after I answered what I found to be an absurd assertion with absurd arguments, and called the discussion “a house of cards.” The argument therein is that, if the author's exaggerated premise is accepted, the ridiculous arguments against it would have to also be accepted. You validated my arguments when you validated the example the author used. Your subsequent response that my arguments were “exaggerated,” which you made in the later post, is an abrupt change of direction on your part. Let me suggest that you can't have it both ways, though that was my original position. So, perhaps you are simply saying I persuaded you to my view on that issue? Somehow, I didn't get that idea from your post... well, water under the bridge, as they say. I'm content with your apparent eventual conclusion that comparing American parochial schools to Wahabbist madrassahs is not a realistic argument. Happily, we seem to have reached our first agreement. Shall we plunge onward, then?
“You assume that the voucher is going to be smaller than the local cost per pupil; while at one and the same time you want "competition" to provide a "better education". Or, in other words - of poor English of course - the private school is going to do a better job on less funding. And again you assume that what is left will be distributed "per capita" for those who don't leave the local public school.”
On the contrary, I make no assumptions of the sorts you mention. I specifically indicated that the voucher sums were taken from my memory of examples passed in the legislature already, and then I cited a reference to show the 75% figure was not unreasonable, but not exact. Still, in the interests of amiable discourse, let me stipulate that in all discussions of vouchers, what I support will be less than the current spending on a per student basis. Competition will ultimately lower the costs anyway, so I am not giving up anything of substance in the argument. In fact, it is intrinsic to the argument for vouchers that public schools are grossly inefficient with the funding they get. (Perhaps I should mention, though, that regardless of the substance of your argument, your use of English here is adequate. Don't be so hard on yourself.)
My “assumption” that private schools do a better job is easily supported, though in a moment I will tell you why I need not make that assumption. Here is a quote from a National Assessment of Educational Progress study, entitled, “Student Achievement in Private Schools, 2000-2005”:
“For each assessment discussed in this report at each grade, students as a whole in every category of private schools had a higher average score than their counterparts in public schools.” This from a study that purports to show that private school students do NOT excel past public school students (by means of rigorous, if not to say ridiculous, tautology)... imagine the quotes from the multitudinous studies that conclude they DO excel past their public school counterparts.
Link to the study: nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006459.pdf
Link to rebuttal of authors conclusions: www.capenet.org/Outlook/Out2-06.html#Story3
But, as I mentioned, it is not necessary that I assume private schools are better. I merely assume that parents will choose the schools that do the best job. Obviously, few parents will deliberately choose to send their children to substandard schools. At worst, negligent parents will pay no attention to what schools their children attend, in which case the “default” position will have the children attending public schools.
In regard to how the “remaining funds” are distributed, let me say, I don't care how they are distributed. I cannot conceive that, if vouchers were available, I would have any children of my own left in public schools. Since other parents would have the same options, let the public schools do as they see fit with remaining money, and convince the parents of children attending that it is used well.
The final comments you made which I will address here:
"'How many teachers do 100 kids NEED?', you ask. But, you certainly do not even attempt to answer.”
Again, on the contrary. I observe that with 6, there is a substantial portion of the budget remaining, and that is more teachers than public schools currently average per 100 students in Colorado (16.67 vs. 17.1 students per teacher). In fact, I think this number is too high- that is, the number of teachers. I attended class rooms of 25 to over 30, and it appears I did just fine (though it occurs to me that you might like to dispute that conclusion.) In fact, test scores have been falling ever since I was in public school, even while classes are getting smaller. Teacher/student ratios do not appear to be the issue causing the problems. Other countries with better school performance seem to average much higher student to teacher ratios than ours, anyway, particularly in Asia. As to class rooms and grade levels, of course you know this example was made as a small scale model for ease of understanding. But your suggestion that all the students might be taught together has been tried. The example I am familiar with was at Damon Runyon Elementary School in Littleton in the 1970's and 1980's. The experiment was discontinued years ago, as I understand, because it was a dismal failure. I know of one principle from a more traditional public school model who commented to a parent of a Damon Runyon student, “It's a zoo over there [without separate class rooms]- send your son to me, I'll take him and get him in a real classroom.” This in response to the parent's concern that their child was not learning well. It seems to me that public schools are too credulous of “innovative” ideas for education, and far too willing to experiment with our children.
Well, Michael, I'd like to meet the "principle" of that school who invited the parent over. First time I heard of an abstract, disembodied, entity up and walking around - outside of fantasy/science-fiction that is.
As to teaching all pupils in one classroom, when did that stop being the norm in the lower elementary grades? I know that the Middle School system began using the Home Room-separate classroom by subject format when it replaced the old Junior High; but I hadn' heard that it went below 6th grade as yet. Of course, depending on numbers enrolled in the district,- or the boundaries of a given school building - one does find more than one 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc., grade classroom in the building; But generally speaking only Art and/or Music, or both, bring a different teacher into the class at that level, or have the youngsters moving from one classroom to another classroom for those subjects.
You did just fine, Michael, regardless of class size. But the comparrison to other countries takes for granted that their system is much more similar to ours than is factual. Our public schools are there for ALL our children. And while that is true elsewhere also, the principal difference is the greater homogeneity of foreign populations, where language and cultural diversities are not a major factor in dealing with large numbers. And in those foreign naations experiencing the influx of former "colonials", and "refugees", the smooth operation of the classroom with high numbers of pupils is beginning to encounter many of the same problems as can be found in America today.
And, all in all, while having engaged in an enjoyable encounter, we really have managed to wander far afield from the original point: The matter of tax monies for RELIGIOUS schools.
