Flare Sci-Fi Forums: Bush's "Faith" based plan ... Unconstitutional?

This is topic Bush's "Faith" based plan ... Unconstitutional? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/622.html

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Maybe someone can explain this to me. CNN said that Bush plans on implementing his plan, and that it is possible to do so Constitutionally.

Amendment I:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Isn't giving money to religious organizations respecting an establishment of religion? And since, IIRC, Bush has gotta get his plan approved by Congress ... ?

Er, in other words:

a) I don't understand why this plan is going forth.

b) If I'm misunderstanding something, please tell me now. If Bush is planning on giving money to any (or all) religious groups, I don't see how he can legally do that because, as I understand it, that would have to be ratified by Congress, which is forbidden from doing so by the above.

c) Since I'm pretty sure I'm not misunderstanding anything, isn't this sort of a slap in the face of the people on this BBoard who've said that Republicans don't break the law? (I won't mention the "Contract with America")

d) I almost forgot. What is the reasoning that this can be done without violating the First Amendment and the Constitution?

------------------
Star Trek Gamma Quadrant
Average Rated 6.83 out of 10 Smileys by Fabrux
***
"Oh, yes, screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!"
-Forum Member Who Shall Be Nameless. 11:48am, Jan. 19th, 2001

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 30, 2001).]

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about, but I will point out that giving money to religious groups wouldn't be unconstitutional, as such. As you just pointed out, the constitution says they can't make a law establishing a religion, or prohibiting its freedom. Granted, giving government money to a religion is probably illegal, but not really "unconstitutional"...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

As I understand it, giving money to an organization which is based on religious beliefs is not the same as establishing a religion. It certainly isn't showing preference towards religious organizations, as secular organizations have been the sole collectors of this same money. (It's not NEW money, he's just changing the rules to allow religious organizations to make use of previously existing money.)

This is mainly to make the best use of the fact that the majority of USAmericans still hold some form of belief in the Great Potato.

Surprisingly, I'm not against that.
Now, if they make religious acceptance or indoctrination PART of the requirements to receive aid, THEN it's time for open revolt.

I've had to rethink my position on religious-based aid programs recently, since it looks like the best way for my fiance and I to afford an apartment, at least for the short term, is to make use of the Catholic Charities assistance we've been offered. (She's Catholic, but not especially so, and I'm.. well, you know me.) Mostly because there aren't any dogmatic strings attatched.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Ah, okay. First week of school, so I wasn't quite sure what the whole thing was about. Heard the clip on CNN so I was wondering about that.

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Bingo. It's only unconstitutional if it was supporting a PARTICULAR religion or set of beliefs. If it did that, I'd join the rest of you in condemning it.

------------------
Disclaimer:
"All references to vices and of the supernatural contained in this game are for entertainment purposes only. _Over_The_Edge_ does not promote satanisim, belief in magic, drug use, violence, sexual deviation, body piercing, cynical attitudes toward the government, freedom of expression, or any other action or belief not condoned by the authorities."
- `OverTheEdge'

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Er ... particular?

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse anyway, but ...

A: I'm against Government giving money to any/all religions. This includes Gov't subsidies to church run schools, hospitals, etcetra. This doesn't change if the Gov't gives money to one church school or to every religious based school in the country.

B: The strange thing about the Constitution is how it can be interpreted. But, isn't giving money to one religion or all religions respecting an establishment of religion?

Question: is this Faith proposal in with his tax plan? Doesn't his tax plan have to be ratified by Congress to go into effect? I might be stretching here, but it would seem to me that that would make it Congress approving a law in direct violation of the Constitution.

Maybe I'm totally off base. I have to go out and buy some bagels and go to the art store now. I don't know what I hate more -- buying an art textbook, or buying a bunch of little supplies which add up to be more than the book. ARGH!

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

I think the idea that president Bush it trying to project is that the feds can pay for the tables and the soup but not the Bibles or the ministry.

However:

Can the government guarantee that each and every dollar given is spent only on soup and tables?
Can the government assure equal access to the new federal assistance without religious instruction being a prerequisite to get the help.

It's a very tricky issue.

------------------
"We're just going to have a lot of work. ... Redefining the role of the United States from enablers to keep the peace to enablers to keep the peace from peacekeepers is going to be an assignment."
~ George W. Bush, Deer-In-The-Headlights of the United States

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Er. Wait.

Example:

The Local St. Homer Simpson church has $340 dollars, and they need to spend it on ten tables, twenty new chairs, and fifty bibles.

They can't afford it. They can buy either the tables and chairs or the bibles.

The Gov't gives them a check for $340, and they use that to buy the tables and chairs, enabling them to use their original $340 on bibles.

So isn't the Government basicly buying the Bibles? Paying Gov't money on non-religious items for religious places will enable those religious places to spend more money on religious items which the Government can't buy. Er. Am I the only person who sees it this way?

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Yes, that is another angle that has several people very interested.

Nay, very concerned.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 30, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Funny, I've always read the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause to mean that Congress can't make a law that has anything to do with ESTABLISHING religion, not that Congress can't have anything to do with religion whatsoever. Otherwise, "In God We Trust" could never have been put on our coinage. The word "respecting" is rather ambiguous, although back then, language was probably different.

It's simply saying that the federal Congress can't declare a national religion, and that thus, barring state and local laws, you can worship as you please. There is no "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution, as the term is currently understood.

Wouldn't refusing to give vouchers to people who wish to send their children to religous schools be establishing a state religous belief system, namely, atheism? Wouldn't that be government discrimination based on religion? If the goal is to get the kid the best education possible, and you're not forcing anything on anyone, what's your problem with the idea?

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
Congress can't make a law that has anything to do with ESTABLISHING religion, not that Congress can't have anything to do with religion whatsoever.

