PDA

View Full Version : Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona


mimartin
04-04-2011, 11:08 PM
Thank the maker for Arizona because as long as there is an Arizona, Texas will not be the most backward state in the union.

USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-04-supreme-court-arizona-schools-tax_N.htm?csp=34news)

FoxNews (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04/04/supreme-court-upholds-arizona-school-vouchers/)

Did the court make the right decision in upholding tax credit s for donations to religious “school tuition organizations”?

If you support the decision, how do you justify such credits in a time when state budgets are stretched so thin?

Tommycat
04-04-2011, 11:46 PM
Well it's school. How do you feel that tax credits should not be allowed for school tuitions for religious institutions when they are allowed for non-religious schools? Seems to me that school tuition tax credits should be allowed regardless of religious affiliation...

mimartin
04-05-2011, 12:00 AM
If this country was fundamentally based on state sponsored religion then I would tend to agree with your assessment. However this country was not founded on that principle.

To answer your statement...I open a school for devil worshipers, do you still think these same people would support tax credit for those giving tuition money for that? If not, why and how is that fair?

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 12:05 AM
Perhaps states need to cut back on the scope of their activities and overall size to help ease their financial burdens. I'd agree with TC that forbidding the tax credit to a school with a religious affiliation is tantamount to needless discrimination when private secular schools are also eligible. As to your example, if the govt recognizes Satan worship as a legitimate religious activity, they should technically qualify.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 12:13 AM
As to your example, if the govt recognizes Satan worship as a legitimate religious activity, they should technically qualify.

Why would it have to be recognized as legitmate religious activity to qualify?

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 12:17 AM
My guess would be that, as with everything covered by law, there have to be definitions met in order to qualify.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 12:37 AM
My guess would be that, as with everything covered by law, there have to be definitions met in order to qualify.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Guess they really couldn't do that without doing something about that silly line.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 02:27 AM
You left off " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" So long as the school meets the educational requirements, I see no problem what religious affiliation they have. YOU'RE the one with the double standards here. You feel that it should be okay for a private school that is not religious to be a tax exemption, but not one simply based on religion. You seem to give preferential treatment to one religious preference(non-religious) over another.

Q
04-05-2011, 03:39 AM
I think that people should be allowed to sponsor a school that they want and not be pigeon-holed into sponsoring one that they don't.

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 04:18 AM
You left off " or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" So long as the school meets the educational requirements, I see no problem what religious affiliation they have.

Precisely. If all are treated equally, there is no preference given to one over another and thus no reason to fear establishment of a state religion.

YOU'RE the one with the double standards here. You feel that it should be okay for a private school that is not religious to be a tax exemption, but not one simply based on religion. You seem to give preferential treatment to one religious preference(non-religious) over another.

I agree, unless of course mim means that benfactors of secular schools shouldn't get a tax credit either b/c of budgetary concerns.

Why would it have to be recognized as legitmate religious activity to qualify?

Perhaps to avoid this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMR-yPA4lsY :xp:

Sabretooth
04-05-2011, 05:21 AM
You seem to give preferential treatment to one religious preference(non-religious) over another.
Saying 'non-religious' is a religious preference is like saying that my favourite candy is no candy.

I think that people should be allowed to sponsor a school that they want and not be pigeon-holed into sponsoring one that they don't.

Aren't there any of those nifty, corporate chain schools there?

mimartin
04-05-2011, 08:51 AM
YOU'RE the one with the double standards here.Nope, I do not have a double standard. I feel that no religion should get preferential treatment.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 10:07 AM
Nope, I do not have a double standard. I feel that no religion should get preferential treatment.

Under the old system, non-religious private schools were a tax write-off. Now all private school tuitions are a write-off. This is eliminating the preferential treatment given to secular private schools. Now, if you are saying that they shouldn't get tax credits for any, then I could see it. However targeting religious institutions seems to be establishing secular humanism as the religion of the land.

