Freedom Of Religion?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by redtail23 *
So you find it perfectly acceptable that a PUBLIC REPEAT PUBLIC school funded by (anyone’s) tax dollars should harass and discriminate against a student based upon that student’s alleged religious beliefs?

No, I don’t find that acceptable. But I also recognize that discrimination can’t always be eliminated by passing a law or two or even by public outcry. Not knowing all the facts of the case here, as it has been presented I should hope the principal has learned his lesson.

And that the responsibility for fixing this problem lies with the parents, who should change schools, rather than with the school?

I am saying that such an option should be available to the parents and I find it sad Democrats are against school choice.

I knew you were wack, but I had no idea.

Thanks

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
The question of whether parents can educate their kids in a manner of their own choosing… is not the same as the question of whether parents should get individual control over their own tax contributions to education.

Are you denying that school vouchers would expand the choices available to parents?

If conservatives are so much in favor of individual choice, then why aren’t they making provisions in all their school voucher bills allowing people who don’t currently have children in school the right to direct the allocation of their share of the tax burden?

So, if 90% of taxpayer decide to send there money to school A, but 75% of parents decide to send their children to school B, you’d be content that the kids at school B would get far less funding per pupil than the ones at school A? That just seems like an overly complex solution. What is wrong with just letting the funding go where the parents decide? It would seem to be in the best interests of the community that schools A and B recieved equal per pupil funding. (I’m leaving out the issue of special needs children who might require a higher share of funding for their education, but that’s a separate issue – those children could just recieve larger vouchers.)

there are many, many non-wealthy families who educate their children privately.

You and pldennison make an OK point – however, you can’t deny that vouchers would expand school choice for parents.

In the second place, local, state, and federal governments all have input into what the public school curriculum should be, and the public has input into their decisions; there is not some kind of totalitarian institution being granted “sole power”.

It is still a majority rule system.

In the third place, we have all this constitutional oversight in place precisely so the public school curriculum won’t stray beyond what a general citizens’ consensus accepts as useful information for educated and competent citizens

So all children are forced to learn what the majority (or, some might say, the ruling plutocracy) says they should learn? I don’t see any reason why education needs to be run that way. Maintaining certain equivalency standards is fine, but I don’t see why anyone would want to prevent parents from choosing what children learn in school beyond these basics.

You may say that you as a parent should be the one to have control over what your kids are being taught, but if your idea of what kids should be taught is some kind of zealot agenda with very little content that’s useful from the point of view of the rest of society, why should the rest of society help pay for that teaching?

You don’t think parents would have the best interests of their children at heart? I expect they would want them to get the best education possible, and they should have the most options available to them which society can provide. I have no problem with the idea of privatizing education.

we all chip in money for general education which does its best to be pedagogically responsible while not trampling individual liberties, and we all put up with the inevitable imperfections that result without demanding our money back.

Riiiggghttt, but you can do that in a privatized system too. What is your point?

You will find lots of evidence there that the notion of creating a huge spectrum of choices in effective basic education just by privatizing it is pretty much a pipe dream.

Evidence?? Where have school vouchers been tried and not been successful? Oh! you mean evidence as in “people talking out of their @$$es” type evidence. Yeah, that’s sooo convincing. :rolleyes:

[jmullaney]

Oh, and it’s not a hijack/troll, RTFirefly. Try reading the OP. If the majority ultimately appoint a representative, namely this principal, who mandates, in this example, whether or not a child can wear certain symbols to school (albeit religious ones) I think that points to a problem which school vouchers could help solve.

I otherwise apologize for presenting a unique solution (I was trying to be a little tounge-in-cheek with that first post – lighten up) which may have accidently made this thread interesting, although all the “me toos” regarding public schools not disciminating and the few “all the facts aren’t in yet” posts regarding this particular case may have made a great debate without my help.

[redtail23]

*Originally posted by RTFirefly *
**

*Originally posted by Danielinthewolvesden *
Do we actually know that any of the stuff you are accusing the Principal, etc of is true? Have we heard their side of the story? Or is just the plaintiffs side of the story, in a Civil lawsuit- enuf for all of you to decide the defendants are evil stupid & wrong?

**

The ACLU didn’t become what it is today by filing suits based on hearsay. They’ve got a reputation of their own to protect, and they know there are countless people who’d like to take them down a peg, many of whom (Limbaugh, Robertson, Dobson, etc.) have regular access to the airwaves. I’m willing to bet serious money that they talked with the school officials in question to ensure that some dippy ninth-grader wasn’t pulling the wool over their eyes before they made (literally) a Federal case of this.

