"...they complicate efforts to create school voucher programs because some
Blaine Amendments prevent even indirect government funding of religious schools.
A ruling against Blaine Amendments would make it easier to promote school choice
across the country..."--- I have a big problem with tax money
going to pay for educations at private schools (both religious and secular). I
pay my taxes to ensure that children have a chance to have a public education.
People who send their kids to private schools should pay for it themselves.
I'll continue to support public education, since that serves all children,
not just those from wealthy families.Back Talk says:"...shouldnt that citizen be able to spend that money at any accredited
school?"--- No. If they want to use public money they should
send their kids to public school.@TGT;Let churches pay
@karen These are who the grant is open to. This list is from the actual grant
application. As you can see it is not limited to non-profits only.Type of Applicant (Check one) Park or Park District Non-Profit
Entity (attach legal status documentation)Private SchoolPublic
EntityInstitution Government Organization Other (Explain)@red,
so are paved streets. So is naturally occurring radon gas, and radon gas
emanating from many building materials. What is your point?
@Tumbleweed – “Americans' belief in being accountable in the
next life for our actions in this life historically prevented multiple
atrocities such as mass murders and suicides.”This is arguably
true depending on the motivating religious belief, though it likely cuts both
ways.Belief in the next life certainly played a role in European
Christians torturing and burning at the stake their neighbors for over 500
years, just like it plays a role among some of our most fervent religious
believers on Earth today when they commit atrocities they’re sure will
gain them “paradise” in the next life. As for the
“wishes of our Founding Fathers” I suggest you read the source
material and not rely on second hand interpretations (especially from the
“religiously motivated”). Many of our Founders held organized
religion in contempt and wanted the “wall of separation” between
church and state to be quite high.
@Hutterite "That's OK. Just make sure it's all religions. That
way no religion can claim victim status; it's not a slight on one as it is
a separation from the concept."So, it's OK to discriminate
against LGBT as long as you discriminate against all of them equally?? Bakeries
across America are rejoicing.
I'm not sure what a playground surface has to do with practicing one's
religion and the program as I understand it was open only to non-profits, so
taxpaying status wasn't an issue. Nevertheless, I'm concerned that
the religious right will use a favorable decision to further blur the line
between church and state with respect to school vouchers. With this in mind,
I'd offer this observation:School voucher supporters: So what
if some citizens want to use their share of public money to send their kids to
religious schools? The money is promoting the education portion, not the
religious portion. I.e., it can be separated.Anti-abortionists:
Federal funding shouldn't go to any abortion provider even if they're
already prohibited by law from using it for abortions because it indirectly
supports the provision of abortion. I.e., it can't be separated.
The Establishment Clause prevents governments from "establishing" a
religion like many countries in Europe have. Eg. In Greece, it's the Greek
Orthodox Church, Church of England, etc. The Constitution does not say
"wall of separation." At the same time, the Free Exercise Clause
protects the practice of religion among citizens. Historically, Congress has
begun sessions with prayers, schools began with prayers (used the Bible as text)
and people swore on the Bible in court. Americans' belief in being
accountable in the next life for our actions in this life historically prevented
multiple atrocities such as mass murders and suicides. Now they are common
place and the loss of the belief in eternal accountability plays a role in these
horrendous acts no doubt. It's sick that the First Amendment is used as
justification for adult porn, but prayer has been banned in our schools. Evil
has wrapped its tentacles around the First Amendment and is tearing it to
pieces, obviously contrary to the writings and wishes of our Founding Fathers.
The phrase 'separation of church and state' are not in the U.S.
Interesting case. With my limited legal knowledge I could see arguments for both
sides. I'm interested to see what the countries top legal minds have to say
on the matter.
@Hutterite "That's OK. Just make sure it's all religions. That way
no religion can claim victim status; it's not a slight on one as it is a
separation from the concept."By that logic, it is ok for the
government to discriminate against the non-religious (atheists) so long as it
treats all atheists the same, bad way. That is not acceptable. It
violates the 1st amendment. It also violates the spirit of the constitutional
prohibition on having religious tests for public office.The
anti-religious bigots need to enter the 21st century. Bigotry
against churches, religion, or those with theists beliefs is no less
small-minded, ignorant, offensive, and just plain stupid than was/is bigotry
against skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or national origin. It is also
every bit as self-defeating and dangerous.If government can
discriminate against theist organizations, individuals, or beliefs, it can just
as easily discriminate against atheist organizations, individuals, or
beliefs.Be very careful what you wish for.