Saying 'non-religious' is a religious preference is like saying that my favourite candy is no candy.
It's still a religious choice. You choose none of the above.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 10:36 AM
So you are saying the constitution is meaningless or are you saying the constitution is meaningless when applied to something you disagree with within it?

I want my tax dollars spent on education, things like math and actual science and not fairy tales like intelligent design.

However targeting religious institutions seems to be establishing secular humanism as the religion of the land.
No it is not. As a Christian I went to a public school. I was not told I could not attend if I not renounce my religion. Everyone has the right to go to public school and I pay my tax dollars with the understanding they are going towards educating our children, not supporting religion. If I want to support religion I will give to the church itself which is tax deductible.

Primogen
04-05-2011, 11:27 AM
I'm a Christian and I still agree with Mimartin's position, albeit not his reasoning. Letting the Government involve themselves in Private education in any way is screwed up no matter what the private school is.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 12:37 PM
The point is:
It is a tax deduction to pay for private school if it is secular.
It is a tax deduction to give to a religious institution.
It is however only now a tax deduction to pay for a private school that is religious.

This in no way violates anyone's freedom to worship whatever they want. Secular schools prohibit worship on campus. These are private schools, not public. The children who go there are there by the parents' choice. It is not forcing religion on people, as the attendance to the school is voluntary and paid for.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 01:10 PM
From your reply I see the your answer is yes, but I'm not sure to which option. So you are saying the constitution is meaningless or are you saying the constitution is meaningless when applied to something you disagree with within it?

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 01:36 PM
From your reply I see the your answer is yes, but I'm not sure to which option.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying that disallowing a religious contribution is tantamount to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion.

Sabretooth
04-05-2011, 01:37 PM
It's still a religious choice. You choose none of the above.

If that is so, then what is the meaning of not choosing a religion? Surely you cannot both choose and not choose at the same time? After all, "None of the above" is no religion I've heard of.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 01:50 PM
No, I am not saying that. I am saying that disallowing a religious contribution is tantamount to "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion.

So tax credits are a right?

First of all I’m a Christian. I have no problem with kids going to private Christian school. I would consider sending a child of mine to a Christian private school as long as the school taught science in science class. I have no problem with anyone learning religious teachings provided it is not done on the government expense. Giving tax credits to a private secular school is not the government supporting any religion. Giving tax credits to a private religious school is the government supporting a religion.

When you give tax credits, it is not free money…That deficit has to be made up somewhere or services have to be cut.

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 02:36 PM
They aren't a selective "right". Not sure about the school system you went to, but I went to Catholic schools where we had people of other religions that weren't forced to give up their faiths in order to attend (and atheists that weren't forced to believe for that matter). Besides, the Constitution originally only prohibited Congress from making any laws that "respected the establishment of religion", it is only later (mid 20th century) that the judicial branch of govt sought to reinterpret that to mean all levels of govt. Now you have the USSC saying big deal on a state policy. Frankly, no harm is being done anyone. If state budgets are in such dire straits that giving a tax credit is deemed unwise, then all state based tax credits should be revoked for the duration of the financial crisis. It's hard to be taken seriously complaining about unfair discrimination under the law and then to be seen invoking it when it fits your prejudices.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 02:41 PM
What does selection have to do with anything?

Either the state is promoting religion or they are not. I define tax credits as promoting religion.

It isn't call the “Inclusion of all churches and state”, it is the separation of church and state.

It's hard to be taken seriously complaining about unfair discrimination under the law and then to be seen invoking it when it fits your prejudices.

Just what prejudices are those? You seem to know better than me. Define them please. Or do just enjoy ad hominem arguments?

I'm guessing you mean the same prejudices of the men who actually wrote the constitution since my entire argument against this is it is un-constitutional and if the Supreme Political Court wasn’t so political they would have ruled that way too.

Also there are other things that make something un-constitutional other that merely discrimination (which is not part of my argument BTW).