No, DITWD, living in Oklahoma is enough to give me a pretty damn good idea of what probably happened. Not to mention that we’re talking a pretty conservative part of Oklahoma, for IPU’s sake. As I said in the Pit thread:

OK, I can also agree with the posters who’ve said that we don’t have all the information. It’s true that the school has declined to comment on this case, stating their reasons as the confidentiality requirements.

On the other hand, as a bred&born Okie, I’ll tell ya - this kinda crap is not that uncommon in these here parts. No one that lives here, that I’ve spoken to (including the Christians), is at all surprised by this story.

IME, the majority of people here are astoundingly ignorant of their own religion; they sure as hell have never bothered to learn about anyone else’s. And many of the local churches still teach (quite vehemently) that ‘if’n you ain’t one of us, you must be satan-spawn’. Questioning the authority of said church is verboten, and since learning about other religions (much less being Catholic!!) certainly prevents you from being ‘one of us’… This is a great deal of the reason that many people I know have abandoned Christianity, except in the most generic, “yeah, I guess I’m Christian because I think there’s something more and that’s all I know” sense.

It’s not pretty down here, y’all.

Of course, they’re some damn nice folks, as long as you stay in the closet.

But it’s not like people are jumping to some wild, insane, incredibly improbable conclusion. Chances are very high that the plaintiff’s statement is true.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
If a Plaintiffs brief was Gospel truth- there would be no need for a trial and all that stuff, now would there be?

Huh?? You are suggesting that trials are unnecessary when a plaintiff’s allegations are true? How the hell do you figure that? Do you seriously think that all incidents of real discrimination are somehow so patently obvious and universally repudiated that they don’t need to be taken to court? What planet are you from again?!?

If you have information from the defendants’ side of the story that challenges these claims, do feel entirely free to post or cite it. In the meantime, I don’t see why people shouldn’t debate the merits of the case as far as we now know them, as we do with every other GD thread, always of course with the proviso that new information might change our minds. **
[/QUOTE]

1. What I said & meant is that Plaintiffs briefs are not nessesarily “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth”. There could be errors of fact. The breif in no way is accepted as fact by the Court. It is supposed to be a very one sided document, giving the plaintiffs side of the story only, and in the beat possible light. Yes- they are not supposed to actually LIE in a brief- but what is in a brief is not nessesarily true

2. Nope - I have no info as what the defendants side of the story is- and neietehr do you. They might well refute each and every claim. Or maybe not. “merits of the case as we now know them” - we know NOTHING at all about the “merits” of the case. Nothing.

[Danielinthewolvesden]

*Originally posted by redtail23 *

No, DITWD, living in Oklahoma is enough to give me a pretty damn good idea of what probably happened. Not to mention that we’re talking a pretty conservative part of Oklahoma, for IPU’s sake. As I said in the Pit thread:

On the other hand, as a bred&born Okie, I’ll tell ya - this kinda crap is not that uncommon in these here parts. No one that lives here, that I’ve spoken to (including the Christians), is at all surprised by this story.Chances are very high that the plaintiff’s statement is true.

**
[/QUOTE]

Ah, I can see that the Judge, if HE was a native of Oklahoma- saying: “Hell, I have read the plaintiff brief- and i know this kinda thing goes on all the time- so we are not going to bother with the defendants breif, or hearing evidence, or the Jury. I find for the Plaintiff”. Right. :rolleyes:

Not to far away from me is east San Jose- with many gangs & gang shootings. “It happens all the time” that one member of a rival gang caps another. So- then we don’t need a trial, or evidence, or a jury- just line 'em up and shoot them down?

I accept you experience to the point where you would not be shocked if the outcome was in the Plaintiffs favor- i can buy that. But- that don’t make it so.

[Kimstu]

jmullaney: *Are you denying that school vouchers would expand the choices available to parents? *

They might or they might not. They would certainly expand the superficial range of options available, but there is no reason to conclude that they would necessarily improve or expand the real set of choices offering quality education. You might easily get a whole crop of struggling schools all of which have fewer resources and worse teaching than the original public school did, but which cater to varying preferences in religious instruction which the public school didn’t provide. That is certainly some kind of “expansion of choices”, but it’s not one that I as a taxpayer think it’s worthwhile contributing my money to.