I'd like for you to look at Constitutional scholarship and find anyone that agrees with that interpretation.

Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :

Hey everyone! Real life seems to have sucked me into reality the past year and I haven't gotten around like I used to.

Yes, money is a fungible good that enables organizations to spend funds on items the government would not buy itself. However, the Federal government has long given money to private and religious hospitals on the grounds that they provide a public service that justifies public support (where it would be especially wasteful to demand a secular equivalent be built so the community could be given the money). As many here probably know, the GI bill authorized public funds being used for religious education at the collegiate level.

As far as I've read in the relevant cases (it's been a while since my Civil Liberties class), the issue first got "settled" in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) where Chief Justice Burger, writing for the majority, said that government must demonstrate that any program must (1) satisfy a secular purpose, (2) must not advance or inhibit religion, (3) and must not excessively entangle government.

I would say Bush's plan is fine on (1), can satisfy the requirements of (2) as long as it's not propping up any or giving a big boost to any religions over other competing faiths, but would almost surely fall short of (3) if Burger was the tribunal.

That, however, has changed. The new direction of the court came in 1973 with Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist where Powell, writing for the majority, said that public funds funnelled through parents choosing their children's primary education was sufficiently removed enough from direct government entanglement, (3), that a program of tax breaks for money spent on private schools did not create excessive government involvement in religion. This would lead one to beleive that vouchers stand a good chance were they to come up in front of the Supreme Court. (Maybe. Only one, maybe two, of the members of the court in 1973 are still on today, so it's a toss-up, especially with the 5-4 split that balancing it right now). Later this ruling was reaffirmed in Mueller v. Allen (1983).

The operative variables in all this seem to be how much supervision would government have to do to make sure the money was used properly and whether the money is propping up or giving a leg up relative to other religions. Neither of those questions really can be answered without either an exhaustive empirical study assessing how much money going where will help religious organizations or just trying it. The follow-up question to that, though, is will the camel's nose bring down the tent of church-state separation. There's no way to know. As a pragmatic person, I'd like to see some kind of expiration on the legislation, sustained debate while the program is going on, and, most importantly, the gumption to be honest with the results of the program, then keep it if it works without harm or drop it if it is. The problem, as always, lies in the details.

We shall see...

------------------
"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."

"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.

[This message has been edited by David Sands (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I don't think it's neccessarily unconstituional as it comes close to that grey area about Church/State seperation.

*sighs*

Just let them do whatever they want to do to mess things up. I no longer give a shit anyway.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :

Much as I hate to admit it, I have to agree w/ Omega here. The way the amendment is worded, it just says the congress can't make a law that declares an official state religion.

And it's not even like I'm biased in favor of the religions here. I think I've made it pretty clear in the past that I despise organized religion...

------------------
My new year's resolution is the same as last year's: 1024x768.

[This message has been edited by TSN (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

The Court writes in Walt v. Tax Commission Of City Of New York , 397 U.S. 664 (1970):

quote:
[F]or the men who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the 'establishment' of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity....[The] Court has long held that the First Amendment reaches more than classic, 18th century establishments.

And in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15 -16 (1947):

quote:
The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State.'

Rather clear and succinct language there on what the "establishment of religion" clause means.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

"No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa."

That is the part where Bush is hovering dangerously close to. Would giving money be considering "participating in the affairs of any religious organization"? Would it be "Supporting any religious institution"?

I don't know. I really don't. I'm not going to condemn him for his actions, even though it is very risky - that being his first big order of business. If you give money for community action (soup kitchen, clothing, etc.), how are you to make sure that is where the money goes without "participating in the affairs"? And if you don't make sure the money is properly handled, it could be mishandled, therefore you could be "Supporting any religious institution"

The grey area surrounding the "separation of church and state" will win or lose the vote. However, it could easily be struk down by the Supreme Court. And if they do win by some miracle, this could be either a big win, or a devastating loss.

Personally (I don't care for Bush, but I'm trying to keep an open mind, since I have to stand him for 4 years), I don't think it'll pass. It hovers too close to the grey area, and I don't think even his own party can 100% back him on this one. Look for a huge loss, with only his unwavering support as the few votes for.

------------------
Though it will go without saying ten minutes into these preceedings, View Askew would like to state that this film is - from start to finish - a work of comedic fantasy, not to be taken seriously. To insist that any of what follows is insensitive or inflammatory is to miss our intentions and pass undue judgement, and passing judgement is reserved for God and God alone (this goes for you film critics too...) Just Kidding
So please, before you think about hurting someone over this trifle of a film, remember God has a sense of humor. Just look at the platypus. Thank you and enjoy the show.
P.S. We sincerely apologize to all platypus enthusiasts out there who are offended by that thoughtless comment about the platypus. We at View Askew respect the noble platypus and it is not our intention to slight these stupid creatures in any way. Thank you and enjoy the show.

-View Askew disclaimer "DOGMA"

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Personally, I think that if Jessie Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think. Polling data shows that they support it by a vast majority. If the Democrats shoot this one down, they're toast next time around. Unless, of course, Jessie Jackson finds a way to make it look like the GOP did it...

OK, here's my prediction: The Democrats screw up the bill horribly, so that it would never work. Or maybe McCain tacks on his stupid bill. Whatever. Somehow, the intent of the bill is destroyed. The GOP has to vote it down. Then the DNP, being the spinmeisters that they have become, blame US, claiming that THEY supported the program all along, but WE shot it down.

They'll do this. Why? Because it's their only chance for political survival: to lie. It always has been. Write this down, 'cause it's exactly what'll happen.

