/shrugs and hands Rider a new thread...

[PostmodernProphet]

I said in the OP that I wasn't going to debate these points here. Now go start a new thread (if you dare!)

okay....

[PostmodernProphet]

Palinrider seems a bit slow on the uptake so I will try again....


Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
vouchers go to parents, not to schools.....what you are claiming isn't separation of church and state, it's separation of state and the religious.....and that's NOT in the constitution.....
PalinRider: I said in the OP that I wasn't going to debate these points here. Now go start a new thread (if you dare!)

[Palin Rider]

Palinrider seems a bit slow on the uptake so I will try again....

You should have PM'ed me, silly! :slap:

Now back to our story.

Vouchers are government grants. They come out of our tax dollars. There is an obvious Constitutional problem with using tax dollars to fund religious institutions, whatever their purposes.

I have absolutely no objection to religious groups forming their own schools. Just don't make me pay to support them.

[PostmodernProphet]

You should have PM'ed me, silly! :slap:

Now back to our story.

Vouchers are government grants. They come out of our tax dollars. There is an obvious Constitutional problem with using tax dollars to fund religious institutions, whatever their purposes.

I have absolutely no objection to religious groups forming their own schools. Just don't make me pay to support them.

it isn't a matter of using tax dollars to fund religious institutions......it's a matter of providing parents with the funds their tax dollars made available for the education of their children.......you seem to have no problem making them pay to support the schools you send your children to.....why not simply let them choose which schools they want to support....

from the time my children entered preschool on, I paid $5k each for them to attend a private school every year, in addition to paying property taxes to support the public schools.....I live in a community with six public high schools with student populations of over 500, as well as a private high school with over 500.....parents who have chosen private schooling have saved the local taxpayers the cost of providing one complete high school campus.....shouldn't that be acknowledged?.....

[Palin Rider]

it isn't a matter of using tax dollars to fund religious institutions......it's a matter of providing parents with the funds their tax dollars made available for the education of their children.......you seem to have no problem making them pay to support the schools you send your children to.....why not simply let them choose which schools they want to support....
What makes you think I don't want to send my children (if I have any) to religious schools? I will send them to whichever school in the area I believe has the best academics, and if I have to pay more for that through private school tuition, fine. If a public school happens to have better academics, that's fine with me, too.

The only thing I have a problem with is being taxed to pay for the livelihoods of priests, nuns, imams, rabbis, and the like.


from the time my children entered preschool on, I paid $5k each for them to attend a private school every year, in addition to paying property taxes to support the public schools.....I live in a community with six public high schools with student populations of over 500, as well as a private high school with over 500.....parents who have chosen private schooling have saved the local taxpayers the cost of providing one complete high school campus.....shouldn't that be acknowledged?.....
Acknowledged how? It was your choice to pay extra.

[PostmodernProphet]

The only thing I have a problem with is being taxed to pay for the livelihoods of priests, nuns, imams, rabbis, and the like.


????....and you aren't?.....why even bring it up?...



Acknowledged how?
obviously, acknowledged that if those parents weren't making that choice, that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the additional high school campus......they are saving you money, why shouldn't they be able to use their tax money to provide the education they choose for their children?......and the voucher system isn't simply about parochial schools.....what about charter schools, or schools of choice?.....if I like the Zeeland or West Ottawa public schools better than the Holland public schools, why shouldn't I be able to take my tax dollars to the school I prefer?......

[Palin Rider]

The only thing I have a problem with is being taxed to pay for the livelihoods of priests, nuns, imams, rabbis, and the like. ????....and you aren't?.....why even bring it up?...
Wait - WHAT???

How exactly is the government taking my taxes and using them to give additional support to religious clerics? Please specify where in the law this is spelled out.



obviously, acknowledged that if those parents weren't making that choice, that taxes would have to be raised to pay for the additional high school campus......they are saving you money, why shouldn't they be able to use their tax money to provide the education they choose for their children?
By that logic, entrepreneurs who create jobs are saving you money by expanding the tax base so that the government doesn't have to raise taxes to maintain the same level of service. Does this mean that entrepreneurs therefore deserve a per-person tax credit based on what they save everyone? :uhoh:


......and the voucher system isn't simply about parochial schools.....what about charter schools, or schools of choice?.....if I like the Zeeland or West Ottawa public schools better than the Holland public schools, why shouldn't I be able to take my tax dollars to the school I prefer?......
As I said in my original remarks about vouchers, I'm fine with allowing them to be used for secular private schools. It's just the religion issue that's a Constitutional sticking point.

[PostmodernProphet]

Wait - WHAT???

How exactly is the government taking my taxes and using them to give additional support to religious clerics? Please specify where in the law this is spelled out.

what is the source of your confusion?......I am the one saying the government is NOT taking your taxes and using them to give additional support to religious clerics.......if you believe they are, then I suggest YOU specify where in the law this is spelled out......



