Forums | MacLife

Ribtorus wrote:

I thought one of the big arguments against government subsidy of institutions is that the prospect of interferance by the government in the operations of the institution.

Is it feasable that there can be an effective barrier between the government and the intitution it's subsidizing?

You make a good point.  However, public schools represent the synthesis of government and schooling.  You can't get any less separated than that, so in that sense subsidization has to be an improvement.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-24 7:24 pm)

resedit wrote:

People don't know what separation of church and state is - they change the meaning to be something it is not.
Try reading the amendment sometime.

Yes - Public schools CAN exist with separation of church and state.
Ever wonder why these issues didn't exist with public education back then?
The people who wrote the bill of rights actually knew what it meant.

First of all, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states when it was written, and there were no federal public schools in 1791.  Second, I don't think there were any public schools back then, at least not below the college level and even then not in any significant numbers.  Public schooling didn't become widespread until around the 1840's, when the Founders were dead.

Jefferson, of course, helped found and was the first president of UVA.  He was all in favor of providing religious education to those who wanted it at the university.  Take from that what you will.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-24 7:46 pm)

NAG wrote:

How are you going to guarantee everyone gets equal opportunity with the removal of public education?

Dammit, charon beat me to it.

Two things: 1) The standard is much lower than equal opportunity, since public education provides such unequal opportunity to students in its current form. 2) Giving enough of a subsidy to low-income households for education gives their children something approaching equal opportunity.

I gues a third thing is that "equal opportunity" can be legitimately interpreted merely as equal rights under the law rather than an entitlement.

resedit wrote:

charon wrote:

resedit wrote:

People don't know what separation of church and state is - they change the meaning to be something it is not.
Try reading the amendment sometime.

Yes - Public schools CAN exist with separation of church and state.
Ever wonder why these issues didn't exist with public education back then?
The people who wrote the bill of rights actually knew what it meant.

First of all, the Bill of Rights didn't apply to the states when it was written, and there were no federal public schools in 1791.  Second, I don't think there were any public schools back then, at least not below the college level and even then not in any significant numbers.  Public schooling didn't become widespread until around the 1840's, when the Founders were dead.

Jefferson, of course, helped found and was the first president of UVA.  He was all in favor of providing religious education to those who wanted it at the university.  Take from that what you will.

There weren't problems then either - or even throughout most of the 20th century.

Your history is still weak.  The Establishment Clause, which is the one almost always used to object to what goes on in public schools, was not even applied against the states until 1947.  The Free Exercise Clause was not "incorporated" into the 14th Amendment much earlier than that (near the time of the school Pledge of Allegiance cases in the mid-40's).  And since then there's been many, many court challenges to activity in public schools.

Last edited by charon (2005-02-24 9:07 pm)

bratboy wrote:

resedit wrote:

There weren't problems then either - or even throughout most of the 20th century.

Uhh...there weren't "problems" with a lot of things in the past that are no longer practiced (or allowed) in this country.

Those that wrote that amendment knew what the amendment meant - they wrote it.
All the separation of church and state (a term not in the constitution, btw) BS we have now is modern, similar (and often identical) situations existed back then.

The amendment says that the .gov will not establish or forbid a religion - it says nothing less, nothing more.
The problem is that "seperation of church and state" - a phrase not even in the amendment - is interpreted by uneducated non thinking masses - rather than reading what the actual text says, which says nothing about seperation of church and state - but rather, that the state won't institute a religion (ala Church of England) or forbid one.

resedit wrote:

Those that wrote that amendment knew what the amendment meant - they wrote it.
All the separation of church and state (a term not in the constitution, btw) BS we have now is modern, similar (and often identical) situations existed back then.

The amendment says that the .gov will not establish or forbid a religion - it says nothing less, nothing more.
The problem is that "separation of church and state" - a phrase not even in the amendment - is interpreted by uneducated non thinking masses - rather than reading what the actual text says, which says nothing about separation of church and state - but rather, that the state won't institute a religion (ala Church of England) or forbid one.

Wow.  In your world, it doesn't sound like the judiciary is necessary.  The law has one meaning.  Everything is clear.  Interesting.

The government is forbidden from using "cruel and unusual punishment."  What is "cruel?"  What is "unusual?"

The constitution allows for the judicial branch to interpret the law.  It is not "uneducated" to think that there is a "separation of church and state."  The Court has determined that this is implicit in the establishment clause.

Viola....separation of church and state.

Wow, what happened to this thread?