List arguments for why Religion and Govt. should be separate

[Falcon]

You're still missing the point, the ratio of money to students would be unchanged, further funding would come from the proper appropriations via increased taxes, not the theft of money from someone who wants to send their kid to a private school, any private school, not just religious. The money would be attached to the student, thus allowing poor families to choose better education for their kids. Indocrtination is a moot point since any school in the voucher system would have to meet the same standards as government run schools, performance is what matters, not the name on the side of the building.

As it stands, the state has a certain amount of money is devotes to education. Vouchers will not take away from this pool; they will take away from the rest of the pool. My point is that the part of the pool that vouchers take away from could be diverted to the education pool, thus making it larger. This is as simple as I can make it for you.

It could be yes, but my point is that is paramount to theft from, in many cases, the poorest of parents in the least productive of schools. I agree that more money should go to schools, or at least the money we have should be used more efficiently.

There is no such thing as a private road? I live on a private road, I could charge toll if I wanted lol. However, if I accepted government funding for my road then I would have to meet certian road standards no doubt. I'm asking no less of schools, they accept government money they much meet scholarly standards set by the government. Your religious xenophobia has descended into the irrational...

Ooh, very nice tactic. Declare me xenophobic of religion for trying to uphold the establishment clause. It works for the morons in Congress, but that shit doesn't fly here. Allowing parents to use government money for religious indoctrination is respecting an establishment of religion, period. As I've said before, the standards of a religious school are severely altered from those of a public school, as religious indoctrination is placed above the educational needs of students, because religious functions frequently cut classroom time short. Last I checked, that wasn't a part of the standard.
[/quote]

Schools have been a part of the government since the earliest days of our nation. Under the plan used by Congress to divy up the lands east of the Mississippi all townships had to keep an area open for schools. During those times do you know what was one of the primary books used in instruction? The Bible. Thats right, the Bible, because clearly it isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit a religion. Religious schools and the use of religious material in school is optional on a district, school, and student level, but was not intended that all religion should be purged from schools or the government.

So you arn't against vouchers so much as you are just against all religion. Well may that be, but you don't have the right to dictate to everyone else anymore than I have the right to dictate to you. If the roles were reversed you'd be screaming like a little baby about being forced to endure 'indoctrination'

I'm against the government supporting religion with my fucking tax money. Nice strawman, though. Feel free to stop plugging it at your convenience; we'll all be waiting for you to make a real argument. Parents have the choice of sending their kids to religious schools, but they have to pay for it. Religious schools put indoctrination first; regular private schools put education first. Giving money to the latter is not a violation of the establishment clause; giving money to the former is.
[/quote]

You don't have to use your tax money on religious schools, its about individual choice. If it would make you feel better I would also be for the decentralizing of schools back to a local level where all money is raised and spent locally by a locally elected school board, just like was done some decades ago.

[SeebianWurm]

Falcon - Durandal is talking about the money for such vouchers being drawn from the common pool of tax money, to which he has contributed.

Schools have been a part of the government since the earliest days of our nation. Under the plan used by Congress to divy up the lands east of the Mississippi all townships had to keep an area open for schools. During those times do you know what was one of the primary books used in instruction? The Bible. Thats right, the Bible, because clearly it isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit a religion. Religious schools and the use of religious material in school is optional on a district, school, and student level, but was not intended that all religion should be purged from schools or the government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Putting the Bible in public schools was a violation of the first amendment; the government was respecting one religion above all others. Is this so hard to understand?

[Wicked Pilot]

WWHD?

Secular schools can never be tolerated because such a school has no religious instruction and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith ... We need believing people.

Well, that settles it, the Furher has spoken.

[Durandal]

It could be yes, but my point is that is paramount to theft from, in many cases, the poorest of parents in the least productive of schools. I agree that more money should go to schools, or at least the money we have should be used more efficiently.

Then why do you advocate taking money from a limited pool of resources and devoting it to religious indoctrination?

Schools have been a part of the government since the earliest days of our nation. Under the plan used by Congress to divy up the lands east of the Mississippi all townships had to keep an area open for schools. During those times do you know what was one of the primary books used in instruction? The Bible. Thats right, the Bible, because clearly it isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit a religion. Religious schools and the use of religious material in school is optional on a district, school, and student level, but was not intended that all religion should be purged from schools or the government.

Just because religious fundamentalists got away with disregarding the establishment clause then doesn't make it acceptable now. Religious institutions and the state are entirely separate under the establishment clause, period. Now you're just descending into the realm of "The United States is a Christian nation."

The establishment clause prohibits the state from respecting any establishment of religion. That means that religion is neither encouraged nor discouraged, which means that the government does not comment on it at all. Don't you fucking get it yet? If the government, like you say, should not be purged of all religion, which religion should we leave in? Christianity? What about Muslims? What about Jews? What about Wiccans? Why does the government not "officially recognize" Wicca as a religion? Doesn't that violate establishing religions in the first place? Don't you see why it's better to just leave religion be and not insert it into government affairs in any way?

You don't have to use your tax money on religious schools, its about individual choice. If it would make you feel better I would also be for the decentralizing of schools back to a local level where all money is raised and spent locally by a locally elected school board, just like was done some decades ago.

Taxes are drawn from a pool. The government spends my tax money on various things. If vouchers were implemented, the government would be spending my tax money on religious indoctrination.

[Darth Wong]

Falcon, what you're doing is called the "appeal to tradition", and it's a logical fallacy.

In other words, you're dumber than a bag of hair.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Taxes are drawn from a pool. The government spends my tax money on various things. If vouchers were implemented, the government would be spending my tax money on religious indoctrination.

The government steals your money regardless of what it spends it on. The fact that they want to spend it on religious indoctination is just the icing on the "Piss me off" cake.

[Falcon]

Falcon, what you're doing is called the "appeal to tradition", and it's a logical fallacy.

In other words, you're dumber than a bag of hair.

Establishing a historical precedent is not an appeal to tradition. if you want to see how the constitution was intended then how better than to see how it was treated by the people who wrote it...

[Falcon]

Falcon - Durandal is talking about the money for such vouchers being drawn from the common pool of tax money, to which he has contributed.

Schools have been a part of the government since the earliest days of our nation. Under the plan used by Congress to divy up the lands east of the Mississippi all townships had to keep an area open for schools. During those times do you know what was one of the primary books used in instruction? The Bible. Thats right, the Bible, because clearly it isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit a religion. Religious schools and the use of religious material in school is optional on a district, school, and student level, but was not intended that all religion should be purged from schools or the government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Putting the Bible in public schools was a violation of the first amendment; the government was respecting one religion above all others. Is this so hard to understand?

They didn't 'put' the Bible in public schools, the school board, teachers, and students use it on their own. Congress is not to legislate religion, nor is it to legislate no religion. If a student or a teacher wants to use the Bible that is their right, if some people disagree they can be accomidated without infringing on their rights. Don't get me wrong, vouchers won't conclude with a Bible on every shelf, but to say that the Constitution forbids religious schools (getting federal funds by way of a voucher) is nonsense.

[Falcon]

It could be yes, but my point is that is paramount to theft from, in many cases, the poorest of parents in the least productive of schools. I agree that more money should go to schools, or at least the money we have should be used more efficiently.

Then why do you advocate taking money from a limited pool of resources and devoting it to religious indoctrination?

Why do you insist at ignoring my repeated response to this claim and instead misrepresenting the issue at every turn?