By that logic, entrepreneurs who create jobs are saving you money by expanding the tax base so that the government doesn't have to raise taxes to maintain the same level of service. Does this mean that entrepreneurs therefore deserve a per-person tax credit based on what they save everyone? :uhoh:

not the same logic, but an excellent idea none the less.....I'd vote for it.......



As I said in my original remarks about vouchers, I'm fine with allowing them to be used for secular private schools. It's just the religion issue that's a Constitutional sticking point.
so your reaction is based on pure emotion, rather than logic?......

[Palin Rider]

what is the source of your confusion?......I am the one saying the government is NOT taking your taxes and using them to give additional support to religious clerics.
I stand corrected. However, they would be doing just that if taxes were used to fund vouchers for religious schools.


so your reaction is based on pure emotion, rather than logic?......
Of course not: it's based purely on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

[PostmodernProphet]

I stand corrected. However, they would be doing just that if taxes were used to fund vouchers for religious schools.
no, they wouldn't.......if vouchers were used, the taxes would be used to provide the taxpayers with the funds necessary to educate their children.......

if taxmoney is used to provide government employees a salary and one of them uses their salary to tithe the church do you argue that taxes are being used to support the church?........if I buy a chicken salad sandwich at the deli and the owner decides to donate what he earned to his imam, am I supporting Islam or am I buying a sandwich.....



Of course not: it's based purely on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
and obviously, since the money can be used by the taxpayer anywhere they want it is NOT an establishment of religion, either a specific religion or religion in general.....if anything, it is the establishment of choice on the part of the individual......and that is hardly something the Constitution is opposed to........

[Palin Rider]

no, they wouldn't.......if vouchers were used, the taxes would be used to provide the taxpayers with the funds necessary to educate their children.......

if taxmoney is used to provide government employees a salary and one of them uses their salary to tithe the church do you argue that taxes are being used to support the church?........if I buy a chicken salad sandwich at the deli and the owner decides to donate what he earned to his imam, am I supporting Islam or am I buying a sandwich.....


and obviously, since the money can be used by the taxpayer anywhere they want it is NOT an establishment of religion, either a specific religion or religion in general.....if anything, it is the establishment of choice on the part of the individual......and that is hardly something the Constitution is opposed to........

Your basic premise that money can be used by the taxpayer in any way they want is fundamentally flawed. You can't hire a hitman and avoid a murder charge by saying it's your right to choose what to do with your money.

[PostmodernProphet]

Your basic premise that money can be used by the taxpayer in any way they want is fundamentally flawed. You can't hire a hitman and avoid a murder charge by saying it's your right to choose what to do with your money.

I wasn't aware that was my basic premise.....under the voucher system the money can only be used to provide an education.....I'm pretty certain using it to hire a hitman is not acceptable.....the money is used in a specific way, to provide a specific service that government has undertaken to provide using tax money....the only difference is that the parent gets to choose WHERE it is spent.....not HOW.....

[Palin Rider]

I wasn't aware that was my basic premise.....under the voucher system the money can only be used to provide an education.....I'm pretty certain using it to hire a hitman is not acceptable.....the money is used in a specific way, to provide a specific service that government has undertaken to provide using tax money....the only difference is that the parent gets to choose WHERE it is spent.....not HOW.....

You obviously don't know what a voucher is. Think of it as a coupon. Whoever issues the coupon controls the money, and therefore has the right to set the conditions under which it's spent. The users of the coupon only have as much choice as the issuer allows them to have.

Clear enough for you?

[PostmodernProphet]

You obviously don't know what a voucher is. Think of it as a coupon. Whoever issues the coupon controls the money, and therefore has the right to set the conditions under which it's spent. The users of the coupon only have as much choice as the issuer allows them to have.

Clear enough for you?

not if you think they can use the coupon to purchase a hitman......not sure where you are going with this.....are you claiming the vouchers can be used for something besides education?......if so, you're wrong......if not, why even bring it up?.....

[Palin Rider]

not if you think they can use the coupon to purchase a hitman......not sure where you are going with this.....are you claiming the vouchers can be used for something besides education?......if so, you're wrong......if not, why even bring it up?.....

First you said that "money can be used by the taxpayer anywhere they want," and now you're saying the same money can't be used for something besides education.

I think you need to make up your mind on this point before we can proceed, here......

[PostmodernProphet]

First you said that "money can be used by the taxpayer anywhere they want," and now you're saying the same money can't be used for something besides education.

I think you need to make up your mind on this point before we can proceed, here......

I assume you've adopted this silly approach because you've run out of serious argument?......

I don't think anyone else misunderstood what I was saying, why did you?.....

the taxpayer can use the voucher any where (that provides education) that they want.....

not a change, merely a clarification so we can get beyond the silliness.....