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 04:47 PM
So tax credits are a right?
No, but one should not discriminate against religious institutions. As I said, in the state of Arizona, private schools already have the same tax break. So saying that just because they are religious means you can't get the tax break is religious discrimination.

First of all Iím a Christian. I have no problem with kids going to private Christian school. I would consider sending a child of mine to a Christian private school as long as the school taught science in science class. I have no problem with anyone learning religious teachings provided it is not done on the government expense. Giving tax credits to a private secular school is not the government supporting any religion. Giving tax credits to a private religious school is the government supporting a religion.
Actually, it gives preferential treatment to those schools that are not religiously affiliated.
When you give tax credits, it is not free moneyÖThat deficit has to be made up somewhere or services have to be cut.
I'd be fine if they also got rid of the other tax break for the ones that are not religiously affiliated as well. cause as you said, it's taking money from the children... Granted, when you take a kid out of public school, you also cut the public school's expense by a greater amount than the tax break, sooo six in one hand half a dozen in the other.

mimartin
04-05-2011, 04:53 PM
You'll do know the Obama administration supported this decision. Doesn’t that usually mean republicans are against it no matter what it is?

Liverandbacon
04-05-2011, 05:04 PM
You'll do know the Obama administration supported this decision. Doesn’t that usually mean republicans are against it no matter what it is?

Like how Democrats are usually against anything supported by a Republican administration, no matter what it is?

(For anyone who doesn't already know my hate for the two-party system, and assumes I'm being defensive of my party: I hate the two party system, and both parties in their current form.)

Q
04-05-2011, 05:17 PM
^So do I. being forced to choose between bull**** and horse**** pretty much nullifies the democratic process.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 05:27 PM
You'll do know the Obama administration supported this decision. Doesnít that usually mean republicans are against it no matter what it is?

Heh... Even a broken clock is right twice a day. LOL
You're making the mistake of assuming Republicans are simple sheep following the leader. Hell, here in AZ we're pretty ticked at our Republican state representatives over the Fiesta Bowl scheme... Not sure about Texas Republicans, but here in AZ we tend to look beyond just R or D.

purifier
04-05-2011, 05:32 PM
(For anyone who doesn't already know my hate for the two-party system, and assumes I'm being defensive of my party: I hate the two party system, and both parties in their current form.)

^This.

^So do I. being forced to choose between bull**** and horse**** pretty much nullifies the democratic process.

^And this.

:golfclap: Man I couldn't have said it better. But the bigger question is, which one is worse than the other?

Darth InSidious
04-05-2011, 06:11 PM
THIS CONVERSATION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! YOU'RE ALL COMMUNIST NAZI GAY ATHEIST JEWISH CATHOLIC JESUIT SPY-TERRORIST MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS!!

mimartin
04-05-2011, 06:24 PM
You're making the mistake of assuming Republicans are simple sheep following the leader. You did hear people trash Obama for Libya didn't you. The same people calling for him to do what he did then turned around and moaned when he did what they wanted. After that I thought it was pretty clear.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 06:43 PM
You did hear people trash Obama for Libya didn't you. The same people calling for him to do what he did then turned around and moaned when he did what they wanted. After that I thought it was pretty clear.

Actually, I heard them trashing his supporters for not coming out against him like they did Bush, but then we must listen to different talking heads... actually I'm pretty sure of it. The only conservative talk I listen to are the morning and evening guys here, and they are local. Maybe Arizona Republicans are just smarter than your average Texan Republican :D

Honestly I prefer my talk radio more local than national. And see our local talk radio shows have been pounding on the state Republicans harder than anyone else. For instance Scott Bungart: Got in trouble with the law for domestic violence on the highway. He claimed immunity from arrest using some loophole in the state constitution. Well the idiot decided to appear on the talk radio station to plead his case, and ended up making the case the talk radio hosts had been saying. That he was a big fat liar, and he should have been arrested(to sum it up). Then when it came to our state representatives getting bribed by the Fiesta Bowl, once again, they have been slamming them for wrongdoing. More so than the Dems... As one put it, "They represent US, Not just the people of their respective districts, but they represent the conservatives from their districts. WE HAVE to hold them to a higher standard, more so than the Democrats, who only represent our districts."