As for the religious aspects of the bill, you have to realize that it's not really giving money to a school, as such, but giving money to the FAMILY, with limited uses for it. Again, what's the problem with freedom of choice, when it comes to education? I don't give a darn about previous court decisions. The original wording of the Constitution is the higher law, as the Supreme Court would uphold.

Look at this another way: If John Overton High School was failing (no clue whether it is or not), I could get a voucher. I could then spend that voucher on homeschool supplies. Does homeschooling constitute a religious school? Not? You can't answer, because you can't know. Do only atheist homeschoolers get vouchers? You have to give the benefit of the doubt, and allow for all possible educational systems. Otherwise, you'll just end up right back with everyone in crappy public schools.

You've got to get this: nearly everything Bush proposed allows things to stay the way they are, IF YOU WANT THEM TO. It's all about increasing your choices, and your control over your own life. Why could anyone think this is a bad thing?

Posted by David Sands (Member # 132) on :

In regards to Walz v. Tax Commission Of City Of New York (1970), one might read the grammar of that first sentance quoted as stating the soveriegn may not lend financial assistance to religious activity, which might not encompass actual assistance to the needy in communities. I would also point out that (if I'm not mistaken) that was from the dissent, not the holding (and for that matter, it's a dissent from a pretty absolutist justice who never really represented the median views of the country on this and other matters). In regards to the second quote, the judgement of the court was that the public's interest in lending money to religious institutions was a secular purpose that the schools were satisfying. Jackson's dissent pretty much (in my reading) came down to an objection that parents may educate, not religiously educate, their children with state money. It always seemed to me that the case law here is getting stuck in treating the issue catagorically when the reality of it all is a continuum of how much may parents religiously educate. A school that teaches all the core subjects at the same competency as secular schools but with one or two classes of theology I don't think will be the proximate cause of a rehash of the Thirty Years War here in the United States. But money being used to send kids to seminary is a bit too much. The question, to me at least at the moment, is whether we can allow some assistance as long as it is not so much that it poisons the impartiality of government to its citizens' faiths. The problem with a continuum-approach might be that it might require a vigilant court to oversee every new and changing facet of the program, something I doubt the court may inclined to do. So again, we're back where we started, one way or the other, all or none...

I would also point out that the cases I cited are more recent and that the quotes I used are from the majority opinions, giving them more weight in precedence than those before them.

------------------
"Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."

"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."

-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

nothing to see here....move along

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

The original wording of the Constitution is the higher law, as the Supreme Court would uphold

The original wording? You mean, the stuff that says slavery is okay and a standing military is bad?

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Jeff, stop being an ass. You know darned well what I meant.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Not quite.

The way I see it, on one hand, you profess that the original Constitution is and always shall be the true law of the land. On the other hand, you say that parts of the Constitution are not the law of the land.

I just don't get how on one hand you say it's the "highest law", and not subject to interpretation, when on the other hand you say that it obviously is.

So, no, I really don't understand what you mean.

I read:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, and I see that as meaning the Federal government will leave religion alone financially and every other way.

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

The way I see it, on one hand, you profess that the original Constitution is and always shall be the true law of the land. On the other hand, you say that parts of the Constitution are not the law of the land.

BTW, there isn't anything about slavery being good in the constitution. Slavery was allowed, but the constitution repealed it.

The Constitution is a fluid document in that it can be changed. Parts of it have been reversed or repealed. They remain part of the document, but are no longer the law of the land (see Prohibition).

-View Askew disclaimer "DOGMA"

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

if Jessie Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think

Er. This affects the Constitutionality of it ... how? EXACTLY! It doesn't! At all! You just like to throw up red-herrings and hope no one notices that it's got nothing to do with what we're talking about ... keep in mind that a vast majority of the black population is in favor of Gore being in office, not Bush, but a forced coup would be illegal too. Of course, you ignore this fact, because you assume that all blacks just follow whatever Democratic leaders say.

What you said above illustrates that perfectly. Um, hello? Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and even the NAACP hardly have a monopoly on African-Americans expressions. As far as your statement is concerned, I see no reason for any other basis of belief than that you honestly believe that the blacks in this nation are unable to speak or express themselves without Jesse Jackson. You know, for someone who pretends not to be racist, sometimes you do a really piss-poor job of it.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

"Jesse Jackson, Rev. Sharpton and even the NAACP hardly have a monopoly on African-Americans expressions."
Don't forget Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam clones.

Yeah? Pretty close to it, if the media has anything to say about it.

Name some. Name some who have an appreciable following.

Colin Powell is ours, so name somebody else. Somebody who HASN'T been referred to by the majority black leadership as a 'sellout' or an 'Uncle Tom' the way Powell and Thomas were stigmatized.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I've never heard anyone call Powell a "sell-out" ... can you document this?

Clarence Thomas? Oh, I see, so Bill Clinton is evil because he's improper with women, but you just choose to ignore Anita Hill? Typical. No, no, we're going to vote Billy-boy out because he tells bad cigar jokes and fucked an intern, but Thomas can force women to do naughty things to him, but it's okay, 'cuz he's OUR black man! Woo-hoo!

Hmmm, I dunno, who organized those 9% to vote for the Republicans? Gasp -- could it be that, I dunno-they thought for themselves? Oh my GOD! The concept! Thinking black men -- what'll be next? A gay black man elected President by the Republican Party? And, wow, wouldn't this mean that some of the blacks who voted for the Democratic Party did so by thinking for themselves? Not if you listen to a Republican.

And since when do you believe the press, Mr. "The Liberal Controlled Media?"

The issue isn't black leaders on the Republican side as you seem to suggest. In fact, the issue is that striking out like this in the hopes that you can convince people that the majority of the black population is controlled by Jackson, Sharpton, etc. What, black individuals can't think for themselves? If you listen to Republican hype, 91% of the black population (in other words, those who traditionaly vote Democratic) can't.