[Palin Rider]

I assume you've adopted this silly approach because you've run out of serious argument?......

I don't think anyone else misunderstood what I was saying, why did you?.....

the taxpayer can use the voucher any where (that provides education) that they want.....

not a change, merely a clarification so we can get beyond the silliness.....

The political clown with the baby avatar objects to silliness?! Gotta love the irony. :laugh2:

Okay, I'm in "serious mode" now.

As I understand what you wrote, you're contending that vouchers (if they were to be enacted) should be redeemable by parents at any educational institution.

I'm contending that the US Constitution would not allow any such vouchers to be redeemable at educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.

Does this sound accurate to you, and if so, will you please stick to this one topic?

[PostmodernProphet]

The political clown with the baby avatar objects to silliness?! Gotta love the irony. :laugh2:

Okay, I'm in "serious mode" now.

As I understand what you wrote, you're contending that vouchers (if they were to be enacted) should be redeemable by parents at any educational institution.

I'm contending that the US Constitution would not allow any such vouchers to be redeemable at educational institutions controlled by religious organizations.

Does this sound accurate to you, and if so, will you please stick to this one topic?

You're the one trying to change topics......yes, the above looks like an accurate restatement of our respective positions.....however, you've neglected to note that I've already shown your position to be inaccurate.....do you want to try again?.....if so, you'll need to raise something new.....

[Palin Rider]

..yes, the above looks like an accurate restatement of our respective positions.....however, you've neglected to note that I've already shown your position to be inaccurate.....do you want to try again?.....if so, you'll need to raise something new.....

I don't know where you think you've shown my position to be inaccurate, but that's okay: I'll just point you to the Supreme Court interpretation that proves otherwise.

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black wrote the following.

The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this… . 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.

[PostmodernProphet]

I don't know where you think you've shown my position to be inaccurate, but that's okay: I'll just point you to the Supreme Court interpretation that proves otherwise.

In the 1947 case of Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black wrote the following.
sorry, but the SC has already declared your argument to be wrong....ZELMAN V. SIMMONS-HARRIS (00-1751) 536 U.S. 639 (2002)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-1751.ZS.html

This Court’s jurisprudence makes clear that a government aid program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause if it is neutral with respect to religion and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice.

interestingly, the court anticipated your objection and rejected it....

No reasonable observer would think that such a neutral private choice program carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement.
they knew you weren't a reasonable observer.....

[Palin Rider]

That may be what the SCOTUS says at the moment. However, I still disagree with this interpretation.

It also states that a government aid program is not "readily subject to challenge," NOT that such a program is "not subject to challenge at all."

[PostmodernProphet]

That may be what the SCOTUS says at the moment. However, I still disagree with this interpretation.

It also states that a government aid program is not "readily subject to challenge," NOT that such a program is "not subject to challenge at all."

lol.....well it really sucks that they haven't appointed you to the SCOTUS so you could straighten all those fools out.....

[Palin Rider]

lol.....well it really sucks that they haven't appointed you to the SCOTUS so you could straighten all those fools out.....

Yeah, it's great job security. :laugh:

[darin]

Nicely done, PMP.

[Palin Rider]

Nicely done, PMP.

Dream on: Zelman didn't come close to settling the issue (except in Cleveland, where the case originated).

[PostmodernProphet]

dp....apparently I have a bad habit of hitting quote instead of edit....

[PostmodernProphet]

Dream on: Zelman didn't come close to settling the issue (except in Cleveland, where the case originated).

it settled the jurisprudence relating to the issue....the formula for testing programs is firmly in place....do you think any appeals court is going to decide otherwise, after the SC states "No reasonable observer would think....."

[Palin Rider]

it settled the jurisprudence relating to the issue....the formula for testing programs is firmly in place....

The formula in Zelman is still vague, and a different SCOTUS is likely to overturn it at some point.

[PostmodernProphet]

The formula in Zelman is still vague, and a different SCOTUS is likely to overturn it at some point.

it's possible the formula will be fine tuned, but given the court has stated that the jurisprudence is well established, I find it highly unlikely it would be "overturned".....be that as it may, until it is, you are stuck with the fact that vouchers are not a violation of the Constitution.....

[Palin Rider]

it's possible the formula will be fine tuned, but given the court has stated that the jurisprudence is well established, I find it highly unlikely it would be "overturned".....be that as it may, until it is, you are stuck with the fact that vouchers are not a violation of the Constitution.....

At least not in some situations.....

[PostmodernProphet]

At least not in some situations.....

easy enough to craft a voucher system in that "situation" then....

[Palin Rider]

easy enough to craft a voucher system in that "situation" then....

Perhaps.

Sooner or later, a Scientologists' school (or something similar) will try to take advantage of the voucher system, there will be more lawsuits, and bingo-bango, we'll have new precedents.