Obama Discriminates Against Schoolkids

[del]

How is it unconstitutional?

And do they teach religion there, or is it just run by Quakers? If it's just run by Quakers, and doesn't teach religion, how is it unconstitutional?

And why should poor people not be allowed to attend?

if it's just run by quakers, the funding is NOT unconstitutional. if they teach ONE religion, it IS. and I dont know which of those categories it falls under.

they meet to worship once a week, so it is unconstitutional.

 

[AllieBaba]

it's a quaker school.

afraid unconst. then. would you agree?

insofar as the first amendment has been interpreted, yes.

i don't necessarily agree with the interpretation that giving vouchers to individuals to spend as the individual decides is the govt supporting one religion over another, though.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you make a law that makes it impossible for poor children to attend the same schools rich children attend, you are making a law that prohibits the free exercise thereof.

 

[FactFinder]

Washington chased the Quakers out years ago. Too peaceful you know.

Just looked. It is a Quaker School.

Does that mean that there is a violation of separation with undue influence at PTA?

 

[AllieBaba]

How is it unconstitutional?

And do they teach religion there, or is it just run by Quakers? If it's just run by Quakers, and doesn't teach religion, how is it unconstitutional?

And why should poor people not be allowed to attend?

if it's just run by quakers, the funding is NOT unconstitutional. if they teach ONE religion, it IS. and I dont know which of those categories it falls under.

they meet to worship once a week, so it is unconstitutional.

Bullshit. I don't see that in the first amendment.

Besides which, is it required?

 

[elvis]

I think post #21 gives us our answer.

 

[FactFinder]

Here from their website:

Aims of Quaker Education
A Friends school hopes to offer a community that cares deeply about what kind of persons its members, young and old, are becoming, what goals and motives are effective in their lives, what their response is to the high calling of being human. They hope to be communities of those who have, not only techniques and knowledge, but also a vivid relationship to reality, a hunger for worship, a passion for truth, and the experience of growth in the Light.

Quaker education does not seek to inculcate a particular set of beliefs or doctrines; it seeks to nurture a particular sort of personhood - a person who knows deep down that sight, taste, touch, smell, and hearing are not all there are to life; a person who, in an age of rampant materialism, has first-hand experience of the reality and importance of the Spirit in life; a person rooted as much in the unseen as in the seen, as much in the spiritual as in the physical; a person who has capacity for reverence, and who is as well equipped to experience the Spirit as to do work in the world.

This is a person who has learned that truth, beauty, goodness, and love are evidences of the transforming power of the Spirit and everywhere imbued with meaning; a person who is optimistic about the ability of love and good will to mend the affairs of humanity; a person who has begun to develop the courage to testify outwardly to what he or she knows inwardly; a person who has the courage to follow the inward argument where it leads.

Quaker education represents a unique combination of academic excellence and spiritual depth.

I don't know if the elitists want their kids anywhere near that truth thing. That could very well be an Obamanation.

 

[del]

if it's just run by quakers, the funding is NOT unconstitutional. if they teach ONE religion, it IS. and I dont know which of those categories it falls under.

they meet to worship once a week, so it is unconstitutional.

Bullshit. I don't see that in the first amendment.

Besides which, is it required?

allie, i don't give a rat's ass what you see or don't see in the first amendment.
that's how it's been interpreted and until that changes, it's unconstitutional.
if you could read simple english, you'd see that i don't agree with that interpretation.

so do me a favor, STFU and do your own research.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it doesn't. For one thing, meeting to worship isn't "unconstitutional" unless it is the only available education, education is mandatory, and there are those who don't want to participate.

In a charter school, those things aren't so. The children are there voluntarily, their parents have chosen the school, and there are other options available to them.

It's not unconstitutional.

But I imagine that's the next freedom to be dismantled by this admin.