I think it is nuts, the way we twist words, and allow them to be twisted by
others:I read this "... First Amendment's establishment clause,
which prevents government from favoring one faith group over others."The first amendment reads; "Congress shall make no law respecting
the establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise
thereof..."As you can see, this is a restriction on Congress.
They are not permitted to pass a law creating a bunch of hoops you have to go
through in order to start (establish) a church, nor are they permitted to pass a
law that prohibits people from practicing their religion, such as prohibiting
prayer in school.They have taken every alternate definition of the
word "establish" and attempted to apply it to this issue.When will the madness end?
Forget about the legal question -Who wants their child playing on
toxic tire shreds glued together?Tire shreds are nasty and cause
The money for the grants come from a tire recycling fee paid to the state. From
this fee the grants are written.
Religions and churches are part of the 'public'. How are not equally
entitled to that money as any other organization created by said public.Before you claim they don't pay taxes, many non-religious
organizations and people receive "public money" who do not pay
taxes.Constitutional rights such as equal treatment under the law
are not based payment of taxes.If the government has taken so much
money that they can it away to private organizations and people, they have
taxed too much. They are simply stealing it from those it rightly belongs and
giving it to another.
The men and women who fought and died in the several wars to bring America to
the point where it is today, did so for the for the American idealism that all
men and women are created equal and should have equal opportunity to attain the
good life. Just like I did, they pledged to support the Constitution and the
American government. Regions opted out by the discrimination of the
First Amendment and thus refused to yield their right to discriminate and to
honor the American equal justice and freedom for all, promised in the
Declaration of Independence. The expectation of everyone pulling
his own weight gave acceptance to the church’s objections and America was
born. However, as the population grows, the problems associated with the
contrary ideas will kill America.
Why are religions always trying to get some of Caesar's wealth and
power?Are there really no believers willing to buy some shredded old
tires for this little school? They have no choice but to take public goods?"My kingdom is not of this world," said Jesus. Yet so many of
his followers build worldly kingdoms with astonishing amounts of material
Be careful what you wish for.It is an interesting debate with
unforseen consequences that could result. So many issues and consequences to
take into consideration. I expect that is why any ruling will be pretty
narrow. However, if the State provides money for the education of
each citizen, shouldnt that citizen be able to spend that money at any
accredited school? If a State provides money for safety of childrens
equipment, shouldnt a Religious sponsored charity or business be eligible for
that same safety equipment?If you say yes, dont complain when
Muslims want public support of a school that teaches America is the devil. If I am not mistaken, doesnt New York provide public schools
specifically for the needs of Fundamentalist Jews that live together in that
area? I thought they did.
So when the state rejects the Lutheran owned daycare, on the basis of religion,
it is plain and simple discrimination on the basis of religion. That's OK. Just make sure it's all religions. That way no religion
can claim victim status; it's not a slight on one as it is a separation
from the concept.
Let us look at the actual list of entities allowed to apply for this particular
grant:Type of Applicant (Check one) Park or Park District Non-Profit Entity (attach legal status documentation) (they don't pay
taxes)Private SchoolPublic EntityInstitution Government
Organization Other (Explain)So when the state rejects the Lutheran
owned daycare, on the basis of religion, it is plain and simple discrimination
on the basis of religion. Stipulations in the grant application do
not attach any strings other than reporting the costs, the product mixtures and
who performed the work. Anti religionists think there are things that need to
be attached but are not. The issue is the state has discriminated
against issuing the grant to this day care because of religion alone.
Interesting case with broader ramifications.I don't see how the
justices drew a parallel to police and fire protection. Grants that
directly help the church with their property that they control is different than
providing police or fire protection, which the church doesn't control. In the end it comes down to the strings attached. If religious
institutions want tax dollars, just like any entity, they need to follow the
stipulations that come with it.