[rant]Again, with Jackson, you tend to forget that the Republican party has done little to recruit black voters. In fact, the Democratic Party isn't much better. Jackson energized the black and minority vote -- you ever heard of the Rainbow Coalition? I get sick and tired of hearing people complain about black activists. See how'd you'd act if YOUR people had been first held as slaves, and then treated as second-class citizens until only very recently. Of course people don't like to look at it like this, who blames them?

Jackson ran in the Democratic Primaries in '84 and '88. He toured inner-city high schools, churches, factory towns in decline, and visited striking workers. He has always worked to register new voters, and specificly targeted groups with high-portions of non-voters: minorities, young people, unemployed, the poor, and tried to form a coalition with feminists, enviornmentalists, and others. Bitch all you want about black leadership, Jackson and the others have earned it by reaching out to those who other wise don't give a rat's ass about either party. When has a Republican politician ever done that?

Now, yes, you can make the point, "hey, they only follow Jackson and the others because there are no viable alternatives!" Well, then, fine give them some and stop bitching about how unfair it is that minorities stick with a party that actually went out and stirred up the vote! That actually went out and WORKED for their vote!

You want the minority vote? Prove to 'em that you deserve it, and don't fucking bitch about how blacks are so dumb as to be scared by Democratic slur campaigns, and don't pretend nominating minorities to high positions will change that overnight. It won't. You can paint an old '43 Buick and make it look brand new, but it'll still run like it's a '43 Buick. Personally, I'd rather have a new Eclipse that needs a wash. Thank you.
[/end rant]

Now, the original point was,

How does the support of the black population make the Faith plan any more or less Constitutional? It doesn't. Thank you.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited January 31, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

All I'm saying about 'black leadership' is that Jackson et al get ALL the media coverage. All of it.

The question of the legitimacy of Anita Hill's testimony is another issue entirely. Suffice it to say that although I believed it at the outset, but I find it suspect now. (Kind of like that guy they brought in as a last-minute surprise witness against Ashcroft, but didn't tell anybody that he was a long-time Hillary staffworker and about as unbiased as Bob Jones, or the guy Tipper's PMRC brough in to testify to congress about music, who they called a 'music expert' but who was actually a reverend)

Politics shouldn't be a 'recruitment' thing. People shouldn't be that self-centered. But sadly, they are.

There's plenty of reasons to vote Democratic, but you'd find that the biggest reason is "my parents did." Most of the other reasons are 40 years old. The remaining reasons are entitlements.

People claim the Democrats are THE big force for social justice, but there's not a whole lot to that concept. It was people like Charlton Heston, who marched side-by-side with Sidney Poitier in the Civil Rights protests in the 60's, (bet you didn't know THAT!) who are Republicans now. It was Southern Democrats, mostly, who supported the continuation of segregation, especially George "Segregation now, Segregation forever!" Wallace. PEOPLE, of ALL walks of life, agreeing and acting together, create social justice, not political parties.

I notice you mention slavery AGAIN. Isn't that old saw getting tired? It's been almost 150 years. And the Civil Rights struggle? We've had a whole generation grow into adulthood since then. It's not that, either. You take a good, long, look at the 'gimmie' culture of today, and you'll see what it is.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

I see you fail to mention that 40 years ago the Republican party had a very large and VERY liberal membership. That membership moved over to the Democratic Party.

Or Kevin Phillips ... 'member him? One of Nixon's staffers. Wrote a rather famous letter to Nixon. Gotta love what it says. He urged Nixon to turn the GOP into the party of the "unpoor, unblack, uncool" ...

You may not be aware of this, but Nixon listened to Phillips. Now, remember, the Democratic Party was sort of in trouble -- lots of interest groups and all. Wedge issues helped Nixon, and he and other Republicans generated powerful national symbols and cried about how Democrats violated 'em (something you dudes are doing to date, BTW). Against anti-war protestors, Nixon promised "peace with honor." Against the claims of the civil rights movement, Republicans slowed down more progress on achieving racial equality by reducing aid to cities and SLOWING policies aimed at school integration. To combat feminists, gays, and rebellious college students, the Republicans preach about "law and order and family values."

And you're telling me the GOP is interested in promoting equal rights? Maybe. But you'll have to prove it, got any recent examples? Perhaps I should say the Republican Party will have to prove it, something they haven't done yet. And, no offense, but whatever Charleton Heston and Sydney Poitier's party affiliation, it won't make me believe in that party affiliation anymore than an ad they're in would make me run out and buy whatever was being advertised. You seem to forget that the majority of civil rights leaders in this nation remain with the Democratic Party.

Speaking of which, when did the Republican Party do anything to protect the rights of homosexuals? Just wondering.

But, back to the ORIGINAL TOPIC:

How does the (possible) mass-support of Bush's FAITH program make it any more (or less?) Constitutional? Any answer, Omega?

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

God, I hope not...

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

quote:
It was people like Charlton Heston, who marched side-by-side with Sidney Poitier in the Civil Rights protests in the 60's, (bet you didn't know THAT!)

Sure I did! It seem that every time he gets up to seechify about how good guns are he tells me all that over again.

In the words of the Western film, he's establishin' his bona fides. (Richard Boone to John Wayne in Big Jake)

I thought all them Hollywood types was liberal butt-in-skies who's mere presence, rakish good looks, and jaunty smiles was enough to warp the minds of midwestern conservative youth. Warp them enough to make them throw away their fur coats and stop eating pork products. If only Lisa Simpson hadn't talked to Paul and Linda McCartney on the roof of the Quicky Mart....

Oh, the Pork Advisory Council is going to have a fit...it's the other white meat you know...

