Catholic charter school

[JoeyKnothead]

It's started...

Catholich charter school.

For debate:

Should organizations immune to taxes be allowed public tax dollars to advance their religion?

[Purple Knight]

Should organizations immune to taxes be allowed public tax dollars to advance their religion?

This is just my opinion but if it's a good school and people want to go there, them getting funding is just the deal-with-the-devil you have to make in a capitalistic system to get education at all. The people willing to do it best aren't going to do it for free, and if they can do it exceptionally well, yeah you gonna have to pay with your soul. Or your kid's soul. And people seem to get a better education in religious schools than in public schools.

We already threw all the money in the world at schools and it only made them worse, so time to start throwing souls in and see if it helps.

(...helps people realise that blank checks are a bad idea in a capitalistic system.)

Here's what needs to not happen: If they take one penny of public money, they can teach whatever they want, but they absolutely should not be allowed to force children to participate in the religion in any way, shape, or form. I don't think making them learn about the religion qualifies, though there's room for disagreement on that and I may be wrong. You can know every verse of the Bible and not be religious. But making people pray? That's beyond the pale. If they want to make their students pray, fine, they can do it without tax dollars.

"Separation of Church and State" is optional. It may be in Oklahoma's constitution but as I recall it's just something Thomas Jefferson said we should do. It's not a founding principle of the nation as people say.

Freedom of conscience is not optional. You cannot force a child to participate in a religion if it doesn't want to.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
And people seem to get a better education in religious schools than in public schools.

Charter schools get to pick their students if not by the individual, then by location.

We already threw all the money in the world at schools and it only made them worse, so time to start throwing souls in and see if it helps.

Teachers are notoriously underpaid and overworked.

(...helps people realise that blank checks are a bad idea in a capitalistic system.)

The fact that schools have budgets makes this comment irrelevant.

Here's what needs to not happen: If they take one penny of public money, they can teach whatever they want, but they absolutely should not be allowed to force children to participate in the religion in any way, shape, or form.

Good luck with that. They outlawed handing out Bibles in my school, so they took us outside to do it.

I don't think making them learn about the religion qualifies, though there's room for disagreement on that and I may be wrong. You can know every verse of the Bible and not be religious. But making people pray? That's beyond the pale. If they want to make their students pray, fine, they can do it without tax dollars.

Agreed.

"Separation of Church and State" is optional. It may be in Oklahoma's constitution but as I recall it's just something Thomas Jefferson said we should do. It's not a founding principle of the nation as people say.

See the Wedge document, and laws banning atheists from public office.

[/quote]
Freedom of conscience is not optional. You cannot force a child to participate in a religion if it doesn't want to.
[/quote]
So we disallow tax exempt organizations the tax dollars they use to do it.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #2

"Separation of Church and State" is optional. It may be in Oklahoma's constitution but as I recall it's just something Thomas Jefferson said we should do. It's not a founding principle of the nation as people say.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,"* thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.
---Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jan. 1, 1802

(*the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment)

[bjs1]

This is a tough one to me. Charter schools are not public schools. All charter schools are independently run, tax-exempt organization which receive public money to educate children. They are designed to free the school from the “red tape” of public schools while abiding by a charter (a school’s mission, academic goals, fiscal guidelines, and accountability).

Traditionally, the USA has said that the government should be religion-neutral. That is, the government neither propagates nor suppresses religious belief, teaching or practice.

Public school cannot teach religion in any form because students are required to attend school. However, no one is required to attend a charter school.

Charter schools receive public money, and some taxpayers do not want their money going to support religious education. However, all charter schools have a specific mission beyond the scope of public schools, and some taxpayer might not want their money going to that mission either.

We allow charter schools. Saying an independently run organization cannot be religious would violate the first amendment. Allowing charter schools to exist and have their own mission on the condition that the mission is not religious would violate the separation of church and state, since that would have the state deciding which mission or philosophies are acceptable.

I would be interested to see if someone has a specific argument on either side. Is there a reason why charter school should be allowed to be religious? Is there a reason why charter schools should not teach religion – one that, when universally applied, does not invalidate the existence of charter schools in general?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #5

I would be interested to see if someone has a specific argument on either side.

I refer you to the Father of the Constitution:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
---James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", 1785

[bjs1]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #5

I would be interested to see if someone has a specific argument on either side.

I refer you to the Father of the Constitution:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
---James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments", 1785

Okay, but that’s not what is happening here. If charter schools were established to only support of the Christian faith then this would be a valid argument. However, as of yet we have no reason to think that other religions, or sects, or atheistic organizations will be denied the same opportunities as this Christian school.

Beyond that, charter school already have explicit mission statements beyond that of public schools. It seems to violate the separation of church and state to say that schools can have any philosophy with the exception of a religious one.

Again, I am looking for an argument that would apply to this school but not invalidate charter schools in general.

[historia]

Charter schools are not public schools.

I'm not sure what you mean by this since charter schools are definitely public schools.

The Oklahoma City Public Schools website, for example, defines charter schools as "innovative, nonsectarian public schools." And, as such, they are state actors, subject to the same first amendment constitutional restrictions as traditional public schools.

The state of Oklahoma is essentially trying to sanction a Catholic public school, which is I think clearly unconstitutional.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to bjs1 in post #7

If charter schools were established to only support of the Christian faith then this would be a valid argument. However, as of yet we have no reason to think that other religions, or sects, or atheistic organizations will be denied the same opportunities as this Christian school.

The playing field isn't leveled by the government funding all religious education; it's leveled by the government funding no religious education.

It seems to violate the separation of church and state to say that schools can have any philosophy with the exception of a religious one.

Separation of church and state means that government institutions, such as public schools, neither support nor oppose any sectarian belief. A government can't support one such belief, or even all such beliefs, and keep church and state separate. Separation requires that a government be neither pro nor con.

[JoeyKnothead]

I wonder if the same folks would accept the Taliban's application for public funds.

Beyond that, the Catholic Church has a confirmable history of inappropriate contact with children, and the coverups around it. Pedophiles ain't allowed near schools, so why should the CC be any different?