Schools have been a part of the government since the earliest days of our nation. Under the plan used by Congress to divy up the lands east of the Mississippi all townships had to keep an area open for schools. During those times do you know what was one of the primary books used in instruction? The Bible. Thats right, the Bible, because clearly it isn't a violation of the Constitution. Congress shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit a religion. Religious schools and the use of religious material in school is optional on a district, school, and student level, but was not intended that all religion should be purged from schools or the government.

Just because religious fundamentalists got away with disregarding the establishment clause then doesn't make it acceptable now. Religious institutions and the state are entirely separate under the establishment clause, period. Now you're just descending into the realm of "The United States is a Christian nation."
[/quote]

You cannot ignore the historical precedent that was set by the people who wrote the Constitution and\or those who followed shortly thereafter. What is happening today is that people are trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own purposes totally disregarding how it has functioned for hundreds of years.

The establishment clause prohibits the state from respecting any establishment of religion. That means that religion is neither encouraged nor discouraged, which means that the government does not comment on it at all. Don't you fucking get it yet? If the government, like you say, should not be purged of all religion, which religion should we leave in? Christianity? What about Muslims? What about Jews? What about Wiccans? Why does the government not "officially recognize" Wicca as a religion? Doesn't that violate establishing religions in the first place? Don't you see why it's better to just leave religion be and not insert it into government affairs in any way?

Banning religion from schools is discouraging religion. Disallowing children to use their vouchers at scholarly acredited religious schools is discouraging religion. We leave in all religions. If someone wants to take their voucher to a witch school, or an Islam school, or any other religious school that meets the government's scholarly standards then its ok. Anyone can call themselves a religion and open up a school, and as long as they meet scholarly standards then it doesn't matter.

You don't have to use your tax money on religious schools, its about individual choice. If it would make you feel better I would also be for the decentralizing of schools back to a local level where all money is raised and spent locally by a locally elected school board, just like was done some decades ago.

Taxes are drawn from a pool. The government spends my tax money on various things. If vouchers were implemented, the government would be spending my tax money on religious indoctrination.[/quote]

Which is why religious schools would be expected to meet the same scholarly standards of every other school.

Like I said, if you don't like the idea of federal\state funded vouchers then my other proposal would be to decentralize schools back to the local level, let the parents decide. That is the preferrable way in any event, but I realize that won't happen, so vouchers are the next best thing.

[Durandal]

Establishing a historical precedent is not an appeal to tradition. if you want to see how the constitution was intended then how better than to see how it was treated by the people who wrote it...

Individual states' decisions to circumvent the establishment clause do not constitute our founding fathers' actions. The establishment clause's wording is quite clear on this matter, and you can call it what you like, but it's appealing to tradition, which does not counter my arguments in any way.

Why do you insist at ignoring my repeated response to this claim and instead misrepresenting the issue at every turn?

What? So using tax payer money to compensate parents for the cost of having their kids indoctrinated into a particular religion isn't funding religious indoctrination? Whether or not you think that's your position or not is irrelevant; your position is that funding religious activities with tax payer money is acceptable. The establishment clause disagrees.

You cannot ignore the historical precedent that was set by the people who wrote the Constitution and\or those who followed shortly thereafter. What is happening today is that people are trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own purposes totally disregarding how it has functioned for hundreds of years.

The wording of the Constitution is quite clear, given a face-value interpretation and various quotes from our founding fathers decrying the appropriation of government resources to give to religions.

Banning religion from schools is discouraging religion. Disallowing children to use their vouchers at scholarly acredited religious schools is discouraging religion. We leave in all religions. If someone wants to take their voucher to a witch school, or an Islam school, or any other religious school that meets the government's scholarly standards then its ok. Anyone can call themselves a religion and open up a school, and as long as they meet scholarly standards then it doesn't matter.

Bullshit. Banning all religious exercises from schools allows the government to remain silent on the matter. The minute you allow religious displays on government property or at the expense of government resources, you create the impression that the government is respecting that establishment of religion. A public school is government property. This is an extremely simple concept to grasp. No one is hurt by leaving prayer and religion in private. People are hurt by having the government endorse religions.

Answer me this: what useful function does allowing religion provide to an educational environment?

Which is why religious schools would be expected to meet the same scholarly standards of every other school.

Like I said, if you don't like the idea of federal\state funded vouchers then my other proposal would be to decentralize schools back to the local level, let the parents decide. That is the preferrable way in any event, but I realize that won't happen, so vouchers are the next best thing.

Giving religious schools money gives the impression that the government is endorsing their religious beliefs. I can't make this any clearer for you.

They didn't 'put' the Bible in public schools, the school board, teachers, and students use it on their own. Congress is not to legislate religion, nor is it to legislate no religion. If a student or a teacher wants to use the Bible that is their right, if some people disagree they can be accomidated without infringing on their rights. Don't get me wrong, vouchers won't conclude with a Bible on every shelf, but to say that the Constitution forbids religious schools (getting federal funds by way of a voucher) is nonsense.

Wrong. The teacher is a government employee. He has no right to use the Bible in the classroom or give the impression that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong. In short, the government does not have the freedom of religion. Get it through your thick fucking skull. What if a teacher wanted to use Satanist literature in a school to promote Satanism? Or Nazism? I'm sure you'd be so equally considerate to all other religious beliefs.

[Falcon]

Why do you insist at ignoring my repeated response to this claim and instead misrepresenting the issue at every turn?

What? So using tax payer money to compensate parents for the cost of having their kids indoctrinated into a particular religion isn't funding religious indoctrination? Whether or not you think that's your position or not is irrelevant; your position is that funding religious activities with tax payer money is acceptable. The establishment clause disagrees.

No it doesn't, you are confusing 'student aid' with 'religious funding' As long as the vouchers are given out based on a secular, neutral basis, that neither favors nor disfavors any religious institution, then it is still Constitutional. This is no different than a religious organization benifiting from a public fire station protection. This is about aiding students, not religions, and its not just me saying it, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See the 1997 ruling on Agostini v. Felton.

You cannot ignore the historical precedent that was set by the people who wrote the Constitution and\or those who followed shortly thereafter. What is happening today is that people are trying to rewrite the Constitution to suit their own purposes totally disregarding how it has functioned for hundreds of years.

The wording of the Constitution is quite clear, given a face-value interpretation and various quotes from our founding fathers decrying the appropriation of government resources to give to religions.
[/quote]

These vouchers are going to individuals in society, not to religions.

Banning religion from schools is discouraging religion. Disallowing children to use their vouchers at scholarly acredited religious schools is discouraging religion. We leave in all religions. If someone wants to take their voucher to a witch school, or an Islam school, or any other religious school that meets the government's scholarly standards then its ok. Anyone can call themselves a religion and open up a school, and as long as they meet scholarly standards then it doesn't matter.

Bullshit. Banning all religious exercises from schools allows the government to remain silent on the matter. The minute you allow religious displays on government property or at the expense of government resources, you create the impression that the government is respecting that establishment of religion. A public school is government property. This is an extremely simple concept to grasp. No one is hurt by leaving prayer and religion in private. People are hurt by having the government endorse religions.
[/quote]

If I want to pray in school, that is my Constitutional right. Banning all religion is making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The government is not endorsing a religion because I pray on campus, or if a muslim woman wears her head garb, or a jew wears one of those little hats, or etc... Historical precedent people, Congress opens its sessions every day with a prayer, it used to open with a Christian prayer specifically

Answer me this: what useful function does allowing religion provide to an educational environment?

Just because it doesn't seem useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to me. Thats why the Constitution says you can't prohibit me from being religious just like I can't force you to be religious. If you can ban my religion then whats to stop me, should I gain control of the government, from enforcing my religion on you? Did you ever consider that the wheel might turn full circle and that this could come back to bite your freedoms?