That is until Heston walks in a march...then it good activism. It was and is a great cause (I don't happen to see the Civil Rights movement as 'over') so don't get me wrong there, I just see it as somewhat paradoxical is all. I guess it all depends on your view of the cause as to whether celeb involvement is going to sway you from your easy chair and out onto the picket line or into Trader Joes for bean curd.

Not really much of a rant...if I didn't like the part about the Pork Advisory Council and the rakish good looks thing I might have lopped much of this off. Certainly what those more to the left would call the 'Lexus Activism' (the save the whales sticker on the back of the sport ute) of some celebs is rather disingenious.

My goodnesss, I feel like I channeling Sol's indecisive meandering approach to posting.

Must stop.

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

There was a PSA with Neve Campbell about Tourett's syndrome. It made me aware.

Aware that I'd like to tour her etts! MA. HAHAHA.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Hm.. what the Republican party has done to protect the rights of homosexuals... er, as opposed to the rights of everybody else? As though homosexuals have 'different' rights?

Well, I just read in the newspaper the other day about this gay man and his friend out west somewhere (CA?) who were being chased by a group of.. well, some idiots who get their jollies by beating up on gay people.

These guys were threatened with death by the gang, and were almost certainly in danger of losing their lives, all things being equal.

However, all things weren't equal. One of the gay men had a concealed carry permit. In plain view of the punks, he drew his weapon. The attackers then quickly became retreaters (no shots were fired).

The Republican party supports the ability and the right of that gay man to defend himself and his friend. the Democratic party would have left them defenseless, a position that would have most likely have resulted in their deaths.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

You have a POINT, there First.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

I'd vote for Neve Campbell.

In bed!

Wait, that didn't work.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :

Yes. If it had happened in a non-Constitution-loving-gun-owning country, he (and every other gay man) would have likely been killed years ago.

------------------
"And Mojo was hurt and I would have kissed his little boo boo but then I realized he was a BAD monkey so I KICKED HIM IN HIS FACE!"
-Bubbles

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Germany tried it once, Liam. Along with the Jews and the gypsies, you know.

Really, one of the best ways for a minority to protect its own rights is for it to be capable of self-defense when attacked.

Back on topic:

I heard someone today say that this faith-based program might actually BE the best way for the Republicans to make inroads into the African-American community, since churches, and the programs they offer, play an important role in much of the black community.

Maybe THAT'S why so many Democrats are ranting about it.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

I see it as an attempt to grab at the Christian and minority votes for the '04 election.

If they are all treated equally there shouldn't be a problem. But since it can not work on an equal basis it will cause a problem.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yet, still, does the support of the African-American community make it any more/less Consitutional? No one has yet answered this question. Thank you very much.

The Supreme Court has given broad meaning to the Establisment Clause is modern times, reading it as requiring an almost complete seperation of church and state. School prayer cases illustrate how the SC, despite of majority sentiments, has INISTED that the government stay OUT OF RELIGION.

Engel v Vitale (1962), the SC ruled that the daily reading of a non-demoniational prayer was unconstitutional.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the SC ruled that bible reading in a PA school district was unconstitutional.

In Alabama, Wallace v Jaffree (1985), that a moment of silence for meditation or prayer was also unconstitutional.

The SC repeatedly has shown that it believes the Establishment Clause on the First Ammendment mandates Government neutrality toward religion.

Therefore, while certain Republicans in here like to cry and whine about how the Dems are upset because the Republicans are making moves on the black voters, those same Republicans (who bitch about everything illegal the Dems do) seem to forget that they're perfectly willing to break the "law of the land." Please explain this, because I certainly can't.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Well, we've already answered the question repeatedly, but, oh well. Once more...

The SC repeatedly has shown that it believes the Establishment Clause on the First Ammendment mandates Government neutrality toward religion.

NEUTRALITY. Meaning that you can't choose EITHER WAY. Making it where religious shcools COULDN'T take vouchers would not be a neutral position.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

You're constantly missing the whole point. Yes, if the Faith program can meet the guidelines provided for by Lemon v Kurtzman, yes, it will be Constitutional.

But you made the assertion that the Faith program has wide support in the black community, and should be accepted by Democrats on those grounds. The question posed was, how does the majority support of any group make such a plan Constitutional? If you're going to respond to that question, please do so instead of dancing around the issue.

Neutrality. Meaning the government can't pass any laws -- OR GET INVOLVED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM -- regarding funding for religion. If individuals want to give money to a church, or send their kids to a Catholic school, fine, but once the government gets involved, it is no longer neutral, and, IIRC, the voucher thing involves the Gov't on either the local, state, or Federal level. How is that neutral?

(For those who don't know, Chief Justice Berger summed up the government's approach to religion with the Lemon test, where government aid to religious schools is only constitutional if 1) it has a secular purpose, 2) its effect is neither to advance or inhibit religion, and 3) it doesn't entangle government and religious institutions in each other's affairs.)

Now, another good point: how can anyone prove that Bush's plan will meet all three of these?

So, the current questions are:

How does the support alone of the black community make the Faith program more or less Constitutional?

How does Bush's Faith plan not violate the Lemon Test?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

How does the support alone of the black community make the Faith program more or less Constitutional?

I don't see why it would. Why do you ask? I have heard no one make any such assertion.

How does Bush's Faith plan not violate the Lemon Test?

I deny the validity of the Lemon test, based upon the wording and stated intent of the Consitution.

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Personally, I think that if Jesse Jackson can shut up long enough for the REAL opinion of black people in general to come through, we'll find out that it has more support than you think. Polling data shows that they support it by a vast majority. If the Democrats shoot this one down, they're toast next time around. Unless, of course, Jessie Jackson finds a way to make it look like the GOP did it...

