Author Topic: Seperation of Church and State? (Read 3366 times)

Toad · « **Reply #45 on:** April 25, 2003, 11:02:17 AM »

Relax, MT. The program is available ONLY to "low income" families.

Quote

Under Spence's bill, the pilot program, would apply only to low-income students who have received failing scores on their CSAP tests. They would get funding equal to as much 85 percent of the per-student operating revenues that go to their public schools.

No more than 500 students in any single school district could participate. Priority would go to districts such as Denver Public Schools where eight or more schools have been rated "low" or "unsatisfactory" by the state.

The pilot program would be evaluated in 2008.

The rich get nothing, so you can stow your outrage.

The "poor", particularly those that are FAILING, get a shot at a way out, a chance to try a better school. Maybe the money will pay for it all, but it probably won't. It'll require a bit of a gamble on yourself and a willingness to sacrifice to "take the chance"... which is sort of what this country was all about.

As a double bonus, the "low" or "unsatisfactory" schools these kids come from get a reduced student/teacher ratio... a good thing... and 25% of the money they would have gotten had they had the individual voucher child enrolled. So, they have an improved student/teacher ration AND more dollars per student than they had before.

And it's only 500 students per district. If a school is so small that losing a few students prevents it from maintaining the physical plant, it should be merged into the nearest school. That's going on here in our older neighborhoods right now as homeowners age and no longer have the kids to send to the local school. It's life.

Win/win.

midnight Target · « **Reply #46 on:** April 25, 2003, 11:53:35 AM »

Quote

The rich get nothing,

nevermind.

Just don't be certifying schools that teach myth in place of science.

Arlo · « **Reply #47 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:24:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
I don't think the woman in your description should be allowed to wear her garb.

eskimo

Then you are against her freedom of religion which is one of the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in this country. She feels compelled by her religious belief to adhere to that dress code. She is the computer lab teacher at my daughter's school. I wouldn't dream of petitioning the school board to make her "dress neutrally." That's an extreme based on fear and ignorance. And you know what? Neither of my daughters have expressed an interest in becoming Muslim because of the way she dresses. Go figure.

Arlo · « **Reply #48 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:41:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AWMac
Must we ALWAYS leave the Bhuddists out of the BIG picture?

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Should one prefer a person who is just Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddist in name and not belief?

eskimo2 · « **Reply #49 on:** April 25, 2003, 12:59:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo
Then you are against her freedom of religion which is one of the most fundamental freedoms we enjoy in this country. She feels compelled by her religious belief to adhere to that dress code. She is the computer lab teacher at my daughter's school. I wouldn't dream of petitioning the school board to make her "dress neutrally." That's an extreme based on fear and ignorance. And you know what? Neither of my daughters have expressed an interest in becoming Muslim because of the way she dresses. Go figure.

When it comes to children, and government representatives, rules and rights can be different. Children, have special, or even limited right because of who they are, for obvious reasons.

I'm not "against her freedom of religion". I am against any gonernment employee expressing their religious beliefs in a public school, no matter how slight.

The vast majority of people would not be offended in such a case that you have described, but that is not the point. The point is, that in principle, the government is effectively endorsing a religion by allowing teachers to show or express their religious beliefs to students while in school. Its not something that we vote on, its not something that we let slide as long as no one expresses concern over it, its the constitution.

eskimo

eskimo

Karnak · « **Reply #50 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:43:12 PM »

I'm an atheist.

I think suspending the teacher was way out of line. I think even hinting that she shouldn't wear her cross would be way out of line.

Freedom of religion does not mean that one must censure expressions of personal belief to avoid offending unreasonable idiots.

If she had worn a item that said "Follow Jesus or burn in hell" I'd agree with reprimanding her because that is a statement directed against other people's beliefs. Wearing a cross is a personal statement for herself, not something that challenges any other reasonable person's beliefs and should not be censured in the context of Governement.

Arfann · « **Reply #51 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:44:00 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Arlo

Riiiight. And just skip over The First House Of Polyester Worship And Horizontal Throbbing Teenage Desire like it didn't exist.

Roberta, Roberta, Roberta.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #52 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:52:40 PM »

Karnak, if that were true- she would have no problem wearing it, yet not exposing it.

She insisted on leaving it outside of her shirt/blouse, she's a big girl, she can take the consequences for openly disobeying the administration... atleast twice.
-SW

Karnak · « **Reply #53 on:** April 25, 2003, 01:59:43 PM »

Hmm.

I don't have a problem with her proclaiming "I am a Christian".

It's not what I'd do, but as long as she is simply proclaiming what she is and not what others should be I don't see the problem. It only becomes a problem if she attempts to use her position as a public school teacher to proslytize to the children she is entrusted to teach or if she plays fovorites to the Christian children.

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #54 on:** April 25, 2003, 02:04:59 PM »

I don't either, but if she was warned twice about wearing the jewelry... then she can very well be punished for insisting on violating the administration and the rules set forth for them to enforce.
-SW

eskimo2 · « **Reply #55 on:** April 25, 2003, 02:33:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Hmm.

I don't have a problem with her proclaiming "I am a Christian".

It's not what I'd do, but as long as she is simply proclaiming what she is and not what others should be I don't see the problem. It only becomes a problem if she attempts to use her position as a public school teacher to proslytize to the children she is entrusted to teach or if she plays fovorites to the Christian children.

And where, exactly, do you draw the line? How do you define in absolute terms what is acceptable, and what is not? Who decides this?

eskimo

Karnak · « **Reply #56 on:** April 25, 2003, 02:39:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
And where, exactly, do you draw the line? How do you define in absolute terms what is acceptable, and what is not? Who decides this?

eskimo

Use common sense.

If it is a cross or a WWJD type thing, its a personal statement. If it is a shirt that says "Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell" it is a statement intended to affect others.

The things I've seen can all be easily classified into personal or directed at others. I don't think it would be too hard.

midnight Target · « **Reply #57 on:** April 25, 2003, 03:52:50 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
Use common sense.

If it is a cross or a WWJD type thing, its a personal statement. If it is a shirt that says "Believe in Jesus or burn in Hell" it is a statement intended to affect others.

The things I've seen can all be easily classified into personal or directed at others. I don't think it would be too hard.

Now THAT is scary!

Use who's common sense? Should the teacher be able to wear a burkha? What if she is a satanist, how about a pentagram? The school board was dead on in this case.

Silat · « **Reply #58 on:** April 25, 2003, 04:47:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by funkedup
Wow, that's messed up. So much for religious freedom.

FU ?? Whose religious freedom are you talking about?:}

Arlo · « **Reply #59 on:** April 25, 2003, 04:52:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
I'm an atheist.

I think suspending the teacher was way out of line. I think even hinting that she shouldn't wear her cross would be way out of line.

Freedom of religion does not mean that one must censure expressions of personal belief to avoid offending unreasonable idiots.

If she had worn a item that said "Follow Jesus or burn in hell" I'd agree with reprimanding her because that is a statement directed against other people's beliefs. Wearing a cross is a personal statement for herself, not something that challenges any other reasonable person's beliefs and should not be censured in the context of Governement.

Thanks, Karnak.