*“If conservatives are so much in favor of individual choice, then why aren’t they making provisions in all their school voucher bills allowing people who don’t currently have children in school the right to direct the allocation of their share of the tax burden?”

So, if 90% of taxpayer decide to send there money to school A, but 75% of parents decide to send their children to school B, you’d be content that the kids at school B would get far less funding per pupil than the ones at school A?*

Why not? It’s the public exercising its right to free choice, after all. Perhaps school B just needs to get its act together and provide better quality education which will attract more taxpayer support for it.

That just seems like an overly complex solution. What is wrong with just letting the funding go where the parents decide?

Because the funding’s not just provided by the parents. The parents already get individual control over how their kids are educated—they just don’t get to determine the allocation of their school tax contributions. If they get a choice in that allocation, non-parents should be entitled to the same choice. No special rights for parents as taxpayers, please.

It would seem to be in the best interests of the community that schools A and B recieved equal per pupil funding.

If we’re talking about what’s in the best interests of the community, most people feel that it’s in the best interests of the community to have everybody contribute to public education and not divert the public funds to various privatized educational organizations. If you’re going to say that parents have a right to individual control over their share of those public funds, then so does everybody else.

It [public education] is still a majority rule system.

Right. Our entire system of government is a majority rule system, with strong legal safeguards to protect minority rights and the rights of all individuals. Our system does not consider that the right to direct individually how one’s tax contributions are spent is a fundamental civil right.

Maintaining certain equivalency standards is fine, but I don’t see why anyone would want to prevent parents from choosing what children learn in school beyond these basics.

Nobody does want to prevent it. Parents can choose for their children any form of education that meets the basic standards. But they can’t specifically direct where their own education tax dollars go, any more than non-parents can.

I have no problem with the idea of privatizing education.

Then privatize it honestly: dismantle the existing public support and oversight of education and do not force those who don’t currently have school-age children to contribute to it. Don’t claim that you’re standing up for individual rights and freedom of choice while forcing some to contribute as you direct so that others may have more options.

*“we all chip in money for general education which does its best to be pedagogically responsible while not trampling individual liberties, and we all put up with the inevitable imperfections that result without demanding our money back.”

Riiiggghttt, but you can do that in a privatized system too. What is your point? *

In the first place, a privatized system does not have to respect individual liberties: private schools can discriminate against students or teachers on whatever grounds they wish. In the second place, in a privatized system we won’t all chip in money; only those of us who currently want some education will be willing to pay for it.

*Evidence?? Where have school vouchers been tried and not been successful? *

What I said was “evidence that the notion of creating a huge spectrum of choices in effective basic education just by privatizing it is pretty much a pipe dream.” Cites supporting that assertion as it pertains to current experience with vouchers and charter schools can be found in recent threads here and here.

And I’m sorry, jmullaney, but I’m going to have to concur with RTFirefly’s assessment of “trolling”. I really don’t appreciate busting my butt to answer questions seriously and find reliable cites only to have it jeeringly suggested that what I consider evidence consists of “people talking out of their asses.” You may continue this debate all by yourself from now on, as far as I’m concerned.

Daniel—thanks for the clarification. I repeat, though, that I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discussing the facts of any question insofar as they’re available to us, as long as we’re open to receiving new information. But if you feel that we don’t know enough to participate in an informed discussion, you’ve made your point and you’re free to stop participating at any time.

(By the way, since nobody who expressed indignation over the lack of input from the defendants’ side seems to have found any to post, I looked around and came up with this transcript of a local television station’s report on 31 October 2000 on a statement issued by the school in question in response to this case. The report says that “the district would not comment on the specifics of the case but they call it a waste of taxpayer money, and they say the timing so close to Halloween is even laughable. They also claim that they don’t suspend students for their religious beliefs. […] And the district says the law prevents them from telling us exactly why Brandi was suspended.” In short, the school’s response so far (as of a few months ago, at least) seems to consist of an unspecific denial, along with an insinuation that the whole thing was worked up by the ACLU as a PR stunt for Halloween. Blackbear’s father and the ACLU attorney for the plaintiffs contradict this in the report.)

[MEBuckner]

Originally posted by jmullaney (emphasis added)
So all children are forced to learn what the majority (or, some might say, the ruling plutocracy) says they should learn? I don’t see any reason why education needs to be run that way. Maintaining certain equivalency standards is fine, but I don’t see why anyone would want to prevent parents from choosing what children learn in school beyond these basics.