 

[xsited1]

I'm with Obama, Durbin and the Teacher's Union on this. I do not agree with school vouchers. Private schools are great because the undesirable kids either don't go there or get kicked out in short order. In addition, vouchers give the government more influence over a private institution, something that should not happen. Like Obama, I send my kids to private schools so that they can get a better education and so they don't have to deal with the dregs of society.

 

[AllieBaba]

they meet to worship once a week, so it is unconstitutional.

Bullshit. I don't see that in the first amendment.

Besides which, is it required?

allie, i don't give a rat's ass what you see or don't see in the first amendment.
that's how it's been interpreted and until that changes, it's unconstitutional.
if you could read simple english, you'd see that i don't agree with that interpretation.

so do me a favor, STFU and do your own research.

**** you. Just because you state something doesn't mean we all have to bow down and accept it as the truth, dumbass. You didn't say who interpreted it, or provide a link.

You aren't above the same standards the rest of us use, dumbass. So go ahead and shut the **** up yourself, or ******* put up a ******* link. Obviously, those schools HAVEN'T been deemed unconstitutional or they wouldn't exist.

 

[del]

Bullshit. I don't see that in the first amendment.

Besides which, is it required?

allie, i don't give a rat's ass what you see or don't see in the first amendment.
that's how it's been interpreted and until that changes, it's unconstitutional.
if you could read simple english, you'd see that i don't agree with that interpretation.

so do me a favor, STFU and do your own research.

**** you. Just because you state something doesn't mean we all have to bow down and accept it as the truth, dumbass. You didn't say who interpreted it, or provide a link.

You aren't above the same standards the rest of us use, dumbass. So go ahead and shut the **** up yourself, or ******* put up a ******* link. Obviously, those schools HAVEN'T been deemed unconstitutional or they wouldn't exist.

the schools aren't unconstitutional you fuckroast, funding them with tax money is. jeezus, this isn't really a complicated idea.

 

[AllieBaba]

Dumbass. They are funded with taxpayers money. So apparently somebody thought they were constitutional.

I asked you for a link, dumbass. Got one?

Nope, you don't.

 

[FactFinder]

freedomforum.org: Supreme Court backs school vouchers

Supreme Court backs school vouchers

By The Associated Press

06.27.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — The Constitution allows public money to underwrite tuition at religious schools as long as parents have a choice among a range of religious and secular schools, the Supreme Court ruled today.

 

[elvis]

freedomforum.org: Supreme Court backs school vouchers

Supreme Court backs school vouchers

By The Associated Press

06.27.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — The Constitution allows public money to underwrite tuition at religious schools as long as parents have a choice among a range of religious and secular schools, the Supreme Court ruled today.

How is Durbin going to get away with this, being that there is a Supreme Court precedent?

 

[AllieBaba]

No shit.

Gosh, I guess Del (per usual) is full of ******* shit.

Unconstitutional my ass, dickwad.

 

[del]

freedomforum.org: Supreme Court backs school vouchers

Supreme Court backs school vouchers

By The Associated Press

06.27.02

Printer-friendly page

WASHINGTON — The Constitution allows public money to underwrite tuition at religious schools as long as parents have a choice among a range of religious and secular schools, the Supreme Court ruled today.

i gladly stand corrected.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hey, isn't this almost word for word what I said?

"The Constitution allows public money to underwrite tuition at religious schools as long as parents have a choice among a range of religious and secular schools, the Supreme Court ruled today."

Why yes, it is.

Time for a nap, Del, you ******* retard.

 

[FactFinder]

Well the article is saying that they are going to let the funding quietly expire.

I decided to do my part so that it is not so quiet.

 

[AllieBaba]

So does this mean they'll let the funding on all the Indian schools quietly expire as well? They teach spirituality in those, too.

 

[elvis]

No shit.

Gosh, I guess Del (per usual) is full of ******* shit.

Unconstitutional my ass, dickwad.

That's not what I implied. only wondering how Durbin can get away with this