Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona

[mimartin]

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

 

FoxNews

 

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

My guess would be that, as with everything covered by law, there have to be definitions met in order to qualify.

[mimartin]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Sabretooth]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 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.

Actually, it gives preferential treatment to those schools that are not religiously affiliated.

When you give tax credits, it is not free money…That 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]

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]

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.)