Hannity, Rush and the like are kinda like the McDonalds of talk radio. Big conglomerate fast food conservative radio.

Primogen
04-05-2011, 07:27 PM
Eh, I like Rush. I'd never listen to him for -wisdom-, but amusing commentary? The guy's more comedian than pundit.

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 07:39 PM
What does selection have to do with anything?
Either the state is promoting religion or they are not. I define tax credits as promoting religion.
It isn't call the “Inclusion of all churches and state”, it is the separation of church and state.

"Seperation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution. It was a court interpretation of the 20th century. Seems that what one court (even if the USSC) giveth, another can take away/disregard.



Just what prejudices are those? You seem to know better than me. Define them please. *snipped for ad hominem* I'm guessing you mean the same prejudices of the men who actually wrote the constitution since my entire argument against this is it is un-constitutional and if the Supreme Political Court wasn’t so political they would have ruled that way too.

Meant "you" in the general sense, not specifically as in you personally. Well, maybe the USSC should be stripped down to one judge....you. :devsmoke: Seriously, is your argument, then, that anytime the USSC doesn't decide in favor of the postion you back that they are merely being political? As to the founder argument, more than just Jefferson (who is cited as an inspiration for the establishment clause) helped in crafting the Constitution. You telling me you know for fact that most/all of them agreed with him on that? Interesting it didn't appear that clear in the final document.

@L&B and Q---unfortunately too true.

@DI---what?!? no Vatican assassin warlock charges? :xp:

mimartin
04-05-2011, 08:38 PM
"Seperation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution. Great to know, now why are you telling me this? I never wrote it was.
Well, maybe the USSC should be stripped down to one judge....you. :devsmoke: Would not take the job as I know I'm not qualified. I have been struck the infliction that is strangely foreign to most Americans. I have empathy. I hope to be cured of this terrible infliction someday. Seriously, is your argument, then, that anytime the USSC doesn't decide in favor of the postion you back that they are merely being political? I’ve been posting here how long? Only one other time I remember writing they were being political and that was when I agreed with their final decision. That was the Gore vs. Bush debate. So no, I do not call it political every time I disagree with their decisions. Want to try again?


@Tommycat - Wasn't talking about talking heads. Was speaking of House leadership.

Tommycat
04-05-2011, 09:06 PM
@Tommycat - Wasn't talking about talking heads. Was speaking of House leadership.

Not too much of a surprise. Granted, even Bush went to Congress to get permission... I'd get more into it, and my feelings on it, but this is a thread about Arizona. I'd rather stick to that. No point in going on about how the Republican leadership is why there are so many people claiming "conservative" rather than "Republican"

Totenkopf
04-05-2011, 10:29 PM
Great to know, now why are you telling me this? I never wrote it was.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" Guess they really couldn't do that without doing something about that silly line.

So you are saying the constitution is meaningless or are you saying the constitution is meaningless when applied to something you disagree with within it?

So the point of these comments is...?



Would not take the job as I know I'm not qualified. I have been struck the infliction that is strangely foreign to most Americans. I have empathy. I hope to be cured of this terrible infliction someday.

On your deathbed, perhaps? :xp:


Iíve been posting here how long? Only one other time I remember writing they were being political and that was when I agreed with their final decision. That was the Gore vs. Bush debate. So no, I do not call it political every time I disagree with their decisions.

Remember, I've taken several breaks and haven't seen every post you've ever written here. :rolleyes: Also, it was a bit rhetorical. So, in the spirit of "trying again" this is being political how exactly?

Nope, I do not have a double standard. I feel that no religion should get preferential treatment.