Which is why religious schools would be expected to meet the same scholarly standards of every other school.

Like I said, if you don't like the idea of federal\state funded vouchers then my other proposal would be to decentralize schools back to the local level, let the parents decide. That is the preferrable way in any event, but I realize that won't happen, so vouchers are the next best thing.

Giving religious schools money gives the impression that the government is endorsing their religious beliefs. I can't make this any clearer for you.
[/quote]

The money is going to students, that a religious organization might indirectly benifit is not the concern of the government.

They didn't 'put' the Bible in public schools, the school board, teachers, and students use it on their own. Congress is not to legislate religion, nor is it to legislate no religion. If a student or a teacher wants to use the Bible that is their right, if some people disagree they can be accomidated without infringing on their rights. Don't get me wrong, vouchers won't conclude with a Bible on every shelf, but to say that the Constitution forbids religious schools (getting federal funds by way of a voucher) is nonsense.

Wrong. The teacher is a government employee. He has no right to use the Bible in the classroom or give the impression that Christianity is right and everyone else is wrong. In short, the government does not have the freedom of religion. Get it through your thick fucking skull. What if a teacher wanted to use Satanist literature in a school to promote Satanism? Or Nazism? I'm sure you'd be so equally considerate to all other religious beliefs. [/quote]

First, Nazism isn't a religion, and yes, I give equal consideration to all beliefs. If a student doesn't like something asked of them in a class they can abstain, we can accomidate everyone of all faiths or of no faith. Incidently, no one is expecting that this would focus schools on religion, indeed things would generally stay much as they are now in the majority of schools. Your being a bit paranoid, again I can only attribute it to acute religious xenophobia....

[Durandal]

No it doesn't, you are confusing 'student aid' with 'religious funding' As long as the vouchers are given out based on a secular, neutral basis, that neither favors nor disfavors any religious institution, then it is still Constitutional. This is no different than a religious organization benifiting from a public fire station protection. This is about aiding students, not religions, and its not just me saying it, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See the 1997 ruling on Agostini v. Felton.

Don't be ridiculous. Using the fire department to save people in a burning church is simply concern for your fellow man. This is not about aiding students. The people pushing this bill want to indirectly fund religious indoctrination, because they know, just like you and I both know, that most private schools that aren't extremely selective about admissions are religious schools. This isn't a university scholarship deal, because students don't have to pay tuitition for public high school. They don't require aid unless they elect to go to a non-public school. With colleges, you need aid either way. The two situations are not analogous.

These vouchers are going to individuals in society, not to religions.

So it's OK for the government to cover the costs of tithing to a church, as well?

If I want to pray in school, that is my Constitutional right. Banning all religion is making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The government is not endorsing a religion because I pray on campus, or if a muslim woman wears her head garb, or a jew wears one of those little hats, or etc... Historical precedent people, Congress opens its sessions every day with a prayer, it used to open with a Christian prayer specifically

Of course it's your right, but the teacher cannot endorse such activity. School-led prayer is off the bill. Congress opening its sessions with prayer is a violation of the separation of church and state. Any moron with a brain should know that, and it's quite clear that those prayers aren't working.

Just because it doesn't seem useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to me. Thats why the Constitution says you can't prohibit me from being religious just like I can't force you to be religious. If you can ban my religion then whats to stop me, should I gain control of the government, from enforcing my religion on you? Did you ever consider that the wheel might turn full circle and that this could come back to bite your freedoms?

Under your system, people like me don't have freedoms. Under your system, it's OK for the government to officially endorse a religion, remember?

The money is going to students, that a religious organization might indirectly benifit is not the concern of the government.

The bill states that the government approves of the money going toward a religious school. The government specifically outlines who and who is not eligible for vouchers, and parents with kids in religious schools are clearly outlined as eligible. That is an endorsement of religion.

First, Nazism isn't a religion, and yes, I give equal consideration to all beliefs. If a student doesn't like something asked of them in a class they can abstain, we can accomidate everyone of all faiths or of no faith. Incidently, no one is expecting that this would focus schools on religion, indeed things would generally stay much as they are now in the majority of schools. Your being a bit paranoid, again I can only attribute it to acute religious xenophobia....

Appeal to motive, and Nazism has plenty of religious beliefs. It's a form of Christianity combined with Norse gods.

You never answered my question: If it's OK for the government to allow religion to influence its workings, then how does the government decide which religions it allows to do so? It can't possibly allow every religion to influence it, as many contradict one another. The same goes for a school. If you're going to give equal consideration to all religions (thus encouraging every single religion over non-religion), which ones do you give the most time to?

On the other hand, if we go with my idea and simply bar a teacher from showing support for one religion or certain religious beliefs, and bar the government from officially supporting religion, who is excluded? Will an atheist or Hindu boy in school feel excluded more in an environment where teachers are free to hold the Bible up as the truth, or where the teacher never talks about it?

Your system relegates certain people to second-class citizen status. Mine simply does not look at a person's religious beliefs at all, thus screening out subjective influences. Mine is better in a country where everyone is supposedly equal.

[Darth Wong]

If I want to pray in school, that is my Constitutional right.

Correct. Go pray at your locker, by yourself. But if it is done as a group, then it becomes a public demonstration on school grounds, which the school does NOT have to allow. In fact, allowing it would be sanctioning it, hence establishment. Get this through your fucking thick skull, dumb-ass.

The government is not endorsing a religion because I pray on campus, or if a muslim woman wears her head garb, or a jew wears one of those little hats, or etc...

Strawman. No one is saying that individual exercise of religious freedom should be prohibited, provided it does not impinge on anyone else's rights.

Historical precedent people, Congress opens its sessions every day with a prayer, it used to open with a Christian prayer specifically

Which is unconstitutional. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? Precedents are subordinate to legislation. Stop appealing to tradition. The fact that the Congress runs itself on medieval rules and is populated by dinosaurs does not change anything.

Tell me, once Ashcroft becomes accustomed to taking Americans and imprisoning them without due process or a shred of evidence, based only on SUSPICION of INTENDING to commit terrorism, will you start treating this as "precedent" and arguing that the constitution must support it?

PS. You accuse others of being afraid of religious theocracy, as if it is somehow irrational to fear it, and this has some bearing on the validity of Durandal's argument. However, any sane person with even the most vague grasp of history should fear religious theocracy.

[Falcon]

No it doesn't, you are confusing 'student aid' with 'religious funding' As long as the vouchers are given out based on a secular, neutral basis, that neither favors nor disfavors any religious institution, then it is still Constitutional. This is no different than a religious organization benifiting from a public fire station protection. This is about aiding students, not religions, and its not just me saying it, the Supreme Court agrees with me. See the 1997 ruling on Agostini v. Felton.

Don't be ridiculous. Using the fire department to save people in a burning church is simply concern for your fellow man. This is not about aiding students. The people pushing this bill want to indirectly fund religious indoctrination, because they know, just like you and I both know, that most private schools that aren't extremely selective about admissions are religious schools. This isn't a university scholarship deal, because students don't have to pay tuitition for public high school. They don't require aid unless they elect to go to a non-public school. With colleges, you need aid either way. The two situations are not analogous.

tax money pays for a fire dept just like tax money pays for vouchers, religious institutions might indirectly benifit from this tax money in both scenarios, its the same thing, and the Supreme Court agrees, did you even bother reading the ruling?

These vouchers are going to individuals in society, not to religions.

