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).]

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

------------------
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

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!

------------------
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

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.

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?

------------------
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

Nay, very concerned.

------------------
"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

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?

------------------
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'

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.

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.

*sighs*

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

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.

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.

------------------
"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