If everyone qualifies, then how is it preferential?

mimartin
04-05-2011, 11:25 PM
I suggest you read Amendment I of the Bill of Right again.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. My quote is directly from it. However, it in no way proves that I wrote that “"Separation of church and state" is in the Constitution.

I did however write Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, was in the Constiution and for the record it is.

This in no way violates anyone's freedom to worship whatever they want. Secular schools prohibit worship on campus. These are private schools, not public. The children who go there are there by the parents' choice. It is not forcing religion on people, as the attendance to the school is voluntary and paid for. I actually think Tommycat sums up my thinking pretty well here I just happen to come to a different conclusion.

By giving tax credit the government is sponsoring religion. By sponsoring religion they are establishing religion. So as far as I am concern this violates the constitution. So to me the Supreme Court is cow-tailing to those that got them their lifelong jobs instead of making judgment based on precedents they are making their interpretation based on party affiliation.

Darth Avlectus
04-06-2011, 03:23 AM
THIS CONVERSATION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! YOU'RE ALL COMMUNIST NAZI GAY ATHEIST JEWISH CATHOLIC JESUIT SPY-TERRORIST MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS!!

G(AW)D EFFING ******! Who let in that Westborough lunatic again?! :mad:

Q
04-06-2011, 05:25 PM
But the bigger question is, which one is worse than the other?
The last decade has demonstrated to me that they're equally bad. Though they seemingly represent two very different political philosophies, the main goal of both parties is identical: oligarchy.

All of the divisive rhetoric is just a smokescreen.

Tommycat
04-06-2011, 06:33 PM
By giving tax credit the government is sponsoring religion. By sponsoring religion they are establishing religion. So as far as I am concern this violates the constitution. So to me the Supreme Court is cow-tailing to those that got them their lifelong jobs instead of making judgment based on precedents they are making their interpretation based on party affiliation.

By only giving it to schools that disallow religion, they effectively "prohibit the free exercise thereof"

Also, What religion are they establishing with this. Sure Catholic schools are the most common, but by no means are they the only religious schools. I have seen Muslim, Christian, Mormon, and a few other random religious schools(during my drives to different sites, I tend to pass a few different private schools... darn school zones). This in no way says that only Christian schools get the tax break.

mimartin
04-06-2011, 08:20 PM
By only giving it to schools that disallow religion, they effectively "prohibit the free exercise thereof" Really, I thought you wrote they only change the law recently to allow tax credit for religious institution tuition. Were there no religious schools in Arizona before the tax credit was allowed?

Tommycat
04-06-2011, 08:35 PM
Really, I thought you wrote they only change the law recently to allow tax credit for religious institution tuition. Were there no religious schools in Arizona before the tax credit was allowed?

I'm saying that this law fixed the government suppression of people who wanted to exercise religion freely. Essentially it was taxation on the religious.

Totenkopf
04-07-2011, 07:35 PM
I suggest you read Amendment I of the Bill of Right again.

Perhaps you should keep in mind then that it is NOT Congress, but the AZ legislature in question.



My quote is directly from it. However, it in no way proves that I wrote that ď"Separation of church and state" is in the Constitution.
I did however write Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, was in the Constiution and for the record it is.

Nice strawman, since I never accused you of writing those word in a post. But they do sum up the essence of most of your posts on this issue.



I actually think Tommycat sums up my thinking pretty well here I just happen to come to a different conclusion.

By giving tax credit the government is sponsoring religion. By sponsoring religion they are establishing religion. So as far as I am concern this violates the constitution. So to me the Supreme Court is cow-tailing to those that got them their lifelong jobs instead of making judgment based on precedents they are making their interpretation based on party affiliation.

Same could be said of the other four, as far as party affiliation is concerned. Besides, they aren't establishing religion......it's been around far longer than the Constitution and those who've interpreted it since. Still, if the govt were slave to precedents.....we'd still have slaves.

mimartin
04-07-2011, 08:22 PM
Perhaps you should keep in mind then that it is NOT Congress, but the AZ legislature in question. Yes Sir Captain Obvious, Sir!