So it's OK for the government to cover the costs of tithing to a church, as well?
[/quote]

Of course not, and that isn't what is being proposed, you are distorting the issue, confusing religious aid with student aid.

If I want to pray in school, that is my Constitutional right. Banning all religion is making a law respecting the establishment of religion. The government is not endorsing a religion because I pray on campus, or if a muslim woman wears her head garb, or a jew wears one of those little hats, or etc... Historical precedent people, Congress opens its sessions every day with a prayer, it used to open with a Christian prayer specifically

Of course it's your right, but the teacher cannot endorse such activity. School-led prayer is off the bill. Congress opening its sessions with prayer is a violation of the separation of church and state. Any moron with a brain should know that, and it's quite clear that those prayers aren't working.
[/quote]

It clearly isn't, it has been done from the fist session of Congress, if it were unconstitutional the founding fathers would have stopped it. You have to take the Constitution in context with historical precedent or you can manipulate it to say most anything. Its like these morons who think that the 2nd amendment means militia's have the right to bear arms instead of the people.

Just because it doesn't seem useful to you doesn't mean it isn't useful to me. Thats why the Constitution says you can't prohibit me from being religious just like I can't force you to be religious. If you can ban my religion then whats to stop me, should I gain control of the government, from enforcing my religion on you? Did you ever consider that the wheel might turn full circle and that this could come back to bite your freedoms?

Under your system, people like me don't have freedoms. Under your system, it's OK for the government to officially endorse a religion, remember?
[/quote]

You are simply wrong, you would have more freedom under my plan and the government would not be endorsing religion, nor would it be prohibiting it. Your ignorence is staggaring, as is your inability to comprehend a simple concept. No matter how many times its explained you doggedly come back with some moan about religious indoctrination, which is utterly unreasonable considering that nothing is being mandated here... Its called freedom of choice...

The money is going to students, that a religious organization might indirectly benifit is not the concern of the government.

The bill states that the government approves of the money going toward a religious school. The government specifically outlines who and who is not eligible for vouchers, and parents with kids in religious schools are clearly outlined as eligible. That is an endorsement of religion.
[/quote]

No, the bill states that it approves student aid to be used at schools which meet a scholarly standard to be determined by standardized testing. I believe this also includes home schooling. Performance is what matters.

First, Nazism isn't a religion, and yes, I give equal consideration to all beliefs. If a student doesn't like something asked of them in a class they can abstain, we can accomidate everyone of all faiths or of no faith. Incidently, no one is expecting that this would focus schools on religion, indeed things would generally stay much as they are now in the majority of schools. Your being a bit paranoid, again I can only attribute it to acute religious xenophobia....

Appeal to motive, and Nazism has plenty of religious beliefs. It's a form of Christianity combined with Norse gods.
[/quote]

You've really went off your rocker, Nazism was a national workers socialist party. To claim that Nazism was a religion simply boggles the mind, it was nothing of the sort. Saying it might have had a religious principle in it doesn't even justify that. America's government has religious elements in it, murder is a crime for example, that doesn't make the Constitution a religious document.

You never answered my question: If it's OK for the government to allow religion to influence its workings, then how does the government decide which religions it allows to do so? It can't possibly allow every religion to influence it, as many contradict one another. The same goes for a school. If you're going to give equal consideration to all religions (thus encouraging every single religion over non-religion), which ones do you give the most time to?

Someone, or a group of someone's, openly praying on government gound does not constitute religious influence on government. What matters is that the government is run according to law by the Constitution. The government officially isn't involved in any way, not in its policies. Your second question is irrelevent, the government is neutral about religious schools getting voucher money, the standards that a school has to meet are secular and scholarly, and the money goes to students as student aid.

On the other hand, if we go with my idea and simply bar a teacher from showing support for one religion or certain religious beliefs, and bar the government from officially supporting religion, who is excluded? Will an atheist or Hindu boy in school feel excluded more in an environment where teachers are free to hold the Bible up as the truth, or where the teacher never talks about it?

As I said before, we have freedom of choice. Every public shool will be neutral (as far as its administration and personal), but if someone wants to take their voucher to a religious school then that clearly isn't prohibited in my opinion, and the Supreme Court agrees.

Your system relegates certain people to second-class citizen status. Mine simply does not look at a person's religious beliefs at all, thus screening out subjective influences. Mine is better in a country where everyone is supposedly equal.

No it doesn't, you so far have demonstrated a shocking inability to even understand what is being proposed. Student aid does not equal government endorsed religion. You don't want equality, you want to purge religion from society. If I took the attitude that you have taken then I would truely be someone to fear because I would be actively trying to take away your freedom to not believe. Fortunately, some of us still value the principles of the founders.

[Falcon]

If I want to pray in school, that is my Constitutional right.

Correct. Go pray at your locker, by yourself. But if it is done as a group, then it becomes a public demonstration on school grounds, which the school does NOT have to allow. In fact, allowing it would be sanctioning it, hence establishment. Get this through your fucking thick skull, dumb-ass.

I don't have freedom of speech or religion on government ground now? Do tell...

The government is not endorsing a religion because I pray on campus, or if a muslim woman wears her head garb, or a jew wears one of those little hats, or etc...

Strawman. No one is saying that individual exercise of religious freedom should be prohibited, provided it does not impinge on anyone else's rights.
[/quote]

Last I checked you want to 'impinge' on my freedom of speech and religion, forbidding me to pray if you might happen to hear it. I'm afraid the Constitution doesn't work like that. Just like Congress is forbidden from making a law that imposes religion in schools, it is also prohibited from making a law that imposes no religion in school. Neutral doesn't mean forbidding religion, it means neutral. Once again, court rulings favor my side of this issue. Please refer to Chandler v. Siegelman, Good News Club v. Milford Central School, and Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe 120 S Ct 2266(2000). The only religion banned in schools is organized religion that required conformity by all students, which I agree is wrong. Do not confuse this proposal with conformity of religion.

Historical precedent people, Congress opens its sessions every day with a prayer, it used to open with a Christian prayer specifically

Which is unconstitutional. What part of this are you too fucking stupid to understand? Precedents are subordinate to legislation. Stop appealing to tradition. The fact that the Congress runs itself on medieval rules and is populated by dinosaurs does not change anything.
[/quote]

Its amazing how many 'unconstitutional' things that the people who wrote the Constitution engaged in, and how many 'constitutional' things we do now that the founders spoke out against. I suppose you think that regulating guns are ok, and that the social welfare system is perfectly legal. You apparently don't understand the Constitution at all.

Tell me, once Ashcroft becomes accustomed to taking Americans and imprisoning them without due process or a shred of evidence, based only on SUSPICION of INTENDING to commit terrorism, will you start treating this as "precedent" and arguing that the constitution must support it?

Ashcroft is hardly a founding father, and we have clear precedent already established that what he is doing is wrong. Of course, if he were to only do it to non-citizens it would be ok, but I fear he may do it to citizens as well. There is no parallel between the clear wrongs being committed by our government today and the established principles of the founding fathers.

PS. You accuse others of being afraid of religious theocracy, as if it is somehow irrational to fear it, and this has some bearing on the validity of Durandal's argument. However, any sane person with even the most vague grasp of history should fear religious theocracy.

Not in America, while there was some religios descrimination by the populace in general, they never denied each others rights to exist. America has aquitted itself very proudly as a nation of law and order, under the Constitution, not a mindless mob forever swaying from one extream to another.

[Wicked Pilot]

Falcon Says:



"Get out of out schools and back into Hell you filthy athiest!"

