quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I thought that the 1st Amendment prevented this....Seperation of Church and State.
Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

There is no problem with it, as long as there are no religions discriminated against. If it was limited to "Catholic" schools, it would be against the first amendment. And, the vouchers are only for religious schools, but all schools. They just include religious schools, as opposed to not being able to be used for them. Allow the consumers - parents of students - to decide which school is doing a good job with their vouchers. Schools will have to compete for students.

I totally disagree the Seperation of Church and State does include this.

How so? This is about a school voucher. This is about a taxpayer being allowed to choose what school his/her kidlets attend. No one is being forced to attend any particular religious anything. No church is being pushed, and no church is being discriminated against. This is about the schools.

In Louisiana, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal pushed for a voucher program that would allow state funds to be used to pay for religious schools...

I don't have any children however I am taxed to pay for schools. I also would question the Governor motives. If the parents paid for the schooling themselves and received a tax break for it, then it would not violate the Seperation of Church and State.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that this is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. Despite the common usage of the phrase "separation of church and state," that's never been the test that the Supreme Court (and therefore other courts around the country) apply. Instead, the court apply a three-part test to determine whether there has been a violation of the Establishment Clause.

First, the law must have a secular purpose. In this case, the secular purpose would be permitting families to educate children outside of what is sometimes a dysfunctional public school system.

Second, the law can neither inhibit or advance religion. This law clearly does not inhibit religion; does it advance it? If you were to look at the provisions that are in place, I'm sure that Louisiana would also have a provision that government funds cannot go towards religious classes or religious materials, just like most of the other states with similar provisions around the country.

Finally, the law cannot result in excessive government entanglement with religion. And no, any interaction is not considered to be excessive government entanglement. This situation doesn't have it, though.

Also, based on Supreme Court precedents, I can tell you that when the financial aid is made available to people regardless of their religion, it does not violate any Constitutional provision. Under this provision, an atheist could choose to send their child to a Catholic (or Muslim) school, and use the public funds to do so. Why would an atheist do such a thing? Maybe the tradeoffs in having their child receive religious education that I'm assuming they disagree with are better than the alternative of having their child go through the local public school system.

As far as the kind of system you say you prefer...you're either paying for it upfront or on the back end (allowing them to take a tax credit for the tuition is the same thing as giving them the money upfront, really). So does it really matter which way it's done?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I thought that the 1st Amendment prevented this....Seperation of Church and State.
Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

There is no problem with it, as long as there are no religions discriminated against. If it was limited to "Catholic" schools, it would be against the first amendment. And, the vouchers are only for religious schools, but all schools. They just include religious schools, as opposed to not being able to be used for them. Allow the consumers - parents of students - to decide which school is doing a good job with their vouchers. Schools will have to compete for students.

I totally disagree the Seperation of Church and State does include this.

How so? This is about a school voucher. This is about a taxpayer being allowed to choose what school his/her kidlets attend. No one is being forced to attend any particular religious anything. No church is being pushed, and no church is being discriminated against. This is about the schools.

In Louisiana, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal pushed for a voucher program that would allow state funds to be used to pay for religious schools...

I don't have any children however I am taxed to pay for schools. I also would question the Governor motives. If the parents paid for the schooling themselves and received a tax break for it, then it would not violate the Seperation of Church and State.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that this is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. Despite the common usage of the phrase "separation of church and state," that's never been the test that the Supreme Court (and therefore other courts around the country) apply. Instead, the court apply a three-part test to determine whether there has been a violation of the Establishment Clause.

First, the law must have a secular purpose. In this case, the secular purpose would be permitting families to educate children outside of what is sometimes a dysfunctional public school system.

Second, the law can neither inhibit or advance religion. This law clearly does not inhibit religion; does it advance it? If you were to look at the provisions that are in place, I'm sure that Louisiana would also have a provision that government funds cannot go towards religious classes or religious materials, just like most of the other states with similar provisions around the country.

Finally, the law cannot result in excessive government entanglement with religion. And no, any interaction is not considered to be excessive government entanglement. This situation doesn't have it, though.

Also, based on Supreme Court precedents, I can tell you that when the financial aid is made available to people regardless of their religion, it does not violate any Constitutional provision. Under this provision, an atheist could choose to send their child to a Catholic (or Muslim) school, and use the public funds to do so. Why would an atheist do such a thing? Maybe the tradeoffs in having their child receive religious education that I'm assuming they disagree with are better than the alternative of having their child go through the local public school system.