Nice strawman, since I never accused you of writing those word in a post. But they do sum up the essence of most of your posts on this issue. Forgive me for misunderstand you quoting me and then writing this: "Seperation of church and state" is nowhere in the Constitution.
Have no clue how I could misunderstand that....

Same could be said of the other four, as far as party affiliation is concerned. I did say that.




Still, if the govt were slave to precedents.....we'd still have slaves.Now you are just getting silly.

More than willing to debate with someone that wants to actually debate, but until then I am done.

Tommycat
04-07-2011, 11:06 PM
Well the title of the thread is "Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona" which seems to suggest that the remainder of your arguments against it would be geared towards that being in the Constitution. Instead you pointed to "Congress not establishing religion" as one of your arguments, which this case is neither an establishment of a religion, nor Congress that is doing it. So your pointing to the First Amendment in this case appears to be a red herring. So what exactly was your point.

mimartin
04-07-2011, 11:23 PM
Well the title of the thread is "Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona" which seems to suggest that the remainder of your arguments against it would be geared towards that being in the Constitution. Instead you pointed to "Congress not establishing religion" as one of your arguments, which this case is neither an establishment of a religion, nor Congress that is doing it. So your pointing to the First Amendment in this case appears to be a red herring. So what exactly was your point. Yes the constituion only applies to Congress now. I suggest you send the memo to the court explaining your findings.

I suggest a little lite reading;

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist 71- 1948
Torasco v. Watkin – 1961
Engel v Vitale - 1962
Abington School District v Schempp - 1963
Epperson v Arkansas 1968
Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971 (this one really applies)
This case was heard concurrently with two others, Earley v. DiCenso (1971) and Robinson v. DiCenso (1971). The cases involved controversies over laws in Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In Pennsylvania, a statute provided financial support for teacher salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects to non-public schools. The Rhode Island statute provided direct supplemental salary payments to teachers in non-public elementary schools. Each statute made aid available to "church-related educational institutions."

Question:
Did the Rhode Island and Pennsylvania statutes violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause by making state financial aid available to "church- related educational institutions"?

Conclusion:
Yes. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Burger articulated a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. To be constitutional, a statute must have "a secular legislative purpose," it must have principal effects which neither advance nor inhibit religion, and it must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." The Court found that the subsidization of parochial schools furthered a process of religious inculcation, and that the "continuing state surveillance" necessary to enforce the specific provisions of the laws would inevitably entangle the state in religious affairs. The Court also noted the presence of an unhealthy "divisive political potential" concerning legislation which appropriates support to religious schools.

Decisions

Decision: 8 votes for Lemon, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Establishment of Religion



Stone v. Graham - 1980
Wallace v. Jaffree - 1985
Edwards v. Aquillard - 1987
Lee v Weisman -1992
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., v Hialeh - 1993

The biggest thing these all have in common is none of them have to do with Congress, but all have to do with the establishment clause, but I guess you both already knew that.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 12:14 AM
Ugh... here we go. As I said, previously(maybe I wasn't clear) this law gives no preferential treatment to any religion. It in effect places religious schools back on equal footing with other private schools that were secular, and/or specifically forbid prayer. My comment about it not being congress was that the specific framing of it when introduced was for Congress. However if you want to go there, it was the 14th Amendment that made it applicable to the states.

Nice pointing only to ones that support your side, but there is precident:
ROEMER V. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF MARYLAND, 426 U. S. 736 (1976)
Which held that state funds could go to sectarian organizations.
Or how about something very close to the issue.

ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, ET AL. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS ET AL - 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
Which held that school vouchers could go to religious schools.
While our jurisprudence with respect to the constitutionality of direct aid programs has "changed significantly" over the past two decades, Agostini, supra, at 236, our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice programs has remained consistent and unbroken. Three times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing. Three times we have rejected such challenges.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 12:22 AM
Ugh... here we go. As I said, previously(maybe I wasn't clear)

Kind of hard to be clear when you are yelling red herring and dismissing my argument off hand even though as the cases I pointed out show it shouldn't be (which IS the reason I pointed out those cases. I don't think there is a rule in Kavars that says I have to do research for the opposite side that I’m on. )

Again, I'm done until someone actual wants to debate without the offhand comments.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 12:42 AM
Kind of hard to be clear when you are yelling red herring and dismissing my argument off hand even though as the cases I pointed out show it shouldn't be (which IS the reason I pointed out those cases. I don't think there is a rule in Kavars that says I have to do research for the opposite side that Iím on. )

Again, I'm done until someone actual wants to debate without the offhand comments.
Um... I did provide some lovely counterpoints. And a couple supreme court decisions which showed that even providing direct funding to religious schools was not a violation of the establishment clause(within specified guidelines)

I also explained why it seemed to be a bit of a red herring. Since the point you made was that it was the framers idea to prevent the establishment of religion. The 14th amendment was the one that extended the first to the states. So while technically correct, your pointing it as the framer's idea was a bit of a red herring. Especially since at the time of the framing, several of the states actually had state religions.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 12:56 AM
If this country was fundamentally based on state sponsored religion then I would tend to agree with your assessment. However this country was not founded on that principle.

I can see how that could be misunderstood. :)

Did you even read the majority reason? It wasn’t because it did or did not violate the establishment clause. It was because the conservative majority thought the taxpayers lacked the grounds to bring a suit. In other words, according to the conservative majority taxpayers don’t have a say in how their tax money is spent. Can you honestly say that would be the case if this case did not involve religion, but let’s say it involved tax money for health care?

Or does that meet your definition of red herring too? Sorry bit of a red herring....

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 01:16 AM
I can see how that could be misunderstood. :)
That and a few others, but if your intent was the first, combined with the 14th irrespectively of the founders specifically, then I concede the point.

As to the rest of your argument, I gave them the exact same consideration you gave mine. :thmbup1:
So you actually read them and took note of the legal implications? I mean even Lemon V. Kurtzman showed that it wasn't the funding so much as the entanglement of religion because of the "continuing state surveillance to ensure that the statutory restrictions are obeyed and the First Amendment otherwise respected. Furthermore, under the Act, the government must inspect school records to determine what part of the expenditures is attributable to secular education, as opposed to religious activity," and
"The entanglement in the Pennsylvania program also arises from the restrictions and surveillance necessary to ensure that teachers play a strictly nonideological role and the state supervision of nonpublic school accounting procedures required to establish the cost of secular, as distinguished from religious, education. In addition, the Pennsylvania statute has the further defect of providing continuing financial aid directly to the church-related schools. Historically, governmental control and surveillance measures tend to follow cash grant programs, and here the government's post-audit power to inspect the financial records of church-related schools creates an intimate and continuing relationship between church and state."

Which actually goes against what you specifically stated earlier in the thread.

Totenkopf
04-08-2011, 04:31 AM
Yes Sir Captain Obvious, Sir!

Nice to see you bitch about ad hominems and resort to name calling. :rolleyes:


Forgive me for misunderstand you quoting me and then writing this:
Have no clue how I could misunderstand that....

You demanded I show where you wrote/said Seperation was actually in the Constitution. I pointed out I didn't accuse you of saying that directly, but as TC said: Well the title of the thread is "Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona" which seems to suggest that the remainder of your arguments against it would be geared towards that being in the Constitution. Instead you pointed to "Congress not establishing religion" as one of your arguments, which this case is neither an establishment of a religion, nor Congress that is doing it. So your pointing to the First Amendment in this case appears to be a red herring. So what exactly was your point.

I didn't misunderstand the intent of your argument. When you want to be more intellectually honest......


Now you are just getting silly.