[Durandal]

tax money pays for a fire dept just like tax money pays for vouchers, religious institutions might indirectly benifit from this tax money in both scenarios, its the same thing, and the Supreme Court agrees, did you even bother reading the ruling?

One is a service necessary for the safety and well-being of citizens. Private school vouchers are not a necessary service, since we have a free public education system. Get your head out of your ass.

So it's OK for the government to cover the costs of tithing to a church, as well?

Of course not, and that isn't what is being proposed, you are distorting the issue, confusing religious aid with student aid.

Bullshit. If it's okay to cover the cost of religious indoctrination, then I see no reason why the government shouldn't simply start directly funding churches.

It clearly isn't, it has been done from the fist session of Congress, if it were unconstitutional the founding fathers would have stopped it. You have to take the Constitution in context with historical precedent or you can manipulate it to say most anything. Its like these morons who think that the 2nd amendment means militia's have the right to bear arms instead of the people.

Appeal to tradition ... again. The founding fathers owned slaves, too, you fuckwit. Does that mean that we shouldn't question it? The ultimate ideal of America is to treat everyone as equal, and you can't fucking do that if the government endorses Christianity above every other religion or religion over non-religion. And (surprise!) that happens when you allow government money to fund religious establishments.

You are simply wrong, you would have more freedom under my plan and the government would not be endorsing religion, nor would it be prohibiting it. Your ignorence is staggaring, as is your inability to comprehend a simple concept. No matter how many times its explained you doggedly come back with some moan about religious indoctrination, which is utterly unreasonable considering that nothing is being mandated here... Its called freedom of choice...

Bullshit. Under your system, the government officially encourages Christianity by indirectly paying large amounts of money to Christian schools and saying it's perfectly acceptable to open sessions of government with prayers. Could you at least try to maintain some semblence of consistency in your statements? The government isn't endorsing religion, yet Congress can open with a Christian prayer if it likes? Are you fucking insane?

No, the bill states that it approves student aid to be used at schools which meet a scholarly standard to be determined by standardized testing. I believe this also includes home schooling. Performance is what matters.

Bzzt! Wrong. The bill states that it's acceptable for these schools to be primarily religious in nature. In other words, schools that disrespect a student's right to freedom of religion are eligible for government money.

You've really went off your rocker, Nazism was a national workers socialist party. To claim that Nazism was a religion simply boggles the mind, it was nothing of the sort. Saying it might have had a religious principle in it doesn't even justify that. America's government has religious elements in it, murder is a crime for example, that doesn't make the Constitution a religious document.

Murder is a crime because it violates your right to life and causes pain and suffering you fuckwit. The American government was founded on secular principles, not religious ones.

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries ...

The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.

Someone, or a group of someone's, openly praying on government gound does not constitute religious influence on government. What matters is that the government is run according to law by the Constitution. The government officially isn't involved in any way, not in its policies. Your second question is irrelevent, the government is neutral about religious schools getting voucher money, the standards that a school has to meet are secular and scholarly, and the money goes to students as student aid.

A group of people is an assembly. Allowing a religious assembly on government grounds is approving of the use of government resources to perpetuate religious beliefs. Would you be so willing to allow Satanists to perform a black mass in the Senate chamber? Surely, if religious assemblies are acceptable on government property, then there's going to be a waiting list for people who want to perform religious rituals on that land. Who gets priority?

Nice dodge on the second question, except that you said that the establishment clause wasn't meant to excise all religion from the government. So again, which religions does the government keep in and which does it exclude?

As I said before, we have freedom of choice. Every public shool will be neutral (as far as its administration and personal), but if someone wants to take their voucher to a religious school then that clearly isn't prohibited in my opinion, and the Supreme Court agrees.

The Supreme Court isn't infallible. This isn't a fucking courtroom where you can play legal, rhetorical and political games. So far, you've presented nothing but appeals to tradition and ideals inconsistent with equality for all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.

No it doesn't, you so far have demonstrated a shocking inability to even understand what is being proposed. Student aid does not equal government endorsed religion. You don't want equality, you want to purge religion from society. If I took the attitude that you have taken then I would truely be someone to fear because I would be actively trying to take away your freedom to not believe. Fortunately, some of us still value the principles of the founders.

No, I want to purge religion from the government, asshole. Your capacity for misinterpreting the correct application of the establishment clause is nothing short of astounding. Once again, if the government remains completely silent on the matter of religion, it cannot fund religious establishments or activities or give the impression that it endorses religion in any way. Letting Catholics hold a mass in the Senate hall, according to you, is acceptable, yet this gives the impression that the government endorses Catholicism. The government must remain objective when it makes legislation, and it cannot do that if it takes subjective religious beliefs into account in that legislation. Get it through your fucking thick skull.

[Falcon]

tax money pays for a fire dept just like tax money pays for vouchers, religious institutions might indirectly benifit from this tax money in both scenarios, its the same thing, and the Supreme Court agrees, did you even bother reading the ruling?

One is a service necessary for the safety and well-being of citizens. Private school vouchers are not a necessary service, since we have a free public education system. Get your head out of your ass.

If you want to go down that road then public schools are not a necessary public service either. Lets discontinue them and let local parents organize their own schools, I'll go for that...

So it's OK for the government to cover the costs of tithing to a church, as well?

Of course not, and that isn't what is being proposed, you are distorting the issue, confusing religious aid with student aid.

Bullshit. If it's okay to cover the cost of religious indoctrination, then I see no reason why the government shouldn't simply start directly funding churches.
[/quote]

your inability to grasp this concept does not invalidate it. I've explained it neumerous times now, but you simply refuse to listen, instead choosing to misrepresent the issue at every turn to serve your own narrow minded bias.

It clearly isn't, it has been done from the fist session of Congress, if it were unconstitutional the founding fathers would have stopped it. You have to take the Constitution in context with historical precedent or you can manipulate it to say most anything. Its like these morons who think that the 2nd amendment means militia's have the right to bear arms instead of the people.

Appeal to tradition ... again. The founding fathers owned slaves, too, you fuckwit. Does that mean that we shouldn't question it? The ultimate ideal of America is to treat everyone as equal, and you can't fucking do that if the government endorses Christianity above every other religion or religion over non-religion. And (surprise!) that happens when you allow government money to fund religious establishments.
[/quote]


Slavery existed under a different Constitution, the parts that validated slavery have since been stricken, but the parts that protect religion have not.
We can change the Constitution, and if you change the Constitution again to make your interpertation of it valid then I will be all for it. I can't believe you resorted to the slavery bit, you really are grasping...

You are simply wrong, you would have more freedom under my plan and the government would not be endorsing religion, nor would it be prohibiting it. Your ignorence is staggaring, as is your inability to comprehend a simple concept. No matter how many times its explained you doggedly come back with some moan about religious indoctrination, which is utterly unreasonable considering that nothing is being mandated here... Its called freedom of choice...

Bullshit. Under your system, the government officially encourages Christianity by indirectly paying large amounts of money to Christian schools and saying it's perfectly acceptable to open sessions of government with prayers. Could you at least try to maintain some semblence of consistency in your statements? The government isn't endorsing religion, yet Congress can open with a Christian prayer if it likes? Are you fucking insane?
[/quote]

It doesn't encourage Christianity more than it encourages anything else, thats why its legal. Its perfectly acceptable to engage in your own religion on government ground, the courts agree, the constitution agrees, deal with it...

Congress can openly pray or do anything they want, religiously, as long as they don't pass laws regarding religion. Do you think you immediately loose your Constitutional rights upon being elected to Congress? Give me a break...

No, the bill states that it approves student aid to be used at schools which meet a scholarly standard to be determined by standardized testing. I believe this also includes home schooling. Performance is what matters.