You made the assertation right here. You make it appear to be a partisan battle (If the Democrats...), while it is in fact a matter of Constitutional Law. Of course, you only see your little (tiny) world the way you want to be (which, incidently, ignores Constitutional procedural law most of the time), so that's kind of interesting.

Er, in simpler terms: it doesn't matter what polls say. It matters what the Supreme Court has ruled.

I deny the validity of the Lemon test, based upon the wording and stated intent of the Consitution.

So, wait, next time we have a gun debate I can challenge the wording and stated intent of the 2nd Ammendment and be right?

WRONG! Omega, it doesn't really matter how you view it, it matters how the Supreme Court views it. And the Supreme Court views that it's gotta pass the Lemon test, so your little bout of self-importance there doesn't really make your point (in fact, your ignorance of the relationship between the Supreme Court and the Constitution hurt your argument more than anything else, thank you.)

Oh, BTW: weren't you the one, Omega, who said that illogic isn't a valid debating tactic? Kindly listen to yourself. You wanna make your point? Don't bitch about wording. The Supreme Court has ruled and extrapolated from what was orginally worded. Come up with GOOD reasons why Bush's law would be legal. "Oooh, oooh, the Founding Fathers didn't mean it this way!" isn't a valid debating tactic, thank you.

Now, how does Bush's plan not violate the Lemon test?

And, if it doesn't, as Omega said above, how does the majority support of any group of people make something constitutional when it clearly isn't?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It's really quite simple. Prayers and Bible readings in public schools are unconstitutional because they favor a SPECIFIC religion, or having a religion OVER none at all.

BUT, Religious Studies courses exist in public schools all over the country, and are allowed because they favor NO specific religion, and treat religions as historical and cultural phenomena rather than Truth from On High.

Likewise, as long as the money is open to any and all faith-based organizations, AND to secular, non-religious organizations, (any of which it was already open to) there can be no favoritism, and hence no 'establishment.' The resources simply go to those who use them.

As far as I can tell, there's nothing that says that the government can't establish a pool of money from which organizations, religious or not, can draw assistance for promoting charity. PROVIDED that it's not used for religious purposes.

F'rinstance, if Julie and I get that $ from Catholic Charities, it won't be contingent upon my converting to Catholocism, or her going to church more often, therefore it's not for a religious purpose (Oh, they'll probably want us to get married, but we intended to do that all along).

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Quatre Winner (Member # 464) on :

I can get along with that.

------------------
"Okashii na... namida ga nagareteru. Hitotsu mo kanashikunai no ni."
(That's funny... my tears are falling. And I'm not sad at all.) - Quatre Raberba Winner

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

You make it appear to be a partisan battle

Which it is. EVERYTHING is a partisan battle when the Democrats get involved.

while it is in fact a matter of Constitutional Law

Which I had addressed in my previous post. I never said that the statement you're quoting from had anything to do with the Constitutionality of the law.

[This message has been edited by Omega (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Which it is. EVERYTHING is a partisan battle when the Democrats get involved

Ya know, Omega, that can also be written that EVERYTHING is a partisan battle when the Republicans get involved. But of course, the bright, brilliant, wonderful guardian angel Republicans, champion of family values, wouldn't do anything BAD, would they? Hell, of course not. Packwood who?

The point you made was that the Faith plan should be supported by all (especially Democrats) because it's got a majority black vote (you've yet to cite proof for this, however). Honestly, I do think it's a good idea. But the issue isn't is it a good idea or isn't it? The issue is, is it Constitutional, so I really don't understand how talking about how much popular support it has is an issue at all. Please explain.

You've yet to respond to how Bush can get this plan past the Lemon Test, which, whether you care to admit it or not, is the law of the land, buddy-boy. You know, the Supreme Court? If Bush goes there and says, "well, you guys are misinterpreting the Constitution, trust me" he'll be laughed out of court for not having a legal argument. So, what is the legal argument that the Faith plan is NOT unconstitutional? I've yet to hear one.

That's not quite true, First tried.

First, while you make a compelling argument for the Faith plan, you ignore Wallace v Jaffree, where the Supreme Court ruled that even a moment of silence for meditation or prayer is Unconstitutional. Now, a moment of silence is non-demoniational, but it was ruled unconstitutional, and this will be the argument against the Faith plan. In other words, Government shall have nothing to do with anything even closely resembling religion. If a moment of silence is unconstitutional, I'm betting the Faith plan is too.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 01, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

The point you made was that the Faith plan should be supported by all (especially Democrats) because it's got a majority black vote

Did you actually read what I wrote? If so, is English your second language?

You've yet to respond to how Bush can get this plan past the Lemon Test, which, whether you care to admit it or not, is the law of the land, buddy-boy.

How can something that is dictated by a court become the "law of the land", when by definition, the legislature alone has the power to make law? Where would homeschooling fit in your view of the laws?

a moment of silence is non-demoniational, but it was ruled unconstitutional

How is a government-enforced prayer similar to a law that allows personal freedom to choose educational venue?

In other words, Government shall have nothing to do with anything even closely resembling religion

Where do you find this in the Constitution, as interpreted by the people who wrote it?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Did you actually read what I wrote? If so, is English your second language?

Omega, I don't think YOU read what you wrote. You made it into a big partisan battle between the EVIL Democrats and the HEROIC Republicans, which it obviously isn't. It's a question of law -- Constitutional or not. Stop changing the issue.

How can something that is dictated by a court become "the law of the land", when be definition, the legislature alone has the power to make law? Where would homeschooling fit in your view of the laws?

What the fuck does homeschooling have to do with this? Explain.

You're the one who pointed to the Constitution as the law of the land, I do believe. And since the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, we must go by previous interpretations of the Constitution into what becomes legal or not under the Constitution. Clear enough?

You still haven't answered the fucking question, something you're very good at. How does Bush's plan not violate the Lemon test? I'm guessing because you can't answer, it doesn't.

