Posted on 07/11/2002 12:42:32 PM PDT by Lance Romance
He seems to be succeeding now that the Supreme Court has permitted the use of government money to support private schools, most of them religious.
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.
Bush has also proposed the use of government funds to support faith-based charities. A bill to accomplish that goal has been somewhat watered down from what he originally wanted. But the House has passed it and a similar version has been approved by the Senate Finance Committee.
The House measure would permit religious groups to compete with other private organizations for federal contracts to perform certain social services so long as recipients don't have to take part in religious activities. My question is why do we need religious institutions to do these things?
Bush, in his determination to inject religion into our secular lives, has also established, for the first time in history, a religious office in the White House. What next, Mr. President?
Of course, he is happy that the Supreme Court, in its 5-4 decision, now agrees with him. But in his jubilation, he got carried away and compared that ruling with the high court's famous -- and unanimous -- school desegregation decision in the case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
As a letter to the editor of the New York Times said this week, that "is like comparing Plessy v. Ferguson (which in 1896 upheld separate-but-equal laws) to the passage of the 14th Amendment," which after the Civil War gave former slaves citizenship rights.
The letter writer, Yale history professor Glenda Gilmore, said the court's voucher decision "eviscerates Brown by channeling public money to private schools, just as Plessy eviscerated the 14th amendment by legalizing segregation."
The Brown decision marked one of the great defining moments in our society. It transformed us and rejected the notion that we are two nations, white and black. It opened doors for African Americans, who had long been deprived of their basic human rights because of their race.
It lifted our image in the eyes of the world and inspired an enormous new spirit of tolerance in the country. And it strengthened the integrity and the inclusiveness of the public school system.
Does anyone in this administration respect the First Amendment? I'm beginning to wonder.
The amendment begins with the admonition that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
As Justice Stephen Breyer explained in his dissent in the voucher case, the so-called establishment clause embodies "an understanding, reached in the 17th century after decades of religious war, that liberty and social stability demand a religious tolerance that respects the religious views of all citizens ..."
Justice David A. Souter, in another dissent, noted that the court in 1962 forbade prayer in public elementary and secondary schools, recognizing the "anguish, hardship and bitter strife that could come when zealous religious groups struggle with one another to obtain the government's stamp of approval."
But an elated Bush said that vouchers are "a constructive approach to improving public education."
It would be much more constructive to provide public schools with better facilities, smaller classes and higher-paid teachers. That way the schools would improve vastly, and the students would profit from more teacher attention.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who allied himself with Bush in passing the president's education reform bill, parted company with him on vouchers. After the high court's June 27 ruling, Kennedy said, "Private school vouchers may pass constitutional muster, but they fail the test when it comes to improving our public schools. It's flat wrong to take scarce taxpayer dollars away from public schools and divert them to private schools."
In his efforts to spread religion in public institutions, Bush exhibits a missionary zeal. Even the most religious of our past presidents did not go that far. They kept their own spiritual views out of the public arena, showing that they understood their secular role.
Clearly, Bush, in wrapping religious cloaks around the presidency, has a goal that is alien to what the founders of our nation had in mind.
Has he missed the fact that the former Taliban rulers and the al-Qaida terrorists have used fundamentalist religion as the fuel for their brutal political ends? Lest anyone forget, millions of people fled to America, long before it became a nation, to escape religious oppression.
Given Bush's track record, it is reasonable to assume that he will try to tinker with other long-standing traditions upholding the separation of church and state. He reads the Bible every day for divine guidance. I wish he would also find time to read the U.S. Constitution once in a while.
Copyright 2002 by Hearst Newspapers. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
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.