Bzzt! Wrong. The bill states that it's acceptable for these schools to be primarily religious in nature. In other words, schools that disrespect a student's right to freedom of religion are eligible for government money.
[/quote]

Once again, you find yourself at odds with the Courts and the reality of the situation. The aid is given to students, the criteria for its use is secular and scholarly, if it happens to go to a religious school it doesn't matter because at no point was religion a consideration in the use of the money.

You've really went off your rocker, Nazism was a national workers socialist party. To claim that Nazism was a religion simply boggles the mind, it was nothing of the sort. Saying it might have had a religious principle in it doesn't even justify that. America's government has religious elements in it, murder is a crime for example, that doesn't make the Constitution a religious document.

Murder is a crime because it violates your right to life and causes pain and suffering you fuckwit. The American government was founded on secular principles, not religious ones.
[/quote]

I know this, but apparently you don't, you were trying to equate Nazism with religion because it shared some elements with religion. My analogy simply pointed out this conclusion was flawed since many things which are clearly secular also contain religious elements, example given, the Constitution. You might want to start reading closer...

As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries ...

The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation.

Someone, or a group of someone's, openly praying on government gound does not constitute religious influence on government. What matters is that the government is run according to law by the Constitution. The government officially isn't involved in any way, not in its policies. Your second question is irrelevent, the government is neutral about religious schools getting voucher money, the standards that a school has to meet are secular and scholarly, and the money goes to students as student aid.

A group of people is an assembly. Allowing a religious assembly on government grounds is approving of the use of government resources to perpetuate religious beliefs. Would you be so willing to allow Satanists to perform a black mass in the Senate chamber? Surely, if religious assemblies are acceptable on government property, then there's going to be a waiting list for people who want to perform religious rituals on that land. Who gets priority?
[/quote]

Indeed, if enough satanists are elected to the Senate and wish to perform some dark arts ritual then by all means, let them. If they want to pray to the devil, its their business. Your idea that there will be some kind of influx of religious people seeking to perform religious acts on government property is absurd though, and of course there are other laws to consider, tresspassing, etc... As usual you want to take things to the extream and to disregard reality at every turn to attempt to paint a 'worst scenario' situation.

Nice dodge on the second question, except that you said that the establishment clause wasn't meant to excise all religion from the government. So again, which religions does the government keep in and which does it exclude?

The government is neutral, for the nth time, it doesn't 'keep' or 'exclude' anything, it doesn't pass laws regarding religion. That means it doesn't pass laws establishing nor prohibiting religion.

As I said before, we have freedom of choice. Every public shool will be neutral (as far as its administration and personal), but if someone wants to take their voucher to a religious school then that clearly isn't prohibited in my opinion, and the Supreme Court agrees.

The Supreme Court isn't infallible. This isn't a fucking courtroom where you can play legal, rhetorical and political games. So far, you've presented nothing but appeals to tradition and ideals inconsistent with equality for all citizens, regardless of religious affiliation.
[/quote]

Oh, so now you are smarter than the Supreme Court, the neumerous civil liberties unions, etc... Just why should we believe that you are right, all wise master, when so many learned scholars of law and history say you are a bafoon? Your only evidence is your opinion of the Constitution, no evidence, no court cases, no letters from the founders, no nothing. Your whole case is based on squat and fueled by your own paranoid xenophobia of religion.

No it doesn't, you so far have demonstrated a shocking inability to even understand what is being proposed. Student aid does not equal government endorsed religion. You don't want equality, you want to purge religion from society. If I took the attitude that you have taken then I would truely be someone to fear because I would be actively trying to take away your freedom to not believe. Fortunately, some of us still value the principles of the founders.

No, I want to purge religion from the government, asshole. Your capacity for misinterpreting the correct application of the establishment clause is nothing short of astounding. Once again, if the government remains completely silent on the matter of religion, it cannot fund religious establishments or activities or give the impression that it endorses religion in any way. Letting Catholics hold a mass in the Senate hall, according to you, is acceptable, yet this gives the impression that the government endorses Catholicism. The government must remain objective when it makes legislation, and it cannot do that if it takes subjective religious beliefs into account in that legislation. Get it through your fucking thick skull.[/quote]

Me, and the Supreme Court, and at least three district courts, and the ACLJ, and the ACLU, and etc... I'm glad we've got you here, with your long list of accomplishments in law to tell us the right path. Its too bad all those pesky judges and civil liberty attournies just don't see the light.

[Durandal]

If you want to go down that road then public schools are not a necessary public service either. Lets discontinue them and let local parents organize their own schools, I'll go for that...

Strawman. I said that private school vouchers were not a necessary service, as a free public education system is provided.

your inability to grasp this concept does not invalidate it. I've explained it neumerous times now, but you simply refuse to listen, instead choosing to misrepresent the issue at every turn to serve your own narrow minded bias.

Bla bla fucking bla. The government, with these vouchers, has stated that it approves of its money going toward religious indoctrination and practices. End of fucking story.

Slavery existed under a different Constitution, the parts that validated slavery have since been stricken, but the parts that protect religion have not.

Oh, you mean the one that existed during the Civil War? The one that is still in use today?

We can change the Constitution, and if you change the Constitution again to make your interpertation of it valid then I will be all for it. I can't believe you resorted to the slavery bit, you really are grasping...

Grasping? How is it grasping by countering your appeal to tradition with traditions that existed at the same time as the one you were appealing to? Don't you see why appealing to tradition is a fucking logical fallacy?

It doesn't encourage Christianity more than it encourages anything else, thats why its legal. Its perfectly acceptable to engage in your own religion on government ground, the courts agree, the constitution agrees, deal with it...

Oh?

Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar appropriated for their support shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land of opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.

Stop appealing to authority. After having your original arguments crushed, you resorted to, "The courts agree with me!" I don't give a fuck what the courts say. Courts are ruled by legalistic procedural games and legislative loopholes. Either make an argument or shut the fuck up.

Congress can openly pray or do anything they want, religiously, as long as they don't pass laws regarding religion. Do you think you immediately loose your Constitutional rights upon being elected to Congress? Give me a break...

Letter of the law interpretation noted. Let's take away all freedoms from women, since they are never mentioned as being created equal in the Constitution. And yes, you lose your Constitutional right to freedom of religion upon being elected into public office, because when you are representing the government, you are a public servant. Being a public servant means that you must represent everyone, and not everyone is of the same religion you are. This means that John Ashcroft cannot use his government office to hold a fucking prayer meeting every day, and it means that government employees (read: teachers) cannot use their position to encourage religious viewpoints.

Once again, you find yourself at odds with the Courts and the reality of the situation. The aid is given to students, the criteria for its use is secular and scholarly, if it happens to go to a religious school it doesn't matter because at no point was religion a consideration in the use of the money.

A religious school does not meet the critera of "secular[/i] and scholarly" you fucking nimrod. By making one of the critera secular, you automatically make religion a consideration. Can you keep a consistent argument going for more than 2 posts at a time?

I know this, but apparently you don't, you were trying to equate Nazism with religion because it shared some elements with religion. My analogy simply pointed out this conclusion was flawed since many things which are clearly secular also contain religious elements, example given, the Constitution. You might want to start reading closer...

Bullshit. You said that the fact that murder is wrong is a religious element, and I said it was a secular one, and now you're saying, "I knew that"? Are you fucking retarded?

America's government has religious elements in it, murder is a crime for example, that doesn't make the Constitution a religious document.

