Separation of Church and State, except in Arizona

[Tommycat]

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.

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]

Yes Sir Captain Obvious, Sir!

 

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

 

 

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.