I've tried to return to that in my reply to Tim Prince above; and I really don't have anything to add there.
We'll never agree - in principle - concerning the relative QUALITY of public v. private education. And in many ways, that is to be deplored. Not least because it manages to cloud, obfuscate, and otherwise muddy up the basic idea of CHOICE.
Which of course, is exactly what the RELIGIOUS school people want to have happen. Divert the energy and effort away from the principal point; and take advantage of the confusion, and emotionally offensive/defensive argumentation, to do an end run around the 1st Amendment, and get RELIGION'S hands into the tax till.
And there, as I posted elsewhere, the only answer is, NOT JUST NO, BUT H*** NO!
(And whoever edits this web seems to have cut that posting out - as well as a few others where I get a bit too emphatic. But, them's the breaks. And it is the Rocky's website.)
Posted by Old Grouch on April 1, 2007 07:28 PMOld Grouch-
Yes, please do excuse my unfortunate error with "principle" vs. “principal” (and here, I confess, I am tempted to juxtapose your disdain for the issues of synonyms with your enthusiasm for catching out homonyms, but of course, you are indeed correct, and that would be nothing but trite and petty antipathy- regardless of how fun- so, I will resist temptation. I just didn't want you to think I overlooked the opportunity presented.. ; )
The example I gave of all children in one classroom was actually in having all the children of one grade in one, large room. Several teachers moved freely among the students which would normally have been several classrooms worth, so to speak, so much so that some students were unable to identify who “their teacher” actually was. It was not a successful endeavor.
You are exactly right regarding one reason (likely the most significant single reason) for the substantial differences between US and Asian schools- which begs the question of why our public school teachers so overwhelmingly seem committed to the “diversity” model of addressing culture. Asian cultures appear to be far more demanding in terms of acculturation, and while some problems are indeed coming up, overall it seems to serve the students better. Of course, Asian cultures do not worship at the alter of self-esteem, either, as ours appears intent on doing, so perhaps that is why there is less dissent regarding acculturation.
And, yes, I generally avoid the argument of religious schools vis-a-vis the establishment clause. I simply think that sometimes old law is overturned in courts, and if we need to, we can change the constitution to allow for school choice to include religious schools. I think your earlier argument is the real issue: establishment-public-school types really object to the diversion of funding. The constitutional argument is support for the commitment you and others have for the public school system, sincerely held, and it could be bypassed by one means or another if we had consensus on the rest of the voucher question. We do not. But surely you recognize that for pro-voucher folks, the issue is not money, per se. It is funding for schools that they (we) think would do a better job, or could be made to do a better job, absent the inertia, political considerations, and bureaucratic nonsense of government-run institutions.
Thank you for this exchange. I agree, I did enjoy it- and you put up with my tone admirably. In fact, you have inspired me to consider that, since you named your self so honestly “Old Grouch,” perhaps I should consider taking the screen name, “Young and Condescending Whipper-snapper.” Well, perhaps I would if I were younger... "Middle-Aged Whipper-snapper" just doesn't have the same ring, does it?
Posted by Michael Trimble on April 1, 2007 08:44 PMThe Founding Fathers had relatively immediate experience with the matter of both established cults and religious schools. The Salem Witch Trials, for just one example.
They were, of course, not unaware of the useful aspects of myths and legends - oral or written - in the area of wise sayings applicable to all forms of civil affairs. And, while not necessarily quoting - or "proof-texting" - one can discern throughout their writings their familiarity with particularly pointed and explicit ones.
As one reads through their writings, one is led to that passage in the Bible which tells us: "A house divided against itself cannot stand.". And the object and purpose of the framers of the Constitution was to construct a "political house" that would stand for as long as humanly possible.
A rather constant theme among these men is the danger of divisiveness, and/or allowing any form of inherently divisive ideology or practice to have place in the government of the new Union. After all, the example of fragmentation in the Colonies themselves gave good foundational evidence for their position; as well as the total inablility of those entities to manage to hold together as a stable union under the Articles of Confederation.
They recognized that there is nothing more divisive under the sun than "religion". Then, as now. And further, they knew that no attempt at Union would last if there were any form of "extablished religion" bound up in its governmental structure.
Indeed, many of the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention refused to sign, or present the document to their States for ratification, until and unless there were absolute guarantees that the proposed Union would never degenerate into another Theocratic quagmire.
It isn't just "old law", Michael, subject to the whims of the court. It is the foundation upon which our system of law rests. And when you propose to tamper with this, for whatever imagined current benefit, you should have significantly better argument and premise than the idea of "consensus", or that of just getting rid of, or changing, "old law".
Posted by Old Grouch on April 2, 2007 08:19 AMOld Grouch-
You can't be serious... you are going to suggest that the constitution is not a "living document"? Surely this is merely a case of whose ox is being gored.
As I 'm sure you know, even the Supremes are overturned by later courts from time to time. As I'm sure you also know, there has always been debate about the lines between "establishment of religion" and "free exercise of religion.” These are murky waters, and it takes only a small current to move one away from one, towards another. But your argument is shaky for a different reason entirely. Earlier, you went to some trouble to show how the fact that the Bible was once used as a school text has no bearing today. How is it, then, that the work of the founding fathers is so crucial now that their original thoughts must rule the day? And how is it that you make these arguments that “establishment of religion” applies so strictly, since it did not at that time? These are the men who started their work in congress each day with a Christian prayer. These are the men who, more often than not, said that morality and religion were the only hope for civilized society, and that one does not exist without the other.
If you REALLY want to go back to what we saw the founding fathers actually DOING, you will lose ground in your argument, not gain it.