That doesn't sound like an analogy to me. Maybe you should endeavor to communicate your ideas more clearly.

Indeed, if enough satanists are elected to the Senate and wish to perform some dark arts ritual then by all means, let them. If they want to pray to the devil, its their business. Your idea that there will be some kind of influx of religious people seeking to perform religious acts on government property is absurd though, and of course there are other laws to consider, tresspassing, etc... As usual you want to take things to the extream and to disregard reality at every turn to attempt to paint a 'worst scenario' situation.

Oh, yeah, it's so unreasonable for me to try and minimize activity consistent with religious dictatorships.

The point is that if enough Satanists are elected to Congress, they shouldn't be able to pray or perform dark rituals either, because it would make Satanism look like the official religion of the United States! Why is this so fucking difficult for you to grasp? Do you need me to draw you pretty little pictures?

The government is neutral, for the nth time, it doesn't 'keep' or 'exclude' anything, it doesn't pass laws regarding religion. That means it doesn't pass laws establishing nor prohibiting religion.

And how does not compensating parents for sending their children to religious indoctrination camps impugning their religious freedom or discouraging religion? The government being neutral on religion means that it remains strictly silent. Letting religious schools appropriate government money and opening Congressional sessions with prayers violates that silence.

Oh, so now you are smarter than the Supreme Court, the neumerous civil liberties unions, etc... Just why should we believe that you are right, all wise master, when so many learned scholars of law and history say you are a bafoon? Your only evidence is your opinion of the Constitution, no evidence, no court cases, no letters from the founders, no nothing. Your whole case is based on squat and fueled by your own paranoid xenophobia of religion.

Fun fun fun. Appeals to authority and motive. Once your own arguments have been brutalized beyond recognition, you resort to, "So and so agrees with me." Does it ever occur to you that the majority religion in this country is Christianity, which is an expansionist religion, so it's not surprising that many legal scholars just happen to interpret the Constitution in such a way that religion and the government intermingle, because theirs is the majority religion, and thus the government intermingling with their religion is advantageous or not harmful to them?

Me, and the Supreme Court, and at least three district courts, and the ACLJ, and the ACLU, and etc... I'm glad we've got you here, with your long list of accomplishments in law to tell us the right path. Its too bad all those pesky judges and civil liberty attournies just don't see the light.

"Wah! My arguments don't hold water, so here's a bunch of other people who think they're valid."

Give me a break. Come back when you have something real, fuckwit.

[Falcon]

If you want to go down that road then public schools are not a necessary public service either. Lets discontinue them and let local parents organize their own schools, I'll go for that...

Strawman. I said that private school vouchers were not a necessary service, as a free public education system is provided.

Government public schools are not a necessary service either, your arguement must be a strawman too, by your logic.

your inability to grasp this concept does not invalidate it. I've explained it neumerous times now, but you simply refuse to listen, instead choosing to misrepresent the issue at every turn to serve your own narrow minded bias.

Bla bla fucking bla. The government, with these vouchers, has stated that it approves of its money going toward religious indoctrination and practices. End of fucking story.

You just can't accept that the Supreme Court says your wrong, various civil liberty unions say you're wrong, and frankly a proper reading of the Constitution says your wrong. In the face of all that, just how do you support your opinion?

Slavery existed under a different Constitution, the parts that validated slavery have since been stricken, but the parts that protect religion have not.

Oh, you mean the one that existed during the Civil War? The one that is still in use today?

As I recall we've had several amendments which have changed the Constitution. One of those chages was to abolish slavery, but last I checked there wasn't one to abolish freedom of religion, no matter how much you might wish there were.

We can change the Constitution, and if you change the Constitution again to make your interpertation of it valid then I will be all for it. I can't believe you resorted to the slavery bit, you really are grasping...

Grasping? How is it grasping by countering your appeal to tradition with traditions that existed at the same time as the one you were appealing to? Don't you see why appealing to tradition is a fucking logical fallacy?

Setting a historical precedent is a common part of the interpertation of law, it is not a 'logical fallacy' by any stretch of the imagination. Spitting out buzz words that you apparently don't even fully comprehend isn't going to help.

It doesn't encourage Christianity more than it encourages anything else, thats why its legal. Its perfectly acceptable to engage in your own religion on government ground, the courts agree, the constitution agrees, deal with it...

Oh?

Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar appropriated for their support shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools. Resolve that neither the state nor nation, nor both combined, shall support institutions of learning other than those sufficient to afford every child growing up in the land of opportunity of a good common school education, unmixed with sectarian, pagan, or atheistical dogmas. Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church and the private school supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate.

Stop appealing to authority. After having your original arguments crushed, you resorted to, "The courts agree with me!" I don't give a fuck what the courts say. Courts are ruled by legalistic procedural games and legislative loopholes. Either make an argument or shut the fuck up.

US Grant, hardly a spectacular man, horrible general (unless tossing men at fortified lines is 'great'), failed at most everything he did in life, no background in law or Constitutionality that I'm aware of, we should value his opinion over scholars of the law....why?

Oh the irony, after quoting US Grant you slam me for an 'appeal to authority' You see, I haven't appealed to authority (like you just did) because I've provided the reasoning behind the Supreme Courts (and lower courts) rulings (see above mentioned court cases). I've also presented an arguement based upon the rulings of those courts. I've made an arguement, the courts and civil liberty unions agree.

Congress can openly pray or do anything they want, religiously, as long as they don't pass laws regarding religion. Do you think you immediately loose your Constitutional rights upon being elected to Congress? Give me a break...

Letter of the law interpretation noted. Let's take away all freedoms from women, since they are never mentioned as being created equal in the Constitution. And yes, you lose your Constitutional right to freedom of religion upon being elected into public office, because when you are representing the government, you are a public servant. Being a public servant means that you must represent everyone, and not everyone is of the same religion you are. This means that John Ashcroft cannot use his government office to hold a fucking prayer meeting every day, and it means that government employees (read: teachers) cannot use their position to encourage religious viewpoints.

Women have equal rights in the Constitution, see Amendment 19.
You cannot lose your rights under the Constitution. I suppose you are one of the morons who would be in favor of the campaign finance reform laws regarding the banning of canidates running political ads 60 days prior to an election. You are right that the government must represent everyone, which is why the government can make no laws regarding religion, but to think that that means that a public servent loses their first amendment rights is insane. There is no precedent for such a concept, it clearly wasn't in the intentions of the founders for such a thing to ever be considered.

Once again, you find yourself at odds with the Courts and the reality of the situation. The aid is given to students, the criteria for its use is secular and scholarly, if it happens to go to a religious school it doesn't matter because at no point was religion a consideration in the use of the money.

A religious school does not meet the critera of "secular[/i] and scholarly" you fucking nimrod. By making one of the critera secular, you automatically make religion a consideration. Can you keep a consistent argument going for more than 2 posts at a time?

Your refusing of the facts does not invalidate them. The court clearly stated that vouchers would be administered based on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration towards religion in any way.

I know this, but apparently you don't, you were trying to equate Nazism with religion because it shared some elements with religion. My analogy simply pointed out this conclusion was flawed since many things which are clearly secular also contain religious elements, example given, the Constitution. You might want to start reading closer...

Bullshit. You said that the fact that murder is wrong is a religious element, and I said it was a secular one, and now you're saying, "I knew that"? Are you fucking retarded?

Your inability to read is apalling. The statement 'I know this' was referring to the fact that America is based on secular not religious principles. However, the analogy still stands. You used nazism as a religion because it shared some principles with religion. My point was that America, a secular nation, also shares principles with religion (murder is wrong), but this does not make America a religious nation. The same can be said about Nazism, simply because it might have shared a few principles with religion does not make Nazism a religion.