As far as the kind of system you say you prefer...you're either paying for it upfront or on the back end (allowing them to take a tax credit for the tuition is the same thing as giving them the money upfront, really). So does it really matter which way it's done?

Really

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

quote:

Any state is still free to write any law regarding religion as they see fit, and the Federal Government can't do anything about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: muhly22222

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
I thought that the 1st Amendment prevented this....Seperation of Church and State.
Jefferson wrote, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

There is no problem with it, as long as there are no religions discriminated against. If it was limited to "Catholic" schools, it would be against the first amendment. And, the vouchers are only for religious schools, but all schools. They just include religious schools, as opposed to not being able to be used for them. Allow the consumers - parents of students - to decide which school is doing a good job with their vouchers. Schools will have to compete for students.

I totally disagree the Seperation of Church and State does include this.

How so? This is about a school voucher. This is about a taxpayer being allowed to choose what school his/her kidlets attend. No one is being forced to attend any particular religious anything. No church is being pushed, and no church is being discriminated against. This is about the schools.

In Louisiana, Republican Governor Bobby Jindal pushed for a voucher program that would allow state funds to be used to pay for religious schools...

I don't have any children however I am taxed to pay for schools. I also would question the Governor motives. If the parents paid for the schooling themselves and received a tax break for it, then it would not violate the Seperation of Church and State.

As a lawyer, I can tell you that this is perfectly acceptable under the First Amendment. Despite the common usage of the phrase "separation of church and state," that's never been the test that the Supreme Court (and therefore other courts around the country) apply. Instead, the court apply a three-part test to determine whether there has been a violation of the Establishment Clause.

First, the law must have a secular purpose. In this case, the secular purpose would be permitting families to educate children outside of what is sometimes a dysfunctional public school system.

Second, the law can neither inhibit or advance religion. This law clearly does not inhibit religion; does it advance it? If you were to look at the provisions that are in place, I'm sure that Louisiana would also have a provision that government funds cannot go towards religious classes or religious materials, just like most of the other states with similar provisions around the country.

Finally, the law cannot result in excessive government entanglement with religion. And no, any interaction is not considered to be excessive government entanglement. This situation doesn't have it, though.

Also, based on Supreme Court precedents, I can tell you that when the financial aid is made available to people regardless of their religion, it does not violate any Constitutional provision. Under this provision, an atheist could choose to send their child to a Catholic (or Muslim) school, and use the public funds to do so. Why would an atheist do such a thing? Maybe the tradeoffs in having their child receive religious education that I'm assuming they disagree with are better than the alternative of having their child go through the local public school system.

As far as the kind of system you say you prefer...you're either paying for it upfront or on the back end (allowing them to take a tax credit for the tuition is the same thing as giving them the money upfront, really). So does it really matter which way it's done?

Really

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

This case is not a McCollum situation. These are not public schools. They can receive public money for secular purposes and still conduct religious education.

And thank you for the citation on the Lemon case. I'd forgotten to look it up, although I knew the test, obviously. However, whether you wrote that description or copied-and-pasted, I would take issue with the end of the description of the holding. There are two separate religion clauses in the First Amendment; the particular one at issue here, and that was at issue in Lemon, is the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law establishing a religion" or something like that). That holding only extends to that clause; the Free Exercise Clause has other issues and other tests.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Or, are you saying that a family that wants to sent their child to a religious-affiliated school has to pay extra?
I'll say that.  We the people ain't a fuckin religious organization.  If you want the myth, pay for the fuckin thing, it has no place in our system.

quote:

I will say that while I don't disagree with including religious schools, they should have to meet certain academic criteria, just like most charter schools need to do to get funding.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You misunderstood...let me put it this way...a public school..can not have religous teachings...if it does then it violates the seperation of church and state..now if parents want to send their child to a school that does have religous teaching, fine..the state does not fund it, however, the family is not benefitting from the public school system so in my view they should be allowed a tax break for money they spend on their childs education at a non publically funded school, this school does not have to like Catholic school, the requirement is that the school is not publically funded. I have no arguement for giving a tax break to a family that is sending their child to a private school, they are spending their own money. I hope this helps.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You misunderstood...let me put it this way...a public school..can not have religous teachings...if it does then it violates the seperation of church and state..now if parents want to send their child to a school that does have religous teaching, fine..the state does not fund it, however, the family is not benefitting from the public school system so in my view they should be allowed a tax break for money they spend on their childs education at a non publically funded school, this school does not have to like Catholic school, the requirement is that the school is not publically funded. I have no arguement for giving a tax break to a family that is sending their child to a private school, they are spending their own money. I hope this helps.

