Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona

[Q]

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

[Tommycat]

You'll do know the Obama administration supported this decision. Doesn’t 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]

(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.

 

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

[Darth InSidious]

THIS CONVERSATION IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION! YOU'RE ALL COMMUNIST NAZI GAY ATHEIST JEWISH CATHOLIC JESUIT SPY-TERRORIST MEXICAN IMMIGRANTS!!

[mimartin]

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]

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

 

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]

Eh, I like Rush. I'd never listen to him for -wisdom-, but amusing commentary? The guy's more comedian than pundit.

[Totenkopf]

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. 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?

[mimartin]

"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.

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]

@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]

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?

 

 

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.

 

Remember, I've taken several breaks and haven't seen every post you've ever written here. 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]

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]

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?!

[Q]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 “"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]

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.[/Quote] 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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....