How is a government-enforced prayer similar to a law that allows personal freedom to choose educational venue?

Omega, if you're going to respond to somthing, at least read it.

The Court ordered that a moment of silence was unconstitutional. A moment of silence allowed for personal freedom to choose religious/or non-religious musings for that moment. Therefore, the argument can be made, that the ruling in Wallave v Jaffree applies, especially because religion is an option.

Where do you find this in the Constitution, as interpreted by the people who wrote it?

Again, no fantasy land, Omega! The Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court, not people who have been dead for two-hundred years. Honestly, if this is your best argument for why Bush's plan is Constitutional, just give up now.

Oh, you might find this interesting.

Article III, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made ...

Now, you may notice that you've missed the Framer's intent for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, but this makes the Lemon test valid. Do you see?

Really, and people complain about the lack of education in public schools. Yeeesh.

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 02, 2001).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

A "moment of silence" is unconstitutional because it supports an intimation of faith. We all know what you're 'supposed' to do during the moment of silence.

Aren't there religions that demand you pray out loud when you pray, or that you pray at specific times? (Like Islam?) See, that 'moment of silence' would be an infringement against THEM, too.

The 'moment of silence' was clearly intended to accomodate only Christians, who can pretty much pray out loud OR silently any way they want any time they want (and some of whom do, to the annoyance of others), and gain them an unneeded inroad whilst excluding others.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Okay, you may have a point there.

So, how does the plan pass the Lemon test?

[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 02, 2001).]

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

How does Bush's plan not violate the Lemon test?

It doesn't have to, as the Lemon test is not law, in that it was not passed by a legislature, nor is it part of the original intent of the Constitution. Have you read "The Federalist Papers"?

But let us assume that it is, in fact, law. Does not the Lemon test only apply to government aid to SCHOOLS? Is this not aid for families, instead, and thus a completely different concept?

Let us make yet another assumption...

"1) it has a secular purpose"

A voucher is not "overtly or specifically religious", and it is "relating to the world", those being the most applicable definitions of "secular". Thus the law proposed would pass the first part of the test.

"2) its effect is neither to advance or inhibit religion"

People who would send their children to religious schools under this program would choose to do so. The law does not advance or inhibit religion, in that anyone who uses it for religious purposes chooses to do so completely voluntarily. Thus it passes the second part of the test.

"3) it doesn't entangle government and religious institutions in each other's affairs"

The school and the government have very little to do with each other, aside from redeeming the vouchers, which can not be reasonably construed as being entanglement in affairs. Thus it passes the third part of the test.

What the fuck does homeschooling have to do with this?

As I recall, homeschoolers can recieve vouchers, as well. How would homeschoolers fit into your view? Would they qualify as religious, and thus not valid recipients of a voucher? Would they qualify as non-religious, and thus valid recipients? Would only some homeschoolers recieve vouchers, based on their religious beliefs? If so, would that not constitute establishment of a set of state-supported religious beliefs?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Omega,

No homeschoolers should recieve vouchers. No one sending their children to private school should recieve vouchers. Those are options that people can choose to take if they so desire, and the government shouldn't hinder their ability to do so, but at the same time, it shouldn't help them do it, either.

If religious organizations want to take up a fund to financially help people who want to go to a private school or homeschool, fine, let them do that. But keep the government (be it Federal, State or Local) out of it.

Er ... how did we get to vouchers? I was under the impression that Bush's Faith plan was something different.

It will still need to pass the Lemon test. Here's a concern of mine.

There's 70 Christian Churches, 10 Jewish Synagogues, and 1 Islamic Mosque in the State of "Doofus." The Fed. Gov't appropriates $81,000 to help them out. How does it get divided?

Does each get $1,000? Well, while that might sound fair, doesn't that mean the Gov't is thus giving more money to fChristian aiths, and showing a preference in religion?

Does the money get divided three ways? That would be, what, a little over $27,000 per group? So the 70 Christian Churches get $27,000, the 10 Jewish Synagogues get $27,000 and the Mosque gets $27,000?

And how, pray tell, will the Gov't assure that the religious organizations make sure the money gets spent on non-religious items like it is supposedly for? (Remember the bibles and bench example from early?) Isn't freeing up Church money to spend on religious items the same as spending gov't money on religious items, and thus a violation of the First Amendment?

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

It passes the Lemon test in that the money is available to any organization, including secular ones (to which it has always been available.)

As for the money being misappropriated to serve religious purposes, I think the promise of scandal and bad publicity that would certainly arise if that were to be discovered, along with charges of fraud, would dissuade most religious organizations from trying that out. I'm sure there has to be some kind of accountability, some auditing process, that the secular organizations already go through to make certain the money isn't used for cappuccino makers or somesuch, don't you think?

Re homeschooling: *just can't keep thinking of the homeschooled kids in that one episode of South Park*

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited February 02, 2001).]

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Okay. I'm all but convinced. Just one more thing I've got a problem with.

There are more religious organizations of Christian faith than Jewish, Muslim, etcetra in the US. Will the government "distribute the wealth" equally among all, like in my above example? This worries me.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

That, I don't know. Probably, there will be some statisticians in place to see about fair distribution. After all, accusations of bias might hurt, too.

Although that wouldn't really be something to worry about. It's not anybody's fault if some churches (like some political parties) provide more relevant outreach than others.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

About vouchers; there just aren't many Jewish or Islamic schools out there. By accident or design, in most parts of the U.S. private means Christian.

Not to drag this completely off topic, but I want to say that while I don't think vouchers are a bad idea, I wonder whether the school system is one that normal market expectations can be applied to. I can drive to the next town to buy a nice set of speakers, but the constraints imposed by schooling place the purchaser (in this case the parent) at a disadvantage.

