September 17, 2019
Augusta Latest News | Farmington Explosion | Bangor Metro | Homelessness | Today's Paper

Comments for: Bill to allow public funds for religious schools rejected, school choice put on hold

  • I dont like the Idea of Charter Schools.

      However I think that they will find that if they allow money to go to charter schools and not to religious private schools they will be violating the first amendment.

    The right thing to do?

    End all public Money going to Private Schools!

    • notateapartier

      Charter schools are public schools. They cannot, by law  include religious endorsement or instruction. 

      • Anonymous

        Maine charter schools will be governed by  private, non-elected boards. They are not answerable to their communities as are public school boards. They will play by a very different set of rules than public schools have to. ( And, charter school boosters are already trying to change the recent law to make the differences even more glaring. For example, they don’t want to have to provide special education services.) The only thing “public” about charter schools is that they reach into the pockets of the public to take taxpayer’s money. Local taxpayers who still pass budgets at town meetings are going to be rudely surprised when they discover they aren’t even allowed to vote on whether or not to spend property taxpayer money in this way.

        • Anonymous

          They are going to be even more surprised to find that the charter school in the district gets full funding no matter what income  problems a district may be having.  Should a district be short of funding the state will step in and require a district to fully fund a charter school before any funding goes to the public school.  

    • honey777

      Charter schools have failed in other states; it is a waste of money.
      And I agree, no public money to private schools.

  • Guest

    The religous schools would have quickly found that having state funding would not been worth the trouble involved.

    • Anonymous

      The secular founders of the nation, such as Thomas Jefferson who considered separation of church and state a pillar of his life’s work, would be sickened by today’s GOP which, in an endless scheme to pander to  churchgoers as voters, is willing to abandon their very principles of “freedom” by giving public dollars to religious schools.  Religion has no place in public life.  It is a private matter. Want to worship?  Great.  Do it all day long in YOUR church and YOUR home.  Keep it OUT of OUR government and away from OUR tax dollars. GOPers would do well to once and for all stop being such ultra hyprocrites and actually practice what they preach. (Pun intended.) 

      And it is clear why they voted these down.  Because Mainers overwhelmingly distain this national right wing agenda crud, and they knew it would only sink them deeper into the hole they are already in.  The pounding the GOP is going to take in November is going to be something to behold, and they know they are TOAST.

      • Guest

        I could not agree more. I sent my daughter to Catholic school on my own dime. I certainly had no expectations of my fellow citizens chipping in. It’s too bad that our governor could not take a direct flight from Jamaica to Florida.

        • Anonymous

          ….and stay there.

        • Anonymous

          Too bad Obama can’t stay on vacation.

          • Tyke

            Oh No! There are well written totally correct  and 100% legitimate posts honestly exposing one of LePage’s many glaring flaws! What can a LePage admirer do?

            I know:

            CHANGE THE SUBJECT – QUICK!!!!!!

          • Anonymous

            I know you weren’t referring to Tinserblic’s post as totally correct and 100% legitimate…or were you?

          • Anonymous

            Amazing they did not complain last year about his vacation. What can a Obama hypnotised supporter do, deny the fact.

          • Anonymous

             At least Obama took the time to spend one of his vacations here, where our local people and businesses could benefit.   Something our governor can’t be bothered to do in any place other than a foreign country. 

          • Anonymous

             He probably doesn’t feel safe here in Maine.

          • Anonymous

            Oh that is right  he was in Northern Massachusetts. The bastion of liberalism lol. He fits right in.

        • Anonymous

           I swear people just do not get the idea behind school choice.  I am glad
          that you are willing to pay double to send your child to school, but
          how is that fair.  If I pay taxpayer dollars that go towards education,
          why can’t I decide where that money goes.  I guess that would be a
          little to much democracy for people to handle. 

          • Guest

            In theory you have an excellent point. In the real world school choice would destroy many local public schools and water down religous education. Given the opportunity how many kids in the Bangor area would jump from their High School to Hampden’s new $53,000,000.00 palace?

          • Life is not fair get over it. How fair is it when homework counts for as much as 50% of a kids grade and test cont for 30% when mommy is uneducated and on drugs.  Kid with bad homelife does not do home work the best grade he could hope for is a 50 even if he gets a 100 on every test another kid from a high income family with a stay at home mom get a 69 on every test but momey make sure he get 100 on every homework project. That kid get a 91 Now the real question is witch kid learned more? witch kid worked harder? I would bet the kid who failed not the kid who got an A-

          • Anonymous

            Judging by your grammar I’d be forced to say you didn’t get much help with your homework.

          • My point exactly It dose not mean I am stupid. But i do Know how to think I remember bring my son to the 3rd grade science Fair The project that were done at graduate school level were giving an A+ the kid who had a mom in jail and a dad who had other problem had no project .I saw tiers in his eyes looking at him I knew that would have been me. He got a o for the project and was tramatized.  The kids who daddy or mommy did the project felt really good about themselves.   I Wanted to haul that teacher aside and ask her why she could not help that Kid or fail the kids who you Know did not do thier own projects. 

          • Anonymous

             it is tough because the class sizes are so big…this is one of the killers

          • Could it be that some teacher Care more than others and would make a difference. I see things that others would not sometimes do to my life.

          • Anonymous

            As much as I think that it is important to go to school and get a teaching degree it gives a false sense of security.  I graduated with an education degree and I can tell you first hand some people are just no cut out to be teachers.  They have not empathy or compassion for people.  Yet since they have that piece of paper they can now teach.  The next step is that a school hires them and because the teacher evaluation proces is so poor that the teacher retains their job and eventually becomes tenured.  When all the while they should have never been teaching in the first place.  This is not true of all teachers, but it highlights a problem that needs to be solved.  I know people I went to school with that are teaching right now and it floors me.  I remember being in the teachers lounge when I was a student teacher and the things teachers would say about students made me cringe. 

          • Anonymous

             so this is your solution to how to create a more fair system…I do understand that life can not be fair…I am thankful for your suggestion to get over it, that must have taken some thought.  However that does not mean we should not work to make it more fair. Lastly. I teach and I have never given homework=50% that is ridiculous.

          • Well According to infinate campus in my sons middle school some classes they do. 

          • Anonymous

            seriously David, that is horrible.  

          • Yawningattrolls

            People don’t get behind school choice because it is a bad idea. And you do get to decide where your taxpayer dollars go – it is called “voting”, its a democratic concept so I know it may trouble you at first…

          • Anonymous

             Well actually oh wise one I understand about voting.  This is why I am voicing my opinion.  This is why we are discussing as we do right now.  The purpose is to get our opinions heard and possible influence each other…then in turn influence those around us.  In all honesty I think people were able to see how my classroom is conducting and other classes they may have a different idea…maybe not, I guess I could hope.  Lastly if people do not vote for this, I can deal with it.  I will just do what Americans do…keep trying.

      • Anonymous

        The separation of church and state clause of the constitution was placed to keep government from forming a state church like England had at the time and to allow religious freedom, it was never intended to eliminate Christian values and beliefs as the guiding principles of this country.  What the courts have done to religious freedoms and inclusion in government is sad.

        • The State not funding religious schools ensures that the State will not create a State religion. But more, the US Constitution does not use “Christian values and beliefs” to define our laws.

          • Anonymous

            It does not use Christian values to define our laws? If that was the case we would still be ruled by the English. Though Democrats can be just as bad.

          • Guest

            Ha Ha. Good line, bruce!

          • Anonymous

            That is a farced. If you think that the US Constitution does not use “Christian values and beliefs” you should go back to School. Unfortunately now we have too many Liberals that  have forgotten.

          • Anonymous

            The founders did not use Christian values and beliefs.  Their sense of how government should be organized came from Greek and Latin philosophy and government.  You were not taught in school that we are a Christian nation this belief comes from conservative churches trying to push their religious beliefs on to our secular laws and culture. This is exactly why we have a “separation of church and state”

          • Anonymous

            You are sadly misinformed. Please show me the exact phrase in the Constituion that says “separation of Church and State?” Since Liberals are so enthralled with saying it.  Please, those words exactly, not some Liberal Democratic propaganda.

          • Anonymous

            It’s stated law established by the Supreme Court.  I could look it up for you but I’m tired of finding sources for people that believe we are a “Christian ” nation and are too lazy to do research on their own.  

          • Anonymous

            Not necessary to look it up, since you are so well versed. No where in the Constitution does it states that. I am well aware of the the Supreme Court has said.

        • Anonymous

          Your problem is in thinking that America is a Christian Nation. 
          Your post would make sense if it were, but it was founded as secular Nation, 
          where freedom of religion, any religion, is not a government matter. 

          That is best way to protect your religious values. 

          Now, you might not even realize that you’re mouthing the words of those who can best be described, concisely, as being the semi-covert American Christian Taliban, with an agenda of taking over American Christianity and the government from within then using our military to conquer the world in Name of the Prince of Peace, no less, but you are. 

          You really should make yourself aware of the political intentions of those who spread the lies like it is anyones goal to “eliminate Christian values and beliefs” that you are repeating. 

          See: 
          What is Dominionism?

          here;    http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html

          May God bless and protect us all from the ‘”christian political movement” * 
          and other similar wolves in wool suits. 

          So what is the bottom on this “christian” political values thing ? 
          I’d suggest looking at the source material ; 

          I started my personal search with Verses 15 – 27 , here:   

          http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+7&version=NIV

        • Anonymous

          The term “Separation of Church and State” is an offshoot of the phrase, “wall of separation between church and state,” as written in Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: “… 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.”

          The phrase “separation of church and state” itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection.

          So there you have it.  The actual phrase “separation of church and state”, does not, in itself, appear in either the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence.  Just thought I would clear up the famous misconception.

          Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

      • Anonymous

        I think Thomas Jefferson wuld be sicked by the way the Democrats have twisted the Constitution. Show me in the Constituation where it says “Separation of Church and State”, the problem with society  is that they have let Religion out of the public life. If you can tuition to a private school then you should be able to send them to a Religious School.

        • Anonymous

          What better way for the government to establish a religion, which is precisely  what Jefferson and the other Founders said was not American, in the US Constitution,  than to pay to have young minds indoctrinated in religion ? 

           “Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man.”  
              Francis Xavier

          • Anonymous

            Meanwhile, back on the Historical Reality ranch, we once again reference the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was passed only 2 months before the Constitution.  

            Article 3 of the Ordinance contained the following language: “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.”

            Apparently, the same guys who were so concerned that religion be kept out of the schools went to great effort to ensure that they referenced religion as one of the priorities of education.  Who’d a thunk it?

            Reality, as does disqus, bites.

          • Anonymous

            The Historical Reality ranch ? 
            Herding WHAT ? 
            The Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which was passed … BEFORE the Constitution ????

            Those were lawless and evil days, but the US Constitution changed that bringing light to the new land in the wilderness, freeing you from oppression, if you were free, white, twenty-one, male and owned property, too.

          • Anonymous

            Passed…by the same men who framed the Constitution.   Liberals like you apparently believe that the Constitution spontaneously generated in a vacuum without any context surrounding it. 

          • Anonymous

            Well, if you are just going to speculate on what I must think, best I set you straight and say, no, it’s now that you mentioned it, it’s  you that I think must exist in a vacuum. 

            Have a great evening.    

          • Anonymous

            There was context. The Constitution was written by men that had read deeply Greek philosophy and Latin government .  They belonged to the Age of Enlightenment. And because of the context they established a secular government driven by a very secular document. We are not a “Christian” nation.  

          • Anonymous

            That’s how they understood that natural rights came from G-O-D, right?  

            Have you ever thought of doing slapstick?

          • Anonymous

            The problem is which religion?  There are a multitude of religions.  The brilliance of America is that people can worship as they see fit.  Our tax dollars should never go to religious schools nor any private schools for that matter.  Do you want your tax money to go to a madrassa?  How do you feel about that?

          • Anonymous

            Great question – I’ll assume for a minute that you’re being actually intellectually inquisitive.   Let’s go back to 1787 and learn about these Framers, the vast majority of which were Bible-believing Christians.   It’s not too hard to figure out what religion to which they were referring. 

            The whole concept of the establishment clause was the prevention of a particular denomination of Christianity from being established as the state church.  How do we know that?  Because that’s what many of the Founders’ forefathers fled in the Church of England.

            Interestingly enough, one can gain valuable insight into the Framers’ thought process by reading the initial versions of the original 13 colonies’ constitutions. 

            Delaware, the first state, said this in Article 22: “Every person who shall be chosen a member of either House, or appointed to any office or place of trust… shall take the following oath:

            ‘I _______, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, One God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.'”

            That was followed up by Article 29. “There shall be no establishment of any religious sect in this State in preference to another; and no clergyman or preacher of the gospel, of any denomination, shall be capable of holding any civil office in this state, or of being a member of either of the branches of the legislature, while they continue in the exercise of the pastoral function.”

            How about that?

          • Anonymous

            The Constitutional Convention that met over two years, 1820 and 21, and wrote Maine’s constitution was divided into two groups, Baptists and Methodists. Few Catholics, Jews or disbelievers seemed to be evident.

          • Anonymous

            So in your mind that means we are a “Christian” state and religion should pervade our schools, courts, legislatures, laws and culture?

          • Anonymous

            Religion already pervades our schools, courts, legislatures, laws and culture, Sally.  I hate to break it to you.

          • Anonymous

            That was then, this is now. Now there is a proliferation of religions that do not believe in Jesus Christ as the son of god. American citizens now worship Allah. Do you want your tax dollars to go to a muslim school?

          • Anonymous

            No matter how many documents you quote we still are a secular nation not a Christian, or any other sect , nation.  

          • Anonymous

            LOL…In other words, no matter how much proof you show me, I don’t care.  It can’t be true!

            You would have fit in well with the flat-earth crowd.

          • Anonymous

            The point is more like no matter how great is your faith, the truth, the facts and reason still trump it.  The word for someone who thinks otherwise is “dogmatist”  
            Sorry, it just a fact, Dad. . 

          • Anonymous

            Spoken like a true dogmatist – a delusional dogmatist, at that.

            You and Sally have nothing but “I said so” on your side.  I’ve trotted out historical fact after historical fact and used sound logic to prove my point and yet you claim fact and reason?  Unreal.

            I’m sorry – “It was not legal” and “it (sic) just a fact” aren’t terribly convincing.

          • Anonymous

            And the words of the 5th  US Congress and President John Adam, one of your Founding Fathers, who said speaking, as and for the US Government it was not found as a Christian Government.  

          • Anonymous

            Article 1 of the Northwest Ordinance:No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

            Article 3 of the Northwest Ordinance, appears to be a continuing declaration  about what society needs in order to be well governed. Article 1 addressed the freedom of religion from which presumably comes morality so it would appear that Article 3 is addressing the fact that knowledge is the third ingredient of good government. The article doesn’t  state that religion is part of the acquisition of knowledge or that religion must play a part in education.  It states that schools should be established in order to acquire knowledge.  

            Anyway isn’t all this moot since the Constitution annulled the Northwest Ordinance?

          • Anonymous

            More revisionist history.  No, because Washington signed a later version, which contained the same language into law in 1789 (after the Constitution had been ratified).  Well, what do you know?

            You can spin your interpretation any way you want.  The language is unquestionable: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

            The language the Founders used clearly indicates that they believed that religion, morality and knowledge were all instrumental to good government and that the education was the means to introduce citizens to all three. 

          • Anonymous

            “……. scholars have questioned whether the Northwest Ordinance was ever Constitutional. “In the American system, the national Constitution clearly was paramount. The test of the Constitution also provided the authoritative standard. The Northwest Ordinance simply did not measure up; its authors did not act under any specified constitutional mandate, nor was their work in turn sanctioned by the sovereign people. Hastily written and poorly organized the Ordinance did not compare favorably with the skillfully constructed national Constitution.” (“The Northwest Ordinance,” in Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents, by Peter S. Onuf, p. 250).Hence, we note the ironic contradiction in the accommodationist argument: while accommodationists generally claim that government is overstepping its powers in striking down such practices as government-sponsored prayer in the public schools, they use as support for their position a phrase from a bill that was passed by a government overstepping its powers and authority.

          • Anonymous

            Fantastic cut/paste job!  Congratulations!

            Apparently, it was recognized by the people who wrote the Constitution as constitutional because they introduced it in 1787 and re-authorized it in 1789.  

            Can we give them a little credit for knowing what they were doing?

            Really stretching your credibility, Sally.

          • Anonymous

            It was not the law of the land.  It’s kinda sad to see people keep trying to make this document legal in order to justify their intense desire to turn a secular nation into a “Christian” nation so they can insert their religion into schools, courts, legislatures, laws and our secular culture. 

            The real question is why are you not happy being a citizen of the United States?  Why are you constantly trying to make the US into something it never was meant to be:  a country based on religion.

          • Anonymous

            I’m really trying to be patient with you, Sally, because I believe you’re much more intelligent than you’re presenting yourself. 

            The Northwest Ordinance was a legal document that prohibited slavery and involuntary servitude as the country expanded westward.   It also removed the danger of colonial rebellion because it assured the territories’ participation in the National Government.

            More importantly, it revealed the Founders attitude toward religion in the public square.

            You insist it wasn’t legal because it annihilates your pre-conceived notions of “separation of church and state.” 

          • Anonymous

            Read the original version of Maine’s Constitution and you’ll realize Maine was founded as a Christian State….I guess this was before we had atheist constitutional liars. 

        • Lord Whiteman

          Jefferson was firmly anticlerical saying that in “every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot…they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes.”

          • Anonymous

            It’s enlightening to see how those opposed to the influence of religion on political thought consistently reference a prominent slave owner and serial sexual harrasser of one of his slaves.

          • Lord Whiteman

             He was a man of his times. If we hold all of history’s great people to our modern standards of behavior then their will be few left to learn from.

          • Anonymous

            Great response!!  I’ll remember that the next time someone pulls out the slavery card the next time I reference the Founders and how their standards of morality align closely with that of conservatism.

          • Lord Whiteman

             Jefferson would be horrified to be associated with modern American conservatives.
            Jefferson expressed a dislike and distrust for banks and bankers; as well as monopolies, speculation and Wall st in general.
             Jefferson believed in the virtues of the working class which creates all wealth and hated the Wall st paper shufflers who currently run the GOP. 

          • Anonymous

            My point exactly – Jefferson wouldn’t want to be associated with modern conservatives – as indicated earlier.  His standards of morality closely align with the Democrat base. 

            You speak as if Jefferson was the only Founder.  Maybe that’s because the vast majority of them espoused views on Christianity, free-market principles and overall liberty that do align with conservatism.

            As for Wall Street and the GOP, one only needs to look where most of the money from Wall Street went during the 2008 elections.   I’ll give you a hint – they weren’t conservative.

            And now back to your regularly scheduled pipe dreams.

          • Lord Whiteman

             Jefferson would definitely hate someone like you who engages people in a conversation only to insult them when they are polite towards you.

          • Anonymous

            Wow.   Insult = telling the truth about your lies.  Amazing.

          • Lord Whiteman

             You should read your own posts after you sober up.

          • luvGSD

             Bravo Lord Whiteman.  Your efforts do not go unappreciated.

          • Anonymous

            Sober last night.  Sober this morning.  The same lies you posted last night are still there. 

            I get it, though.  Liberals aren’t used to being held accountable. 

          • Anonymous

            I do not think Jefferson woudl be associate with either party today.

          • Anonymous

            He’d be very much like Angus King, with his own bible and party. 

          • Anonymous

            Now that is scary, especially if King gets elected

          • Anonymous

            If you read Jefferson’s writings toward the end of his life—-and his advice to Maine was near the end of it; they are very different from the ‘cherry picked’ selection by the atheists commenting.

            Railing against priests and Calvinism is complimented by this 1820 quote: “”I rejoice that in this blessed country of free inquiry and belief, which has surrendered its conscience to neither kings or priests, the genuine doctrine of only one God is reviving, and I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian.”[43]

            Jefferson named the teachings of both Joseph Priestley and Conyers Middleton (an English clergyman who questioned miracles and revelation, emphasizing Christianity’s role as a mainstay of social order) as the basis for his own faith .”

            CHRISTIANITY AS A MAINSTAY OF SOCIAL ORDER…now you know why Maine was founded as a Christian state and ‘GOD’ was so liberally incorporated into the original Constitution. 

            And hopefully, you will realize that when you destroy christianity, social order breaks down….and the demand for gun permits has never been higher, has it?

          • Anonymous

            All of your speculation on their personal beliefs does not hold water when compared to the clear statement of their beliefs formalized as the National  policy in the Treaty of Tripoli and rastified unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams  in 1797, which begins : 

            ” As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion …. ” 

            Is that not clear enough for you ?

          • Anonymous

            Love the fact that you left off the context after the ellipsis, which provides the real meaning.  This clause simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims, assuring them that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them.

            “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. ”

            There.  I fixed it for you.  Did you have any other quotes out of context that you wanted me to address?

          • Anonymous

            Love your dogmatic faith, but how can you deny that speaking ”
            As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion… ” does not state the Nation’s policies ? 

            The bottom line is that THEY DID NOT SAY; 

             While founded as Christian Nation, never the less “the States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. “,  did they ? 

            They said as plainly as can be; ” the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion… ” 

            There.  I fixed it for you, correctly, again. 

            You can’t  both use the Founding Fathers as the basis of your point about them, so America, being Christian, , then imply that they are duplicitous, dishonest and dishonorable, in their interactions with others about it, too,  unless those things are what you really see as being the Christian values that you speak of . I need not discuss Christianity nor the Founding Father’s with people who not just would, but MUST defame both, to make any sense,  thank you, very much. 

          • Anonymous

            I see you conveniently left out the context once again.

            To set the record straight, Adams also wrote: “The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system.”

            John Jay – first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court disagreed with you: “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

            One would think that he might know a thing or two about original intent of the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

            Jay Gould’s  opinion does not carry the weight  of a formal treaty ratified by the entire Senate, approved by President John Adams, and delivered by to the Governments of Europe by Thom. Jefferson.  

            Nor does your contention that there is a always a different context that suits your dogma carry any weight, in fact it is embarrassing, but it is  even more so to continue to ignore your weak ploy. 

            Sorry and good night, Dad.

          • Anonymous

            He would also be horrified with that the Liberals have done to the Country.

          • Anonymous

            ‘virtues of the working class’ HE HAD SLAVES AND OWNED A PLANTATION. He had sexual relations with the slaves. No wonder you admire him!

          • Anonymous

            LOL!!  Post of the day!!

          • Anonymous

            It’s equally enlightening to see how those that want their religion inserted into every aspect of our secular country consistently reference a document that was never legal and any power it ever had was  annulled by the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.

          • Anonymous

            Um, it was legal.  It was signed into law by President George Washington after the Constitution was ratified, meaning it wasn’t annulled by the Constitution. 

            This is easier than swatting the mosquitos that were out yesterday.

          • Anonymous

            It was not legal.

          • Anonymous

            Thus thundereth the voice of Authority.  Maybe if you say it a few more times, it will become true.

            The 1st Congress and President Washington disagree with you.   My money’s on them.

          • Anonymous

             

            After  re-reading the complete Northwest
            Ordinance and some constitutional history I find you are right about the
            legality of the Northwest Ordinance.   I see that it was ratified and
            employed as a model for setting up and governing the newly established  territories
            in the West.  The language conferring  individual  rights and
            privileges acted as a model in writing the Constitution.   I own you an
            apology for having contradicted you. 

             

            What I did not find either in the Ordinance
            itself or in supporting documents and historical records was anything
            suggesting that territorial schools were mandated to teach religion or act as
            supporters of religion. Additionally, it appears that once a territory
            became a state the Constitution with its 1st Amendment’s warning against
            mingling religion and government took precedence over the Northwest Ordinance.
              

             

            The Morrill Act of 1862 would appear to be
            further evidence that  ” We the people  of theses United
            States” did not intend schools to be guided and/or informed  by
            religion or to promote a religious state.   This  Act created our
            land grant colleges:  where the leading
            object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and
            including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related
            to agriculture and the mechanic arts, in such manner as the legislatures of the
            States may respectively prescribe, in order to promote the liberal and
            practical education of the industrial classes in the several pursuits and
            professions in life.

             The Act
            never mentions, morality, happiness, prayer, bible study, propagation of
            religion or the need for religion in students daily life, which suggests that
            establishing  schools in the states and the territories was solely for the
            purpose of education  and not for the encouragement and propagation of
            religion. 

             

            Later court cases reinforces the principle that
            public education is not the place for any religious practices nor is the
            purpose of public education to promote a state religion.

             

            While I can appreciate people’s distress with the
            some of the dysfunctional aspects of modern life requiring  our educational system to take responsibility
            for the morality of students  will not
            make society less dysfunctional and more manageable.  If you go back in time you will find that any
            change in the social or financial structure of society has brought on stress
            and disruption of the old order.  These
            disruptive times  have never been
            resolved by religion unless one retreats from the world completely as do the
            Amish.  Forcing religion into schools won’t
            solve today’s problems no matter what one claims the Northwest Ordinance
            mandates.

          • Anonymous

            There is a difference in anticlerical, and allowing funds to be used in Religeous schools.

          • Anonymous

            …and then he went and wrote his own bible!  ”
            The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day. Throughout his lifeJefferson was intensely interested in theology, biblical study, and morality.[1] He is most closely connected with the Episcopal Church, Unitarianism, and the religious philosophy of Deism.”

            His anticlerical views stemmed from his experience during the French Revolution and his rejection for the priesthood.

            His last letters reveal a reconciliation with God. Judge not a man by his early views, but the sum of his life. 

        • Anonymous

          And what hey are indoctrinated now is not the same thing. No wonder the schools are so messed up.

      • Anonymous

        TJ was not a “secular” Founder.  He was influenced heavily by Unitarian thought.  His religious worldview dictated his pragmatic values which governed his approach to government, his ownership of slaves and his serial sexual harrassment, through which he fathered six children.

        The vast majority of the Founders were Theists, whose values directed them to recommend the Aitken Bible to the populace and create the Northwest Ordinance, which included the directive: “Religion, Morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the
        happiness of mankind, Schools and the means of education shall be forever
        encouraged.”  How about that – schools being instruments of knowledge, morality and – gasp – religion. 

        Even Ben Franklin (no theist himself) suggested that the official seal of the United States be an image of the parting of the Red Sea and Jefferson (again, no friend to Christianity) understood the foundation of our country by suggesting that the seal include a picture of Israel in the wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. 

        You can find all the above information in that bastion of fundamentalism known as the Library of Congress.

        I’m surprised that you haven’t written Rep Michaud to see if he can get those historical artifacts removed because they’re a violation of the establishment clause.  

        Any more worthless drivel you’d like to post?

        • Lord Whiteman

          Jefferson was a deist and was most influenced by the enlightenment movement in Europe.
           He liked Unitarianism because he shared their belief that Jesus was a man and not a god.

          • Anonymous

            According to the UU’s, “it was the world renowned English Unitarian minister and scientist, Joseph Priestley, who had the most profound impact on his thought.”

            Care to take the argument up with them?

          • Lord Whiteman

            “I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.” Thomas Jefferson.

          • Anonymous

            Letter to Dr. Joseph Priestley from Thomas Jefferson, dated March 21, 1801: “Yours is one of the few lives precious to mankind, & for the continuance of which every thinking man is solicitous.”

            Incidentally, Jefferson said the quote you referenced above in regard to his cutting of the miraculous from the Scriptures, something he did of course, because he embraced the naturalism found within Unitarianism.   He’s referencing that fact that he alone went to that extreme.  Nothing more, nothing less.

            Do you really think that he’s saying that he arrived at his worldview completely independently? 

          • In my lifetime Mother Theresa was “one of the few lives precious to mankind”, and I wholeheartedly agree, but I have no love at all for Catholicism. So it is possible to like a person, their ideas, and their actions, but dislike the label they work under.

          • Anonymous

            According to US Senate, unanimously,  and President John Adams, too, in 1797 , it clearly stated as  a matter of National policy and on the formal international  honor of the Young Nation that: 

             ” ..  the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. ” 

            Is that not true, Dad ? 
            Please prove it so,  if you must dogmatically cling to your erroneous claims otherwise.

        • Anonymous

          Deist not Theist 

          • Anonymous

            Pure revisionist history drivel. 

            Your word against President John Quincy Adams, who, I dare say has just a shred more first hand knowledge and credibility than you.  

            While Secretary of State, in a July 4, 1821 speech, Adams summarized the theological beliefs of the Founders: “From the day of the Declaration, the people of the North American Union and of its constituent States, were associated bodies of civilized men and Christians, in a state of nature; but not of Anarchy. They were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledged as the rules of their conduct.”

          • Anonymous

            I believe it was popular then to consider oneself a deist not a theist

          • Anonymous

            You can believe what you want.  It doesn’t change the facts.

      • Why is it so hard for religious people to understand that non religious people can have strong moral values? wasn’t Hitler an alter boy . I think Stalin was raised religious too.  If you look at prison populations you will find that inmates have a higher % of them that believe in god than the general population of people in this country. I am not saying religion is not good for some people > I have my doubts about wheather it makes a person a better person or if it just makes them think they are better. I am not perfect by any means but by nature I question authority. I have no respect for anyone that covers up for child molesters like some religions have done.  

      • Anonymous

        Once again you fail to understand this common principle.  I will break it down in a few points to hopefully clarify.
        1. If you pay taxes…that money goes towards education.
        2. People who send their children to religious schools are taxpayers too.
        3. Why is it fair that people cannot decide where their taxpayer dollars go.
        4.  This has nothing to do with mixing religion with government and everything to do with giving people a freedom to choose.  A person like you say that you do not want your money funding religious education.  Why cannot the person who sends their child to a religious school have the same right and say they do not want to fund secular education. 

        • Anonymous

          What is it about the words  “We the people”  (meaning we are all in this together) do you not understand.  We the people, provide free, public, secular education because it promotes the common good of the country.  Religious education promotes the common good of the church.  That is not in the interest of the rest of the country.  You are free to choose a religious school.  You are not free to take public money designated for the common good and use it to promote  your religious beliefs .  And since you enjoy the benefits of having an educated populace that this country provides, you are required to pay your share for the common good, whether you value it or not.  Did you not take any civics or history or philosophy in school?  

          • Anonymous

            1. you can go two way with this.  We can look at we the people as in each persons beliefs and ideas should be valued and represented.  Or you can take your approach of a unified ideology without respect to others beliefs.
            2. The words in the preamble “We the people” was a sign of unity between the states in agreement with the written constitution.  This does not work in the context in which you are speaking
            3. Religious education serves the purpose to promote the common good of the country.  As well as allows parents and children to learn in environment that is void of some of the accepted trash that society can sometimes give off.
            4.  I do enjoy the benefits of an educated society.  But do you think that at a Religious school that they do not learn subjects other than the Bible.  I think that was kind of a funny statement.
            5. Lastly I went to school to teach Civics and I also am certified to teach a high school philosophy class.

            thank you though…I appreciate your wisdom

          • Anonymous

            We the people  (not the states) of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic  tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves (not the states)  and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 

            Sounds like a statement of unified commitment to create a fair and equitable society, i.e. “we’re all in this together”.  Well, excepting those people that want special consideration because they are religious. LOL

        • I pay taxes but I do not have a choice how they are spent. DR. Webb of Bangor seems to think they need a new football field at the tune of $7million When they only play 7 games a year thier. Let me see I am uneducated but inflation the cost of up keep etc What would the cost per football game cost. $50 to $100k per game any Ideas Like I said I Am not educate d Please give me an honest answer. I do not believe that the majority of football players come from disadvantage homes. When you look at the drop out rate of Bangor High school I think my Money could be better spent I have no choice. it is not a perfect world. People sometimes think with emotions  or what is good for them without looking at what is good for society in general. Schools will never teach people that.

          • Anonymous

             School systems are not perfect.  The budgets are not perfect…I completely agree.  however we should at least try by starting to give parents choice.  I do not think it could get worse.  this is not a perfect solution.  but it is 1 solution.

        • Anonymous

          Once again, it is difficult to believe that you are a teacher since you show no understanding how the U.S. tax system works.

      • Anonymous

        well said!!

    • Guest

      Ain’t that the truth!

  • Anonymous

    Fail Lepage.

    His foul proposal was unpalatable – even for the GOP.

    yessah

    • honey777

      Thank god there are a few intelligent people on a legislative board in Augusta these days.

  • Anonymous

    There needs to be a bill where each parent has to pick up 10% of the tuition costs.

    • Anonymous

      Could you elaborate on this? I’m interested in what drives this thought; is it a general opposition to free appropriate public education? Is it a conviction that families might be more vested in the education of their children if they were paying 10% of their tuition? I definitely have my own immediate reaction to a statement such as this, but I’d be interested in hearing your reasoning before commenting.

  • Sen. Justin Alfond was my guest on the One on the Right radio show this afternoon to talk about these two bills, LD1854 and LD1866. Listen here:

    http://www.cyberears.com/index.php/Browse/playaudio/15458

  • I would think if money is given to religious school thier would be less left for public schools It is one choice to send a kid to a religious school . I am not saying I do not believe in god just no religous If we start funding religious school with tax payer money then we have to fund all religions Would you want to fund Jim Jones? How about the KKK or some radical muslem group? Would religious schools be required to accept atheist and agnostics? I do not wish to fund any school that by nature discriminates .

    • Anonymous

       O.k. I do not disagree that there are some hurdles to a school choice system.  No system is perfect.  I figuring how funding will be spread is a legitimate question and would need to be ironed out.  I think we would also have to have some criteria for what schools could be eligible, just needs to be broader than it is today.  Lastly I do not wish to fund a lot of things, but I have to.  This is why we should have a choice, to squash the disagreement

      • I think you are a great teacher. The problem is with the fact it is not a perfect world. Till we figure out a way to take it on a case by case basis it will never be fair to all . It has never been fair . I wish you the best of luck. 

  • Anonymous


    On Wednesday, the Education Committee approved an amended version of a bill that would create a uniform teacher evaluation system in Maine. The amendment added language that allows due process in the event a teacher is given poor reviews and terminated.” 

    Never mind how very liberal it was of them to allow Americans, teachers, no less, the due process of law, what I really want to know is if religious schools take the State’s money will this law apply to their teachers, too ? 

    • Anonymous

      No, the Supreme Court already decided that.

      • Anonymous

        So  why give State money to schools that don’t meet the State standard. 

        • Anonymous

          beats me!!

  • luvGSD

    It makes sense that Langley is involved in this bill because of that giant Christian school in Ellsworth which I believe still has that GOP scoundrel Linnehan backing it.

    • Anonymous

      It is actually in Trenton.

      • luvGSD

         Right you are.  I stand corrected.

    • Anonymous

       This may be true, however why is it fair for people to pay tax dollars towards education but cannot decide where they send their children.  At the very least people should get a tax credit or break.  Why should they pay double!

      • Anonymous

        Have you tried improving your local school ?     If you prefer to send your children to a private school, religious or otherwise, then yes, YOU SHOULD PAY FOR IT.

        • Anonymous

           that is the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet.  Trust me, I have tried, you have tried, everyone has tried uplifting, upholding, and making it better.  The bottom line is that schools are still  failing.  I am taxpayer.  I should have say were my money goes too.  Why should I as a taxpayer have to fund such a crappy system.  all this whining about how people do not want to pay for religious education.  Well I do not want to pay for the public education.  and both of us pay taxes…therefore the only solution is choice…I thought I was talking to Americans in here

          • Anonymous

            Too bad,  yes you must pay your taxes.   They likely go towards many other things that you do not wish to support.
            Removing monies from local schools further undermines them.  Is that what you want ?   
            I believe that it would be ‘Un-American ‘  for taxpayer  dollars to be  spent to support ANY religious operation.  I believe in the complete separation of Church and State.  Frankly from my perspective, it is your ranting that is ridiculous.

          • Anonymous

             1. This is true I pay taxes to many things I do not support.  So do you and so do I.  However it would only make sense to me that since some are against the tax dollars towards religious schools and some against tax dollars towards only public schools. that a good compromise would be a choice.  I do not see how that is far fetched.
            2. allowing a choice to take your dollars towards a religious institution in now way establishes a state religion…that is a stretch
            3. Lastly, seperation of church and state is not actually in the constitution.  I personally do not want a state religion or anything close…I would just like to be able to have some say were my taxes payer dollars go in this respect…I guess thats ridiculous

          • I don’t have kids, I don’t want any of my taxes to go to education.  (not really, just playing devil’s advocate)

          • Anonymous

            However that is a really good point.  We all have ideas as to how we should have our tax dollars spent.  I am advocating for the ability for school choice. 

          •  Hmmm, a “teacher” (?) who mispells “separation”?  Also, you’re right, the Constitution does not specifically mandate separation of church and state in so many words.  We do however look to the Bill of Rights, the first amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”  A state-mandated church would be clearly unconstitutional.  I’m guessing you would say we live in a democracy, when we actually are citizens of a representative republic.

          • Anonymous

             I am sorry I spelled a word wrong on a open forum on the Bangor Daily News.  I am sure you never typed a document and spelled it incorrectly.  I was typing quickly and sent quickly.  If that is your first statement, I can already tell that you have very little to say.  But I suppose I will entertain your other two brilliant statements.
            1. It does say that there should be no establishment of religion.  However giving school choice to students does not establish a religion.  In fact in many of the states that do have school choice, people continue to worship or not worship as they see fit.
            2. I am sure you thought you were so very intelligent when you state one of the most obvious facts about our political system.  thanks!

          • Anonymous

            The problem is why should we not have a choice on where to send our kids. Why should we continue to be bound to same failed broken socialist one size fits all system that isn’t working.  We should not have to be bound to Superintendents and out of touch School Boards who refuse to fix their problems. Instead wanting more money for more bureaucratic nonsense.

          • Anonymous

            Our roads in Maine are horrible. I don’t want to pay for them. My local volunteer fire department isn’t able to respond as quickly to fires as a full-time fire department in another town. I don’t want to pay for it.

            We’ve gotten away from the social contract: that every citizen of this country has an obligation to the upkeep of the very system that has given them opportunities to succeed. 

          • Anonymous

            Well start making those on Welfare get a job and start making them pay their fair share.  I am tired of hearing Liberals complain about obligations and fair share.  Things wouldn’t be in a mess if Democrats did their jobs and fixed the problems not increasing Welfare Programs.

          • Yawningattrolls

            Why should you pay taxes to fund a “crappy system”, our education system is still better than 90% of the world’s.? Because it is yours, and mine, and everyone’s responsibility to educate our children. If you don’t want to support education for all children then too bad – move elsewhere, this is America!

          • Anonymous

             I think the emotions get the best of people too often.  My only point is that we should have a choice.  I think we do have a responsibility to educate our children.  I support education wholeheartedly.  Just would like for parents to have a choice as to where they send their children.

          • Anonymous

            The point is, you DO have a choice. You can choose to send your own children to private schools that espouse whatever doctrines you choose. But that doesn’t negate your obligation to the taxpayer supported public system. I’m sorry you have a problem with that, but it is the foundation of our system. We all are responsible for contributing to the common good, even when the common good isn’t great. We’re all part of the problem, and, presumably, the solution. 

            Parenthetically, as an educator, you really shouldn’t take umbrage when others attack you for poor spelling. It comes with the territory: as educators, we are expected to conform to a higher standard of communication skills.

      • Anonymous

         Catholic school already have state and federal support for text books, transportation and special education.  Quit whining, run for school board, join the PTA go to school board meetings, help with the curriculum committee, volunteer.

        • Anonymous

           I should definitely quite whining about fairness.  that is always a great response

      • Anonymous

        It is hard to believe that you are really a teacher.   You do not understand the first thing about the U.S. tax system.

        • Anonymous

           Another really excellent statement.  Are you implying that I am unaware that my education is paid by the general fund.  Or that some people do not even pay enough in taxes to cover their children’s cost of education.  Whatever it is you do not think I am aware of, I assure you I do.  However each school does get money per pupil that do derive from our taxes.  I would just parents to have the choice to send the school of their choice and let the money follow…heck even a tax credit would be a start.

      • Yawningattrolls

        Because it is their choice and they still have a responsibility to pay for the education of all children in the district in which they reside; again it is a choice on their part.

        • Anonymous

           If we do not have a choice to pay taxes(which I do not oppose taxes), I think it benefits society if we have more choices as to what we do with those dollars.

  • Anonymous

    The whole idea of spending taxpayer money on PRIVATE charter or religious schools is completely absurd because this state cannot take care of the public school system we have in place now!!

    • Anonymous

      Business and religion both keep trying to get their hands on public educational funds.   They tend to look at the money we spend on public education as a pot of gold ripe for plunder.  What both those segments of our society fail to recognize is that their existence depends on public education.  Without an educated public there is neither a free country or a free economy.

      • Guest

        Some people have problems with inefficient and corrupt monopolies

      • dadoje

        That is ALEC school agenda across the nation

    • Anonymous

       well it is good that you get to choose what your taxpayer dollars go
      towards…but what about the people who want to send their children to a
      religious school, shouldn’t they get a choice where their tax dollars
      go.  why freedom for some and not for others!

      • Yawningattrolls

        Well, they can send their kids; that’s their choice, and that is freedom; however it is not in the best interest of our society to support religion of any type. These people need to be assimilated into the 21st century and not hanging on to the feudalistic superstitions of the 16th century.

        • Anonymous

           I think you are under an incorrect idea that in a religious schools they do not teach anything else but bible.  It’s too bad you couldn’t see my class.

      • I hope you’re not an English teacher, your spelling and grammar are horrible.

        • Anonymous

           These are the statements that just throw me for a loop.  Obviously I am answering quickly and sending quickly. It is just unproductive that is all…I definitely do not mind debating issues.

  • Anonymous

    Most Mainers choose their eduction by geography.  Most Mainers can’t afford to truck their kids to another town or school.  

    • Anonymous

       I, for one, would love to have the option of sending my child to school in the town where I work, rather than where I live, since that is where I spend the school day hours.  That would more easily afford me the opportunity to attend after school activities and be able to get to my child more quickly should he become ill or hurt on the playground.

      • Anonymous

         The article stated you have that option.  Petition the school you want to send your kids to.

        “Maine already has a school choice law,” MEA President Chris Galgay said. “Parents can go and request a child attend another public school in the state, and if the superintendent does not agree, the parents can appeal to the commissioner.”

        • Anonymous

           But don’t you have to pay the tuition yourself?

          • Anonymous

            No, I believe if the superintendent accepts your child the tuition goes with the child.  If there is a difference in tuition you pay that difference. 

          • Yawningattrolls

            Also the parents have to provide the transportation.

          •  No, it becomes a Superintendent’s agreement and is funded accordingly within public schools.

      • dadoje

        If that is a reason for school choice then couldn’t you move  to be in the school district. I know parents that want their child in another school district so they can play football because the school district they are in doesn’t have football. By allowing school choice and taxpayers paying for it the money to the local schools gets diluted.

  • Anonymous

    Hard to believe the support of noted legal scholar William Schneider would fail to tip the scales  in overturning this pillar of a secular republic provided us by Jefferson  and founding fathers et al.  This man has been extremely tentative in rendering a judgement in the case of Bruce Peloquin and the provisions of the Maine Constitution.  But has somehow managed to jump in with both feet advocating the overthrow of America’s basic structural foundation as  a bastion of freedom and pander to the religious righteousness of his far right wing base.  If they ever succeed in luring Chinese youth to Maine for an education do you suppose he will opine they will all have to be baptised before being admitted to Millinocket???

  • Anonymous

    I am relieved that my tax money will not be used to teach fear, hatred, and ignorance.

    • Anonymous

       well it is good that you get to choose what your taxpayer dollars go towards…but what about the people who want to send their children to a religious school, shouldn’t they get a choice where their tax dollars go.  why freedom for some and not for others!

      • Anonymous

        “Religious school” is a broad category, dangerously broad.  The radical madrassas in Pakistan are “religious schools” teaching jihad and murder.  Are you going to exclude one religion and fund another?   Even if we limit funding to “Christian” schools, do we fund willful ignorance such as the “Young Earth” dogma and denial of evolution?

        • Anonymous

           legislation did include that schools needed to become  accredited. 

          • Anonymous

            There is probably no way to develop accreditation criteria that apply to religious dogma and still pass the “establishment of religion” clause of the Constitution.

          • Anonymous

             I am sure that allowing taxpayers to choose where there money goes is the same thing as establishing a state religion….a little bit of a stretch!

          • Many sponsering some terrorist Group who knows . If we say we can give money to religious school where do we draw the line. The KKK was a religious group maybe they will start a school . Maybe some religious extreamist groups will too. Good way for them to raise funds. Where is the line drawn?

      • Anonymous

        No.

      • Anonymous

        You are asking the public to pay for your personal decision about where you send your child to school. Those without children in school won’t have the ability to say where the education part of their tax dollar goes, why should you? Are your rights more sacred than theirs?

        • Anonymous

           I am not asking them to pay….I am asking if my dollars can go towards my school instead.

      • Yawningattrolls

        That is a big “NO”! Remember separation of church and state? Besides that, many of us do not want our taxpayer dollars going to support superstition and the last vestiges of feudalism in our society. If someone wants to send their child to a religious school, let them pay for it themselves because it is a “choice” they have made

        • Anonymous

           How many people do not understand that giving school choice does not establish religion.  In fact the Supreme Court said so. By the way, Many of us do not want to use are taxpayer dollars to fund schools that have no discipline.

          • Anonymous

            I think that it is you who does not understand.

          • Anonymous

            can you name a state in which school choice was implemented that now has a state religion.

          • Anonymous

            You are again misrepresenting what is posted.   I said that it is you who does not understand.  Weneedbigbrother did not say that anything leads to state religion.   Nor did I.
            I will never believe that it is good policy to take funding from public schools to give to ANY private school.   You feel differently.Respectfully, I suggest that you calm down and reread what you have posted and how others have responded to your posts.  In any case, I do wish you well but  do not wish to continue this argument.

          • Anonymous

            He did not directly say that it leads to state religion…but the purpose of  separation of church and state as it is discussed in the constitution, in  particular the 1st amendment of the constitution is to keep away from the establishment of a state religion.  However again I have to thank you for calming me down, because I was so close to the edge I really do appreciate it.  I am glad you can finally not personally attack

  • Anonymous

    Good!  I’m glad the committee recommended that this bill should be defeated.  LePage has stated he’s against corporate welfare.  Offering public $$$ to a private school smells like corporate welfare to me.

    • Anonymous

       This has to be one of the most absurd statements I have ever seen.  If you call allowing taxpayers to choose where there money goes welfare, you have a very interesting definition.  What your saying I should pay taxes towards the educational system of Maine, but have no choice where to send my kids.  That sounds real fair to me!

      • Anonymous

        You do have a choice. Move if you don’t like the school district in which your children are enrolled. I would suggest that you care more about yourself than your children if you decide to stay put. Life is all about priorities and choices.

        • Anonymous

           I am glad thats your solution to the problem….thats what we need more wonderful ideas like this…What you are saying…If you do not like where your taxpayer dollars are going to bad…move!

          • Yawningattrolls

            Actually he has a very valid point – maybe the Vatican would be looking for a teacher?

          • Anonymous

             This is a useless statement!

      • Anonymous

        You may petition the school district of your choice to accept your child.  You may contest the decision of your request is denied.  

        • Anonymous

           does this include religious schools!

          • Anonymous

            “I should pay taxes towards the educational system of Maine, but have no choice where to send my kids. ”

            You asked about public education.

          • Yawningattrolls

            Nope, not by law.

      • You have a choice where to send your kids just not on the tax payers Dime. I have no choice but to spend my money to high priced coaches when sports are not needed for an education. I am saying they should keep things in budget I am not saying do away with sports.  

        • Anonymous

           but I am the taxpayer and I want it on my dime.  just want a true choice

  • Anonymous

    This was the right choice.

  • Guest

    A small victory in an ongoing war where the Extreme Republicans have made the public, the enemy.

  • Anonymous

    Now perhaps we can correct the problems that are identified within the particular schools that have problems.

    Identify the problems.

    Find practical solutions for the problems.

  • Anonymous

    If you don’t follow the rules and regulations that other schools do, then why should you get public funding? 

    • luvGSD

      Exactly.  If you eschew public education, then why would you expect public funding?

  • Anonymous

    Jefferson endorsed and recommended a mixed system of public and subsidized private education—his letters are in the State Archives. He preferred a uniform k-8 education for all, and then a meritocracy with students going to different schools based on talent, intellect, etc. This is exactly why the private schools were subsidized because the government schools could not and still can’t provide the diversity and quality expected. 

     Jefferson stated his views in 1849, and the system of private subsidies lasted until 1983 when they were terminated by AG Brennan on an interpretation of a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the Sep. Church & State clause, that was subsequently reversed in the famous ZELMAN case legalizing Cleveland’s voucher system.

    Unfortuntely, the A.G.’s office never implemented the ZELMAN decision because of union pressure and prejudice; and the Education Committee is dominated by the union.The result is 
    Mediocrity; scores stuck permanently in the middle and declining as other states and countries profit from a diversified public/private system. Florida’s rise from last place was a result of adopting a competitive public and private school system. Some states like Wisconsin officially endorse private schools run by religious groups; and in Canada, schools can be secular (no religious affiliation), Catholic or Christian (various Protestant denominations). Some provinces have separate school boards for religious and non-religious schools.

  • Anonymous

    I find it funny how people say there shouldn’t be public money for religious schools.  When they are actually saying that people should not have a right to use their tax dollars the way they see fit.  Public Money=Taxpayer money …Parents who send their children to Religious schools=Taxpayer….What is wrong with that equation?

    • Many people with no kids in school still pay taxes. I pay taxes that support UMO sports when the loose 7 million a year on the sports programs an pay people like Jack Cosgrove $250,000 a year with benefits . Sports are nice but most college kids do not play them .  The money spent on the sports program could be use to send more people to college. I do not think most hockey player come from disadvantages homes. 

      • Anonymous

         this is true…my only point is it would be nice if the taxpayers who do have children could have some say.

    • Anonymous

      You may find it funny, but no, we do not have the right to use the taxes that we pay as we see fit.
      I see further down that you are accredited to teach civics and philosophy.   You seem to be confusing the two here.   I would not be comfortable having you teaching any children, let alone my own.

      • Anonymous

         Actually you can be accredited to teach both because they are both under the Social Studies Umbrella.   All I said it would be good if we could have more say over our tax dollars.  The one thing I would like to have more say over is my children’s educational funding.  Lastly, I am glad that you can gauge my teaching ability from a public forum.  As much as you think that I would be preaching or doing anything of the sort in the classroom, is actually the exact opposite.  I actually detest it when teachers try and push their viewpoints or political beliefs on to the students.  However your logic is the same logic that most parents who want school choice have.  They do not want people who do not believe the same way as they do to teach them.  I have taught in public schools and had nothing but great results and great relationships with parents. 

        • Anonymous

          I did not say that one could not be accredited to teach both, whether they are under one umbrella or not.  I said that you are confusing the two in support of your own wishes.  This is yet another confused reading on your part.

          What I see from reading your posts is much confusion about how our government works, so yes I would say that that is very good evidence to judge your teaching abilities,  particularly as it regards to teaching civics.

          You have said that you have tried and that your local schools are hopeless.  That is too bad.  The only choice for you as I see it is a private school that you would have to pay for,  or to move to an area with a better school system.

          • Anonymous

             I really have said little as to how government works…I have mostly advocated for school choice…I guess sometimes a personal attack is easier than discussing for some.

    • Anonymous

      By your name, it seems like you’re biting the hand that feeds you.

      • Anonymous

         It is that I truly believe that parents and students should have a choice.  I know there are some problems in implementing, but I think it is worth the work.

  • Anonymous

    The seeds for the demolition of public education were sown when the Bush administration introduced it’s NCLB. Public schools became burdened with much more than the education of our young people. As a result, charter schools, religious schools, and private schools, all free from NCLB mandates, have become a popular haven for those dissatisfied with the reality of NCLB. This state’s current Commissioner of Education and its governor are trying to take the second step in this dismantling of public education by allowing public monies to flow out of local school districts to support other learning institutions. Of course, we cannot forget about Gendron, a Baldacci appointee, who replaced the MEA’s with the SAT’s as a measure of student learning. The SAT results are showing Maine public schools in a bad light because of below the mean average scores achieved by high school juniors all of which must take them. Bring back Albanese, whose leadership as Commissioner, had propelled Maine schools into some of the best in the nation.

    • dadoje

      ALEC is  pushing this agenda Just google ALEC school agenda across the nation. Weakening public schools and pushing for private schools

      • Anonymous

        Just like Maine Center for Economic Policy and Maine Municpal Association (MCEP, MMA) pushed their agendas when Democrats ran things from 1974-2010.  This group (MCEP) also thinks Welfare is economic growth.

  • Tedlick Badkey

    Good news!

    • luvGSD

      (Very astute if you saw my comment re John Linnehan and his Good News Center.)

  • Anonymous

    Thank you, Republicans for standing up to LePage and not allowing major changes in education to be rammed through at the last minute. It took a while, but you finally did something right. Keep it coming.

  • Anonymous

    Taking money out of public education  and giving it to  private,  religious  and charter schools and calling it educational reform is beyond cynical.  LePage  apparently believes that  Mainer’s are too stupid to be aware of what he is doing.  Cynicism and dishonesty have never been indicators of good leadership.  Many thanks to the legislators who would not let this change take place.

  • Anonymous

    I think that this is more of the Legislature telling LePage to quit with the delay and misinformation tactics.   This legislation, though introduced at the beginning of the session was held in the Reviser Of Statutes Office nearly all session long.  A bill cannot be placed upon a docket until the Reviser’s office is finished with it.   

You may also like