Church & State Case At Supreme Court

[Tassman]

No, no it is not. At least according to the men who wrote it.

State support of religious education is contrary to the Establishment Clause. This, IMHO, would include state funding of Church School infrastructure.

[seer]

State support of religious education is contrary to the Establishment Clause. This, IMHO, would include state funding of Church School infrastructure.

No, no it is not. The Establishment clause says that Congress can not establish a religion. This had nothing to do with a local school system - until the liberal courts redefined the amendment.

[Meh Gerbil]

No, no it is not. The Establishment clause says that Congress can not establish a religion. This had nothing to do with a local school system - until the liberal courts redefined the amendment.

This has been pointed out to tizzy at least a dozen times.
Where other skeptics here will at least address the point he ignores it entirely.

[seer]

This has been pointed out to tizzy at least a dozen times.
Where other skeptics here will at least address the point he ignores it entirely.

Is he being dense on purpose?

[Sparko]

Is he being dense on purpose?

It is how he operates. He declares something completely stupid, then ignores anyone who corrects him, and simply repeats his stupidity over and over, hoping eventually people will let it slide by without comment so he can feel like he was right.

[Carrikature]

While I agree with the expressed doubt that this is something the state should be doing, that does not seem to answer the question in discussion. If the government is going to blow money on this sort of thing the fact we need to ask why. And if the point is to make playgrounds safer for kids, how does the fact that a church is involved have any significance? Kids do not need to be safer on church playgrounds? This is not a First Amendment issue at all. There is no support going to a church, only support for safer playgrounds.

On the issue of safer playgrounds, these folks should have seen the playgrounds I grew up with. Somehow I survived, and I do not recall any injury worse than a skinned knee or elbow among my peers.

I think Tassman more or less answered this question. Where the intent is to provide your own alternative facility, the onus is on you to do it on your own dime.

Let's say this isn't strictly a First Amendment issue, though. Let's say this is a "stop being a hypocrite" issue. Asking the government to use tax dollars on you when it suits your interests while complaining when others do the same is pretty hypocritical.

[Tassman]

I think Tassman more or less answered this question. Where the intent is to provide your own alternative facility, the onus is on you to do it on your own dime.

Exactly!

Let's say this isn't strictly a First Amendment issue, though. Let's say this is a "stop being a hypocrite" issue. Asking the government to use tax dollars on you when it suits your interests while complaining when others do the same is pretty hypocritical.

It is if it's taken to court as an issue and appealed. Then it could work its way right up to the Supreme Court, which has appellate jurisdiction over federal courts and state courts. History shows that these things are ruled upon in terms of the First Amendment. This is why we get all the whining from this lot about "liberal courts redefining the amendment", when in fact they're just doing their job.

[seer]

Let's say this isn't strictly a First Amendment issue, though. Let's say this is a "stop being a hypocrite" issue. Asking the government to use tax dollars on you when it suits your interests while complaining when others do the same is pretty hypocritical.

No Carrikature, that is politics. Besides things like teacher led prayer in school or the coach having prayer time before the big game (which were common practice) or having the Ten Commandments posted in school really don't cost anything.

[seer]

This is why we get all the whining from this lot about "liberal courts redefining the amendment", when in fact they're just doing their job.

No they are not doing their jobs Tass, they are clearly ignoring the plain text of amendment and intent. CONGRESS shall make no law...

[Roy]

No they are not doing their jobs Tass, they are clearly ignoring the plain text of amendment and intent. CONGRESS shall make no law...

The 14th amendment says

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

which may modify the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If free exercise of religion is a privilege, then states shan't make laws that abridge it.

Only citing the text of the first amendment is an omission.

[seer]

The 14th amendment says

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

which may modify the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If free exercise of religion is a privilege, then states shan't make laws that abridge it.

Only citing the text of the first amendment is an omission.

I have no idea how that relates to, for instance, teacher led prayer in public school. Or the Ten Commandments hanging on a school wall. Can you show me a church state case where the 14th amendment was referenced?

[Roy]

No they are not doing their jobs Tass, they are clearly ignoring the plain text of amendment and intent. CONGRESS shall make no law...

The 14th amendment says

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

which may modify the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If free exercise of religion is a privilege, then states shan't make laws that abridge it.

Only citing the text of the first amendment is an omission.

I have no idea how that relates to, for instance, teacher led prayer in public school.

Blatant goal-post shifting.

Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, teacher-led prayer violates the free exercise of religion by pressuring students who are of a different faith than the teacher.

Or the Ten Commandments hanging on a school wall. Can you show me a church state case where the 14th amendment was referenced?

Easily. You could have found this in less time than it took you to ask me.

Now how about you stop wasting time with irrelevant distractions and admit that the constitution text does in fact affect the states' ability to make laws?

Or you could continue your usual dishonest schmuck act. Your choice.

[seer]

Blatant goal-post shifting.

What? This whole thread is about the church/state issue.

Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, teacher-led prayer violates the free exercise of religion by pressuring students who are of a different faith than the teacher.

No it doesn't, no one is forced to join in. Remember I actually lived though this. Many kids did not join in the morning Lord's Prayer, many, like the Jehovah Witness would not even say the Pledge. No big deal.

Now how about you stop wasting time with irrelevant distractions and admit that the constitution text does in fact affect the states' ability to make laws?

Even if I grant that it only gets you to state Congresses not being able to establish a state church. This would not prevent local school districts from having teacher led prayer. And was not thought so until the liberal bastardization of the First Amendment in the 1960s.

[Sparko]

The 14th amendment says

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

which may modify the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

If free exercise of religion is a privilege, then states shan't make laws that abridge it.

Only citing the text of the first amendment is an omission.

Yeah it means that the states can't stop citizens from expressing their religious freedom. It doesn't say that they can't display that freedom on state property. In fact to try to stop them would be violating that amendment. It also doesn't say that the state can't institute it's own church if it wanted to. It can establish a religion if it wanted. That would not stop citizens from expressing their religious freedoms either.

So basically:

Feds: Can't establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.
State: Can establish a religion. Can't pass any laws that prohibit free expression of religion by its citizens.

[Roy]

What? This whole thread is about the church/state issue.

Yes, blatant goal-post shifting.

You said the constitution only talked about laws passed by congress, I cited the section which extended that to laws passed by states, you ignored that completely and switched to asking about teacher-led prayer.

Anyway, as I'm sure you're aware, teacher-led prayer violates the free exercise of religion by pressuring students who are of a different faith than the teacher.

No it doesn't, no one is forced to join in.[/quote]That's your opinion. The supreme court disagreed.

Even if I grant that it only gets you to state Congresses not being able to establish a state church.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

You've just deliberately deleted the clause on free exercise of religion. Dishonest schmuckery as usual, this time lying by omission.

No point continuing.