posted
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.
------------------ 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 February 01, 2001).]
posted
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?
------------------ 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
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.
------------------ 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 February 02, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by JeffKardde (edited February 02, 2001).]
posted
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
------------------ 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 February 02, 2001).]
posted
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?
------------------ 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'
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?
------------------ 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
posted
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
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.
------------------ 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
posted
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
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.
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.
------------------ 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
posted
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."
------------------ 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
Printer-friendly view of this topic