Warning! Huge Can of Worms spill on aisle 9!

So, just what “equivalency standards” are we going to apply to Woodcrest Preparatory Academy; Patriot’s Landing Military Academy; Old-Time Full Gospel Christian Education Ministries, Inc.; Our Lady of Sorrows Catholic High School; and the New Egypt Afrocentric Academy? I’m sure the “equivalency standards” for teaching, say, biology, are going to be just fascinating.

Of course, if you exclude Old-Time Full Gospel Christian Education Ministries, Inc., from your voucher scheme on the grounds that they don’t meet the “equivalency standards” for science education, on the grounds that they teach kids that the Earth is flat, then you’re taking away the religious freedom of all the parents in the congregation down at the First Old-Time Full Gospel Christian Church. On the other hand, if you’re going to be spending my money to teach kids that the Earth is flat (because Pastor Bob and the elders have all concluded that the Bible says so after praying over the matter), then I’m not gonna be real happy about that.

Also, I want some sort of refund for all my taxes that went towards paying for roads back when I chose to spend several years without owning a car (less the benefits I received from not starving to death while living in urban areas where food is brought in on big trucks, national security concerns related to the Interstate Highway System, etc.)

[Persephone]

Say the courts find in favor of the principal. Say the court determines that Brandi Blackbear did make her teacher sick, because of a spell she cast.

Would this constitute acknowledgement of Wicca as a real church, entitled to the tax cuts & stuff that Christian and other churches get? And would Brandi Blackbear have to go to jail?

I’m not being facetious here. I’m genuinely curious as to what could happen here.

[Initial_Entry]

While it would be nice to see Wicca recognised as a valid religion, I don’t think that a finding in the favor of the principal would necessarily give any precedant to that.

The question I’d like answered is could I be sued for attempting to use, say, intercessory prayer to get rid of any of my profs (assuming it appeared to work), or is this just a “Wicca thing”?

[Kimstu]

Persephone: Would this constitute acknowledgement of Wicca as a real church, entitled to the tax cuts & stuff that Christian and other churches get?

Um, Perce (you don’t mind if I call you Perce, do you? :)), Wicca is a real “church” already. Here is the official description and some handy information about it from the U.S. Armed Services Chaplains’ handbook. The Covenant of the Goddess (a bunch of Wiccan covens) is incorporated in California as a church and recognized by the IRS as a religious organization; other covens could so incorporate. Wicca has a long way to go before gaining the cultural acceptance of mainstream religions, but insofar as any religion in this country is “official”, it’s “official.”

[Persephone]

Kimstu: Perse is fine.

Thanks for the info! I’m Pagan, but not Wiccan. I’ve been learning a bit about Wicca, but I didn’t know that they had actually gained tax-exempt status anywhere.

[David_B]

RTF said:

What disappoints me, of course, is that before accusing her of being a witch, the principal didn’t check to see if she weighed the same as a duck. Hell, he didn’t even try to build a bridge out of her, from all accounts.

Well, she turned him into a newt.

He got better.

[RTFirefly]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**Oh, and it’s not a hijack/troll, RTFirefly. Try reading the OP. If the majority ultimately appoint a representative, namely this principal, who mandates, in this example, whether or not a child can wear certain symbols to school (albeit religious ones) I think that points to a problem which school vouchers could help solve.

By the same token, jmullaney, I could hijack virtually any thread about problems here on Earth by recommending colonization of other planets as a solution.

A hijack is a hijack.

And in my book, when one does it by the use of inflammatory phrases (I think “forcing people to send their children to those central state-run mind-control camps” qualifies as an inflammatory phrase), it’s trolling. Different people have different opinions of what exactly constitutes a troll, but that’s within mine, and I’m sticking with it.

[RTFirefly]

I apologize for the bolding. Shoulda previewed.

[agentfroot]

Well, as a 17 year old witch who wears a pentacle to school every day, I’ve been pretty fortunate. Even though I go to a Purgatory of a school, the grownup dictators haven’t done much of anything about my symbol. Sure, I’ve heard the usual “666!” “Witch!” “Hey, that girl is a Satanist!” But two big thumbs up to the girl for her bravery and filing a lawsuit! And a big wet raspberry to the assistant principal!

-Ade

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
They might or they might not.

It seems rather basic to me that if I go to the store to buy olive oil with $2 in my pocket I can only buy a small bottle of Stop&Rob[sup]tm[/sup] brand Olive Oil. But, if I pick up a coupon on the way in which gives me $5 off any olive oil in the store, my choice of which kind of olive oil to buy becomes expanded.

