Originally posted by Psychic Missile
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Church & State Case At Supreme Court
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostAnti-catholic bigotry simply doesn't exist in the US to any noticeable degree.
At question is what's called a "Blaine Amendment." Long story short, there was the following proposed amendment to the US constitution in 1875.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
This failed to pass, but a lot of states adopted either this or something similar to it into their state constitutions.
While on the surface it seems to have nothing to do with Catholicism, as it targets religious funding in general, it's not quite that simple. You see, public schools back then were largely Protestant, and so Catholics (the Catholic population was increasing at this time) started setting up their own schools. And thus the Blaine amendments were passed in order to deny them government funds while still funding the public Protestant schools.
...or so many claim. There's debate on how much these were actually made to target Catholics (Sotomayor noted that in the transcript). But this was a time when there was a good amount of anti-Catholicism--one need only look at the popularity of the KKK for a demonstration of that--so one is hardly a "moron" for suggesting that was the reason for the amendments.Last edited by Terraceth; 04-20-2017, 11:28 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostAnti-catholic bigotry simply doesn't exist in the US to any noticeable degree.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
The issue I see here is that the school in question (not far from me) receives state day care vouchers. If they wanted to keep church and state seperate and deny the playground funds they should also be denying state funds for the day care and preschoolA happy family is but an earlier heaven.
George Bernard Shaw
Comment
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostToday? Sure. But the lawyer was talking about the time those amendments were made.
At question is what's called a "Blaine Amendment." Long story short, there was the following proposed amendment to the US constitution in 1875.
"No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations."
This failed to pass, but a lot of states adopted either this or something similar to it into their state constitutions.
While on the surface it seems to have nothing to do with Catholicism, as it targets religious funding in general, it's not quite that simple. You see, public schools back then were largely Protestant, and so Catholics (the Catholic population was increasing at this time) started setting up their own schools. And thus the Blaine amendments were passed in order to deny them government funds while still funding the public Protestant schools.
...or so many claim. There's debate on how much these were actually made to target Catholics (Sotomayor noted that in the transcript). But this was a time when there was a good amount of anti-Catholicism--one need only look at the popularity of the KKK for a demonstration of that--so one is hardly a "moron" for suggesting that was the reason for the amendments.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostExcept in the media who despises them for their opposition to abortion and gay marriage (the two things the media cares the most about). This comes through in how they never miss a chance to flog the Catholic church for the sex scandals that took place decades ago as if they were still current news stories.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Carrikature View PostThis grant nonsense is a perfect example of what I meant in Gerbil's "what would you change" thread. Why is this something the state is handing out money for?
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.Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostWhile 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.
*if you tried to do a 360 with the bar there the kid on it would almost certainly be stunned by the sudden impact and fall off, risking serious injury or death so it obvious no genius was involved in designing it in the first place"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12
There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostWhile 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.Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.
Beige Federalist.
Nationalist Christian.
"Everybody is somebody's heretic."
Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.
Proud member of the this space left blank community.
Would-be Grand Vizier of the Padishah Maxi-Super-Ultra-Hyper-Mega-MAGA King Trumpius Rex.
Justice for Ashli Babbitt!
Justice for Matthew Perna!
Arrest Ray Epps and his Fed bosses!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View Post... 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..“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIf the Church wants to provide educational facilities for its children, so as to ensure a Christian education as opposed to the godless education provided by the State, then it must also be responsible for the infrastructure of their facilities...including playgrounds. Otherwise you end up with the state supplementing religious education, which is contrary to the First Amendment.1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
-
Originally posted by tabibito View PostOn the other hand - it would be reasonable to assume that churches could claim an equivalent amount for the education of children as is made available to other facilities for children. Assuming of course, that the church in question doesn't reserve its facilities for the members of its own group to the exclusion of others.“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostAnd Govt. funding of this agenda is clearly against the First Amendment.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:33 AM
|
8 responses
103 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 03:41 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
51 responses
294 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 04:42 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
83 responses
362 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:37 AM | ||
Started by carpedm9587, 04-14-2024, 02:07 PM
|
57 responses
363 views
2 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Yesterday, 07:12 PM
|
Comment