Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am suggesting that if one reads the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, one understands that the federal government should not be taxing it's citizens and spreading money to state public schools. it's the job of the STATE to collect the funds it needs to support their schools.
Having the federal government take money from people and "spread the wealth", for reasons not covered as the responsibility of the federal government is wrong. People are so up in arms over a supposed mistake, "separation of church and state", but turn their backs on an obvious, and determinate mishandling of what tax dollars are to be used for.
Okay, no federal tax monies for education. Are states then allowed to dictate religious beliefs to the people living in those states? For instance, is it okay for New Jersey to outlaw Catholics? Anyone found practicing Catholicism goes to jail, is fined, and faces deportation? Is it okay for Massachusetts to forbid Quakerism? Okay to hang them?
No buts, you people actually believe that you are not allowed to read a bible in public schools or pray in a public building or park. Oh how wrong you are.
Who believes that?
If a student wants to read a Bible in a public school during some free reading time or recess, etc - he certainly can.
If a person wants to pray in either the public square (such as a park) or in a place where government conducts it's business, he certainly can.
I am suggesting that if one reads the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, one understands that the federal government should not be taxing it's citizens and spreading money to state public schools. it's the job of the STATE to collect the funds it needs to support their schools.
I've read the Constitution, far more times that I ever have felt a need to as a result of these conversations, and I have yet to read a prohibition from funding public schools which the voting populace as supported since then enactment of the Land Ordinance of 1785. This was followed by the First Morrill Act in 1862 which donated public lands for the specific purpose of establishing at least one college for the teaching of agriculture and mechanic Arts, one such college was Cornell University. In 1867 the Department of Education was created to help states establish effective state school systems. In 1917 the Smith-Huges Act provided direct funding to states to insure the implementation of vocational education.
Now whether one argues that it is a matter of the commerce or general welfare, it is hard to deny that the Tax and Spend clause of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to fund public education something that would have been completely unnecessary IF the states had either the concern of ability to properly fund public education. And, anyone who would try to argue that in the absences of those concerns or inabilities that the Federal government didn't have a responsibility to step in to fill the gap in educational funding is either most disingenuous or willfully stupid.
Talk about turning one's back to the painfully obvious
If a student wants to read a Bible in a public school during some free reading time or recess, etc - he certainly can.
If a person wants to pray in either the public square (such as a park) or in a place where government conducts it's business, he certainly can.
There are many people on this forum who would disagree with you. Some of them have posted in this thread. They are die hard believers that you can't talk about, read about or even think about religion anywhere near a public place.
To answer your question I bolded above - the whole part you quoted clearly indicates the concept of separation of church and state.
If government cannot make laws respecting the establishment of religion, and if government also cannot prohibit free exercise of religion, then, in concept, how can church and state be anything but separate?
the first amendment only prevents congress from making laws regarding religion, it does NOT prevent church leaders from lobbying congress, or involving themselves in government in other ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Okay, no federal tax monies for education. Are states then allowed to dictate religious beliefs to the people living in those states? For instance, is it okay for New Jersey to outlaw Catholics? Anyone found practicing Catholicism goes to jail, is fined, and faces deportation? Is it okay for Massachusetts to forbid Quakerism? Okay to hang them?
going from one extreme to the other are we? while the states cannot outlaw religions, they can establish a state religion of their own. for instance if new york wanted the jewish religion to be the primary religion of the state, they technically would be allowed to do so under the first amendment. however due to supreme court rulings, the limitations of the first amendment have been pushed on state legislatures as well.
There are many people on this forum who would disagree with you. Some of them have posted in this thread. They are die hard believers that you can't talk about, read about or even think about religion anywhere near a public place.
Well then they are about as bright as Ms. O'Donnell.
Okay, no federal tax monies for education. Are states then allowed to dictate religious beliefs to the people living in those states? For instance, is it okay for New Jersey to outlaw Catholics? Anyone found practicing Catholicism goes to jail, is fined, and faces deportation? Is it okay for Massachusetts to forbid Quakerism? Okay to hang them?
Get real. That's a HUGE jump from requiring our elected representative follow the constitution, to states hanging people...
the first amendment only prevents congress from making laws regarding religion, it does NOT prevent church leaders from lobbying congress, or involving themselves in government in other ways.
Well you are quite correct to a point, Churches that hold a 501(c)3 exemption are restricted in the political activities not because they are religious but because of their tax status.
Quote:
going from one extreme to the other are we? while the states cannot outlaw religions, they can establish a state religion of their own.
That is patently false.
Quote:
due to supreme court rulings, the limitations of the first amendment have been pushed on state legislatures as well.
You are almost as bad as Ms. O'Donnell.
The Court has nothing to do with this limitation, but rather the 14th Amendment.
the first amendment only prevents congress from making laws regarding religion, it does NOT prevent church leaders from lobbying congress, or involving themselves in government in other ways.
going from one extreme to the other are we? while the states cannot outlaw religions, they can establish a state religion of their own. for instance if new york wanted the jewish religion to be the primary religion of the state, they technically would be allowed to do so under the first amendment. however due to supreme court rulings, the limitations of the first amendment have been pushed on state legislatures as well.
Of course the First Amendment doesn't prevent church leaders from lobbying Congress or from trying to have an influence. No one ever said that.
The states cannot establish a state religion of their own. Because of the Fourteenth Amendment. Because by establishing a primary religion, the state makes all other religions secondary, and promotes one religious doctrine. When it does so, it inhibits the practice of other religions. Something strictly forbidden by our Constitution. The individual states' actions do not happen in a vacuum. We are all Americans.
I've read the Constitution, far more times that I ever have felt a need to as a result of these conversations, and I have yet to read a prohibition from funding public schools which the voting populace as supported since then enactment of the Land Ordinance of 1785. This was followed by the First Morrill Act in 1862 which donated public lands for the specific purpose of establishing at least one college for the teaching of agriculture and mechanic Arts, one such college was Cornell University. In 1867 the Department of Education was created to help states establish effective state school systems. In 1917 the Smith-Huges Act provided direct funding to states to insure the implementation of vocational education.
Now whether one argues that it is a matter of the commerce or general welfare, it is hard to deny that the Tax and Spend clause of the Constitution gives the Federal government the power to fund public education something that would have been completely unnecessary IF the states had either the concern of ability to properly fund public education. And, anyone who would try to argue that in the absences of those concerns or inabilities that the Federal government didn't have a responsibility to step in to fill the gap in educational funding is either most disingenuous or willfully stupid.
Talk about turning one's back to the painfully obvious
I am stating that using Federal funds for state schools is not a job of the federal government. You can rationalize it any way you want. but it's for the States to fund.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow
