The issue of school vouchers is very interesting. The original purpose of the voucher was to provide money for private schools to stop integration of public schools. They were to keep white schools white in 1959. Since the publication of the book "Schools at Risk" the conservative influence on schools has compared them to a business rather than what they are. Schools are not created to make profits but to teach children. The new revamped voucher program argues parents have the "right" to choose the place of education for their children, but the use of taxpayer dollars to provide private religious education can be against the separation of church and state. The vouchers will not improve education, but rather remove funds from public schools and poor parents still won't be able to afford the private schools because the voucher given them won't cover the entire tuition. Research has shown that in schools where vouchers have taken over whole systems the schools loose ground in test results and the students do NOT improve. Private religious schools also do not have to take at risk students, special needs students, students who have other problems. Essentially they shut the doors on millions of students and put them at a disadvantage because the funds that should have gone to the public schools has gone to the private schools. If we want to improve schools we need to do several things. My PhD dissertation was on charter schools and the results of my research showed that we need to set a national agenda of what makes an educated person. Drop me a note on my message board here if you would like to know more.
Some of the activities that are violating secularism in India are like movements of the communists and classes that are depressed who oppose such views. Politics and government, and wearing of caste marks in some professions which is in violations of the norms put by secularism.
She didn't and no one has taken prayer out of schools. It was never there in the first place. We have a separation of church and state and to pray in schools would violate that. Whose prayer would you say each day? We have many religions and many people who don't believe in God. There is no state religion in the United States. If you want to pray in school, go ahead. You can say a silent prayer any time, any day you want.
Yes, it is permissible for a Muslim girl to dye her hair black as long as it does not violate religious guidelines, such as being done for the purpose of imitating a specific non-Muslim group or culture. It is important to consult with a religious scholar or authority for specific guidance.
We the people in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic transquily It is acceptable to limit the practice of peoples religious beliefs when it is harmful to the common good
To suggest that Schools do not talk about God, or the Bible, is simply misnomer in Nature, as they sometimes do. But as for the Question itself, Teaching Religion, in a Public, Tax Payer Supported School District, Tends to Violate Article One of the U.S. Constitution. One of the more Famous Tests ,of the Authority of Article One, to Prevent Religious Teaching at Tax Payer Expense is the following, Supreme Court Case-Abington School District v. Schempp & Murray v. Curlett (1963) Court DecisionArguments for both cases were heard on the 27th and 28th of February, 1963. On the 17th of June, 1963, the Court ruled 8-1 against of allowing the reciting of the Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer. Justice Clark wrote at length in his majority opinion about the history and importance of religion in America, but his conclusion was that the Constitution forbids any establishment of religion, that prayer is a form of religion, and that hence state-sponsored or mandated prayer in public schools cannot be allowed. There are quite a few similar cases involving the Breach of Article One, a simple search on the web, using such words as " Constitution and Public Prayer" will generate numerous hits.
yes they can
freedom of speech
This has been answered many times by the courts: Church Schools that receive no state (government; state or federal) funding do not violate the separation of church and state. Further, no classes held in a church (that do receive government funding) violate the separation clause as long as the 'church' and its religious edict (teachings) is left out of the curriculum.
(New York, February 27, 2004)-The proposed French law banning Islamic headscarves and other visible religious symbols in state schools would violate the rights to freedom of religion and expression, Human Rights Watch said today.
The United States Supreme Court has defined creationism as a religious hypothesis, which should be taught only as part of religious education. It is not permitted to be taught in science courses.For more information, please visit: http://christianity.answers.com/theology/the-story-of-creation
Yes, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States of America in 1987 (Edwards vs. Aguillard), creationism cannot be taught in public schools as doing so would violate the US constitution.
Yes, religious solicitation is legal in the United States as long as it does not violate any laws or regulations, such as those related to trespassing or harassment. Religious organizations and individuals have the right to engage in solicitation activities, such as distributing religious literature or inviting others to attend religious services, as protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
No, it is generally not legal to post a picture of a minor without their consent, as it can violate their privacy rights and potentially lead to legal consequences.
A:There are some who believe that the religious beliefs that they hold entitle them to interfere in the rights of others, but would deny the rights of those who might follow different religious beliefs the right to meddle in their own affairs. Such people will never be satisfied and it is fruitless to seek common ground. Legalising divorce does not violate the religious freedom of those whose religion says that divorce is sinful, because it does not mandate that all couples must undergo divorce. On the other hand, failure to legalise divorce would violate the religious freedom of those who do not believe that divorce is sinful, or who believe that in certain circumstances divorce is the greater good.
I will not violate your privacy.
No, the Constitution makes no provisions against candidacy for President regarding religious affiliation.No. Such a clause would actually be unconstitutional, as it would violate the 1st Amendment.
Yes, it is generally illegal to post a photo of someone without their permission, as it can violate their right to privacy and potentially lead to legal consequences.