------------------
I will shout until they know what I mean.
--
Neutral Milk Hotel
****
Read three (three!) chapters of "Dirk Tungsten in...The Disappearing Planet"! Then, go insane!

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Right, Sol.

So, does each major denomination (Christian, Jewish, Islam) get the same amount of funds? Probably not. It thus can be argued that there is a substantial bias to Christian organizations. Messy, folks, messy.

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

That's KIND of like saying that the matter in the solar system is biased towards Sol and Jupiter.

There's just MORE of Sol and Jupiter. You can't blame the rest of the matter for their gravity.

------------------
"My knowledge and experience far exceeds your own, by, oh, about a BILLION times!" -- Q

Posted by Vacuum robot lady from Spaceballs (Member # 239) on :

"...matter...biased towards Sol...There's just MORE of Sol..."

Really now, this is just too easy. However, I think that this is a great opportunity for all of us to use our own imaginations on this one.

------------------
"...screw logic, let's go for a theory with no evidence!" - Omega.

Irony ensues.

Free Jeff K

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

So, hmmm, curious, First, how did you become interested in this plan? No offense, but I thought you'd be the last person in the world to think this as a good idea.

Anyway.

You know, surprising as it might be, Maryland did something similar to this plan a few years back. That's right, Maryland. You know, liberal state government through and through? Way it worked was that part of the public school budget went to buy non-religious text books for the private schools.

That's the only way I'd be comfortable with Bush's plan working, pretty much. "You say you need a table and two chairs? Okay, here ya' go." or ... "I need $100." "For what?" "Well, you know. Stuff." "What kind of stuff?" "Stuff, stuff." "Tough. Go away."

Now, for example, if a church is running a soup kitchen with a budget of $100, and they want to expand, fine, give 'em an extra $100 to do so ... but check their books. If their budget goes from $100 to $150, what happened to that other $50 you gave 'em? Don't allow organizations to which you give money cut their budgets in the areas they specificly go to you for help in. "We gave you that money to spend on the soup kitchen, not to re-upholster your pews." "Yeah, but we put the money you gave us into the soup kitchens and took the money we were spending on the soup kitchens for this!" "Doesn't work that way, buddy."

Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :

"We gave you that money to spend on the soup kitchen, not to re-upholster your pews." "Yeah, but we put the money you gave us into the soup kitchens and took the money we were spending on the soup kitchens for this!" "Doesn't work that way, buddy."

How can they possibly avoid that happening?

------------------
"Oh please. I'm wet, I'm naked. And you think this is some plot to take over the world as a wet monkey in my BIRTHDAY SUIT!"

Mojo Jojo, The Powerpuff Girls

Saiyanman Benjita's Dragonball Page

Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :

Simple. They have to demonstrate that the extra cash is needed, ie for what & where, and prove that it was spent as such. If the extra funding, which could also be seen as an investment, leads to saving money in the long term, then fine - just don't go asking for exactly the same handout next time round.

Of course, that also means that by helping them save money in the long term you're enabling them to spend the savings on religious purposes, but does that mean any initial handout shouldn't be given on the offchance it has this result?

------------------
"I rather strongly disagree, even if I share the love of Dick. Speaking of which, that would be the most embarrasing .sig quote ever, so never use it."

- Simon Sizer, 23/01/2001

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I heard an interesting suggestion that I like somewhat more than this. What if, for every dollar that a person donates to whatever charity, they get a $1 tax credit? Might that work a little better?

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

What if someone donates more money to charity than they would otherwise pay in taxes. Do they get a check from the Government? While some sort of tax credit might not be a bad idea for charity donations, I don't think a 1:1 ratio is a very good idea for it.

"Wow! People donated 50 million to charities this year more than last year! People are really generous!"

"Nah, they're just getting tax credits."

Also, what charities get credited? It also seems a fairly easy way to launder money, or rip the government off. "Hey, I founded my own charity, so I'm going to donate $10 million to myself, get $10 million back from the government, and I'll have $20 million! Woooohooo!"

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Limits to it would of course be needed. If a person gorsses $45,000.00 a year and turns in anything more that $4,500.00 then they need to be called on it. 10% is a good maximum amount.

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Yeah, a cap would be good. You can donate up to x% of your earnings to charities with government tax credit.

Ooooh! Brainstorm! What if the Gov't collected the money and distributed it fairly to the different charities? It would ensure fairness to the charities involved, and although I'm sure a lot of Republicans would argue about too much government control, you'd still get the charity tax credit, and Democrats would be appeased because it would make sure they would be little (or no) misappropriation of funds, or unfair bias to certain charities.

Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :

Yes and no, if I were, say a white Christian fundie/klansmen I would not want my money to go to the black baptist church. I would want to make sure that the money went only to fellow kkk churches. On the yes side, for those of us not that unwise, it is a good idea, to help ensure fairness.
Another question is, the churches in Beverly Hills and associated richer neibhorhoods, what kind of 'local' out reach programs can they do? While the inner city slum chruches will have a bigger group to work with. What kind of scale should be used to work out this??

------------------
"One's ethics are determined by what we do when no one is looking" Nugget
Star Trek: Gamma Quadrant
Star Trek: Legacy
Read them, rate them, got money, film them

"...and I remain on the far side of crazy, I remain the mortal enemy of man, no hundred dollar cure will save me..." WoV

Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :

Now, that's a tough one.

If the government simply allotes the money to the various charities, I don't think there would (or could) be any say on where (in the US, or abroad) it could or would be spent.

Now, if the money deducted was specificly funded through the gov't towards grassroots organizations (soup kitchens, homeless shelters, etc.), the money could be sent to the various states, where those states could determine the best way for the money to be spent (within certain guidelines)