Pot, this is kettle.... Take your own advice mim. As to your argument about it being political, it's not unfair to come to the conclusion you were damning the SC's conservatives as being political and not principled and not the other 4. Remember, precendents aren't absolutely binding.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 09:05 AM
Nice to see you bitch about ad hominems and resort to name calling. :rolleyes:Well you are calling me stupid by pointing out the obvious. Or is that different?


You demanded I show where you wrote/said Seperation was actually in the Constitution. I pointed out I didn't accuse you of saying that directly, Then why did you tell me it wasn't in the constitution? You're not making sense.


Pot, this is kettle.... Take your own advice mim. As to your argument about it being political, it's not unfair to come to the conclusion you were damning the SC's conservatives as being political and not principled and not the other 4. Remember, precendents aren't absolutely binding. Yes, and guess what I did not write one side or the other was be political. I wrote the court was being political. There is a difference. I'm being inclusive saying they are all wrong. Yet, you just want to get silly by saying one of the worse mistakes in US history slavery, something that violated the Constitution from the moment the Constitution was ratified should still be legal if you followed my logic.

Even so the 13th Amendment rectified the purposely left loopholes to allow one of the most barbaric practices in US History. So how do rectify your argument that precedence would lead to continued slavery considering the 13th Amendment? Should we just go back to just yelling red herring or calling people “intellectually dishonest” when they have a different opinion?

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 10:23 AM
Yes, the SC has been pretty political. They've been divided along party lines with exception to I think one justice that has broken with his party... occasionally.

Actually the 13th amendment did not stop the practice of indentured servitude. That was finally made illegal by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000... um... ouch....

Following the civil war many people both black and white found themselves broke, and hungry. So while they were technically free, they were free to sign themselves right back into the same situation.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 10:50 AM
Actually the 13th amendment did not stop the practice of indentured servitude. Nice information if the discussion was about indentured servants. However, I was answering the question based on slavery not indentured servants.

Tommycat
04-08-2011, 10:52 AM
Nice information if the discussion was about indentured servants. However, I was answering the question based on slavery not indentured servants.
Just saying that indentured servitude was pretty much a new slavery, just with a prettier name. Besides, I think if you read his statement, the answer is in itself... if we were slaves to X there would still be slaves

At any rate, no point in going on about slavery and what not as that is WAAAAAY tangential to this discussion....

As I said, in as much as it is the parent's choice to send the child to a private school, there is no reason the parent's choice should be taxed more because that private school is religious.

mimartin
04-08-2011, 11:03 AM
Not saying indentured servitude is ethically superior to slavery. Just there is a difference between the two. Not going into detail because I know that will lead to another trivial fact being pointed out that really has nothing to do with the topic.

Tommycat
04-09-2011, 12:59 PM
Talking with a couple friends of mine reminded me of this topic. The law allows up to $500 tax credit for individuals($1000 for couples) for donations to school tuition organizations. The law isn't even specific to religious tuition organizations. It's more like how your donations to church can be written off. Or your donations to World Wildlife Foundation... It's another charitable donation. If you want you can donate to the atheist preachers school fund that only provides tuition assistance to atheist schools.

So again, where's the establishment? This tax break is based on your donation to a school tuition fund. There is no specification based on religion, other than to allow it. It does not only benefit one religion. It isn't even limited to religious funds at all. So please tell me how this violates the First amendment in the least?

mimartin
04-09-2011, 01:15 PM
Already stated why and also showed that this case was not ruled the way it was because it or did not did not violate the establishment clause. It was ruled the way it was because according the majority of judges taxpayers do not have a right to decide how their tax dollars are spent. Yes, they are spending tax dollars because the tax credit means there is that much less money in the state’s coffers.

Tommycat
04-09-2011, 04:22 PM
No, I want to have you explain how a law that is NOT specific to religious donations somehow violates the First Amendment since it is VERY clear that this law gives a tax credit to people who donate to a school tuition fund(including non-religious as well as religious). I want to understand how people choosing the fund to donate to can be a violation when charitable donations are tax write-offs to begin with.