Perhaps one brand of oil is just as good as another. Perhaps not.

Perhaps the stores decision to hand out coupons is wrong – since that $5 just ends up being a mark up on other products, and might be considered unfair to those who don’t buy olive oil, or bought it once and don’t need to buy it anymore, or have no intention of ever needing olive oil in the future, or bought their olive oil at another store before moving their business. Are coupons fair to them? I don’t know, but I’ve failed to notice any organized boycotts of my local grocer.

I’ve been to stores overseas where they sell one kind of olive oil, where they sell one kind of furlined hat in 3 sizes, where you can buy a flag in any color as long as it is red. That is a very efficient way to make sure people get their basic needs fulfilled. And yet, I’ve heard tell that the people there have since decided to throw caution to the wind and experiment with other solutions. Maybe it will fail – but who knows?

I understand your concern that private ownership of schools might result in an indoctrination of idealogy which is not the one supported by the majority, but I don’t share it. Although my public education made me a free-thinker, I believe ultimately that the current system puts too much power in the hands of the majority.

No special rights for parents as taxpayers, please.

Would you eliminate food stamps and housing subsidies as well? Or do you think people in need of social services should be told what to eat and where to live? I have no problem with society paying to support those in need. I do have a problem with society saying those in need will on Thursday have pickles for lunch. And, not to pander, the majority agrees with me.

most people feel that it’s in the best interests of the community to have everybody contribute to public education and not divert the public funds to various privatized educational organizations.

OK, so perhaps today most people feel that. A majority might not feel that way at some future date.

Our entire system of government is a majority rule system, with strong legal safeguards to protect minority rights and the rights of all individuals.

I would like to see individual rights expanded in this area.

Our system does not consider that the right to direct individually how one’s tax contributions are spent is a fundamental civil right.

Aw. But I don’t want pickles for lunch on Thursdays. Are you sure about that?

But they can’t specifically direct where their own education tax dollars go, any more than non-parents can.

I believe people who recieve welfare from the community should be able to spend it how they choose.

do not force those who don’t currently have school-age children to contribute to it. Don’t claim that you’re standing up for individual rights and freedom of choice while forcing some to contribute as you direct so that others may have more options.

Look, I don’t like the current level of taxation or the coersive means by which it is collected anymore than the next guy. Of course, the majority probably disagree with us there, Kimstu, and I’m quite sure I was taught in school that stealing from Peter to pay Paul is an earmark of the wonderful “one nation under God” I pledged my allegiance to every morning for 13 years. So you must be wrong Kimstu – because why would teacher lie?

a privatized system does not have to respect individual liberties: private schools can discriminate against students or teachers on whatever grounds they wish.

I appreciate that there is a downside, but I remain optimistic.

I really don’t appreciate busting my butt to answer questions seriously and find reliable cites only to have it jeeringly suggested that what I consider evidence consists of “people talking out of their asses.”

I remain in my optimism because I don’t feel vouchers have ttruly been put to the test and failed. I wouldn’t point to California and say electricity deregulation is a failure, because we all know there are other isssues at play. I wouldn’t point to Russia and say capitalism is a complete failure either, because we all know there is contrary evidence elsewhere that says under the right conditions capitalism can do just fine. I apologize for my coarse language but it was the most succinct way to make my point. When Cecil doesn’t know the answer to something, he rings up the Straight Dope Science Advisory Board and they run an experiment and find out. As an informed citizen (with your help) I am more aware of the risks involved, yet I never the less advocate running an experiment in this case.

I’ll apologize again RTFirefly. If there was a tongue-in-cheek smiley I would have used it in my initial post – I thought the “for shame” explitive would cover it. A strict literal reading of several of the posts on this thread regarding everything from implying Wiccans are evil people who want to turn people into frogs, the suggesting that voodoo should be taught at all schools, and what orifice of the Vice Principal is full of what other part of his anatomy (which I don’t believe is actually physically possible), to someone bringing up creationism being taught in Kansas, to someone making fun of the names of the people involved. Perhaps my initial response set a bad example for the rest of the thread, but I knew we just had a thread on this a little while back and I had thus read all the normal tangents to this OP already, so I only meant to throw in something a little lighthearted, though with a grain of truth – hence, I expected, the humor value. Sorry if I have offended anyone.