What benefit do I get for my taxes going to a school district my kids aren't in (I'm not the residential parent)? What about taxpayers who don't have kids in school anymore, or have never had kids?

(Edited to strike "Read muhly's post#18." from the post. )

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro
You misunderstood...let me put it this way...a public school..can not have religous teachings...if it does then it violates the seperation of church and state..now if parents want to send their child to a school that does have religous teaching, fine..the state does not fund it, however, the family is not benefitting from the public school system so in my view they should be allowed a tax break for money they spend on their childs education at a non publically funded school, this school does not have to like Catholic school, the requirement is that the school is not publically funded. I have no arguement for giving a tax break to a family that is sending their child to a private school, they are spending their own money. I hope this helps.

What benefit do I get for my taxes going to a school district my kids aren't in (I'm not the residential parent)? What about taxpayers who don't have kids in school anymore, or have never had kids?
(Edited to strike "Read muhly's post#18." from the post. )

Don't feel to bad, I am in the same boat.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


So glad it's about the choice of education for you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

The question here is not vouchers per se, it is about vouchers specifically for religious education and the mistaken belief of this legislator (and others) that a blanket voucher system for religious education would somehow not cover non-Christian religions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fightdirecto

The question here is not vouchers per se, it is about vouchers specifically for religious education and the mistaken belief of this legislator (and others) that a blanket voucher system for religious education would somehow not cover non-Christian religions.

In my view, it is totally wrong, as I have agrued it violate the Seperation of Church and State, the State is singling out a specific religon, thus supporting it. I am against any government funds support a religous school, as I understand the same foremention clause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
FR
I am with those on this thread who feel this violates separation of church and state. The state should not be using public funds to support religion in this way.
As for the law under discussion, if a state supports religious schools, then constitutionally it MUST support ALL schools of whatever faith. One is NOT allowed to choose. Contrary to popular belief the U.S. is NOT a Christian country. We have freedom of religion. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Anyone who wants to make the U.S. a Christian country needs to amend the Constitution.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
FR
I am with those on this thread who feel this violates separation of church and state. The state should not be using public funds to support religion in this way.
As for the law under discussion, if a state supports religious schools, then constitutionally it MUST support ALL schools of whatever faith. One is NOT allowed to choose. Contrary to popular belief the U.S. is NOT a Christian country. We have freedom of religion. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Anyone who wants to make the U.S. a Christian country needs to amend the Constitution.

The representative thought - wrongly - that it was only for Christian schools. It was not. It included any religious school, regardless of religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess
FR
I am with those on this thread who feel this violates separation of church and state. The state should not be using public funds to support religion in this way.
As for the law under discussion, if a state supports religious schools, then constitutionally it MUST support ALL schools of whatever faith. One is NOT allowed to choose. Contrary to popular belief the U.S. is NOT a Christian country. We have freedom of religion. It is enshrined in the Constitution. Anyone who wants to make the U.S. a Christian country needs to amend the Constitution.

The representative thought - wrongly - that it was only for Christian schools. It was not. It included any religious school, regardless of religion.

My point is how could a representative EVER think that the law only applied to Christian schools. How can you not be aware, as a state rep, that the U.S. Constitution contains the Establishment Clause?

Can anyone on this thread name ONE single law in the U.S. that operates to give government support to one religion's parochial school, but not parochial schools of other religions? I would like to know if there has ever been even one law on the books, ever in the history of the country, that did that???

The point is there has NEVER been such a law ever (I would be shocked if someone uncovered one). This state rep is just plain IGNORANT of her own country's governing documents. Stupid is as stupid does.

Now that some conservatives have FINALLY figured this out, maybe we really will get some church/state separation on the issue of parochial schools. Maybe now conservatives will push for more strict separation when it comes to schools now that these laws can be used to fund, gasp, Islamic schools, Buddhist schools, Hindu schools, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Nosathro, I'm not sure I understand your question.