Indeed, if enough satanists are elected to the Senate and wish to perform some dark arts ritual then by all means, let them. If they want to pray to the devil, its their business. Your idea that there will be some kind of influx of religious people seeking to perform religious acts on government property is absurd though, and of course there are other laws to consider, tresspassing, etc... As usual you want to take things to the extream and to disregard reality at every turn to attempt to paint a 'worst scenario' situation.

Oh, yeah, it's so unreasonable for me to try and minimize activity consistent with religious dictatorships.

See, that kind of extreamist statement right there shows your mind has split for parts unknown. There is just no way possible to get such a mind boggling conclusion considering the past and present of America.

The point is that if enough Satanists are elected to Congress, they shouldn't be able to pray or perform dark rituals either, because it would make Satanism look like the official religion of the United States! Why is this so fucking difficult for you to grasp? Do you need me to draw you pretty little pictures?

As long as they don't pass laws regarding religion then it doesn't matter. Taking out 'Christianity' and putting in 'Satanists' doesn't change the arguement. What our representatives do personally is of no concern, the laws they pass are what matters here.

The government is neutral, for the nth time, it doesn't 'keep' or 'exclude' anything, it doesn't pass laws regarding religion. That means it doesn't pass laws establishing nor prohibiting religion.

And how does not compensating parents for sending their children to religious indoctrination camps impugning their religious freedom or discouraging religion? The government being neutral on religion means that it remains strictly silent. Letting religious schools appropriate government money and opening Congressional sessions with prayers violates that silence.

Again you completely mischaracterize the issue despite repeated correction. Religious organizations will not be 'appropriating' government money! Vouchers will be handed out based upon secular, scholarly standards with NO REGARD FOR RELIGION If a religious organization happens to benifit is on par with them benifiting from a fire service, see court cases above for relevent arguements.

Oh, so now you are smarter than the Supreme Court, the neumerous civil liberties unions, etc... Just why should we believe that you are right, all wise master, when so many learned scholars of law and history say you are a bafoon? Your only evidence is your opinion of the Constitution, no evidence, no court cases, no letters from the founders, no nothing. Your whole case is based on squat and fueled by your own paranoid xenophobia of religion.

Fun fun fun. Appeals to authority and motive. Once your own arguments have been brutalized beyond recognition, you resort to, "So and so agrees with me." Does it ever occur to you that the majority religion in this country is Christianity, which is an expansionist religion, so it's not surprising that many legal scholars just happen to interpret the Constitution in such a way that religion and the government intermingle, because theirs is the majority religion, and thus the government intermingling with their religion is advantageous or not harmful to them?

Return to fantasy land? Your whole arugement seems to be 'my opinion is right, everyone else's is wrong' My arguement, which despite your claims you haven't touched with a 10 ft pole so far, is not only compelling, but supported by some of the most knowledgable scholars and judges in America. An 'appeal to authority' is saying I'm right because so and so said so with no reasoning or evidence. I've made my arguement, it stands on its own merit, simply stating that this is an accepted arguement in American Constitutional law isn't an appeal to authority. The arguement is there and its there with or without court cases. The court cases are mearly more supporting evidence. Court cases are often used to support legal arguements, another tradition in law you apparently would like to disregard.

Me, and the Supreme Court, and at least three district courts, and the ACLJ, and the ACLU, and etc... I'm glad we've got you here, with your long list of accomplishments in law to tell us the right path. Its too bad all those pesky judges and civil liberty attournies just don't see the light.

"Wah! My arguments don't hold water, so here's a bunch of other people who think they're valid."

Things like this makes me sick. You arn't interested in a dialog on this issue, you are only interested in blowing your foul venom and making inane comments such as this.

Give me a break. Come back when you have something real, fuckwit.

Apply that to yourself, you won't be back...

[Durandal]

Government public schools are not a necessary service either, your arguement must be a strawman too, by your logic.

Since the state sets a minimum requirement for school attendence and education, I'd say that they are necessary.

You just can't accept that the Supreme Court says your wrong, various civil liberty unions say you're wrong, and frankly a proper reading of the Constitution says your wrong. In the face of all that, just how do you support your opinion?

With arguments and logic, not the petty legal games that the courts must abide by. Stop appealing to their authority.

As I recall we've had several amendments which have changed the Constitution. One of those chages was to abolish slavery, but last I checked there wasn't one to abolish freedom of religion, no matter how much you might wish there were.

So you acknowledge that appealing to the authority of the founding fathers can be shown wrong through objective reasoning? Good. Because you've completely ignored everything I've said, appealing to legalistic games, tradition and authority. Your ideas of the separation of church and state are severely misguided and flawed, and they do more to unify the two than to separate them. They are, thusly, wrong. If they happen to be the law, then the law is also wrong. Try thinking for yourself for once. If you start from a premise of equality, you cannot reach a conclusion condoning governmental religious demonstrations.

Setting a historical precedent is a common part of the interpertation of law, it is not a 'logical fallacy' by any stretch of the imagination. Spitting out buzz words that you apparently don't even fully comprehend isn't going to help.

Appealing to tradition is saying, "We've done it this way since whenever, so it's obviously right." You said, "Congress has been opening sessions with a prayer since they were formed, so obviously it's right." That's an appeal to tradition, dumbass.

Again, your propositions are inconsistent with the ideal of equality for all citizens, and the courts can suck my dick if they happen to disagree. In case you didn't notice, courts still allow for life-imprisonment for homosexual acts. These are not people I trust when it comes to basic freedoms.

US Grant, hardly a spectacular man, horrible general (unless tossing men at fortified lines is 'great'), failed at most everything he did in life, no background in law or Constitutionality that I'm aware of, we should value his opinion over scholars of the law....why?

Is he right or wrong, and why?

Oh the irony, after quoting US Grant you slam me for an 'appeal to authority' You see, I haven't appealed to authority (like you just did) because I've provided the reasoning behind the Supreme Courts (and lower courts) rulings (see above mentioned court cases). I've also presented an arguement based upon the rulings of those courts. I've made an arguement, the courts and civil liberty unions agree.

Yes, it's a fallacy, but you wanted to play the appeal to authority game, so you got it.

Women have equal rights in the Constitution, see Amendment 19. You cannot lose your rights under the Constitution.

It's called "due process."

I suppose you are one of the morons who would be in favor of the campaign finance reform laws regarding the banning of canidates running political ads 60 days prior to an election. You are right that the government must represent everyone, which is why the government can make no laws regarding religion, but to think that that means that a public servent loses their first amendment rights is insane. There is no precedent for such a concept, it clearly wasn't in the intentions of the founders for such a thing to ever be considered.

Campaign finance is a red herring. Public servants are part of the government and like it or not, they cannot allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their decision making in a legal capacity. If they are incapable of making purely objective decisions, then they should not be in office. Do you honestly think that the people in Congress don't represent the government? If they are supposed to represent a completely religiously neutral government, how can they do so when they themselves are not religiously neutral?

Your idea that it's not violating the separation of church and state as long as Congress doesn't pass a law about it is patently absurd. You give free reign to government officials to appropriate government facilities for religious rituals at their leisure, which by itself elevates their religios beliefs over everyone else's, thus violating everyone else's right to be free from the governmental persecution of religion. If Shrub stood up tomorrow and announced that all atheists are evil and deserving of eternal suffering in Hell, you would find this perfectly acceptable because it's his religious belief, which according to you, he is free to perpetuate with his status as a governmental and publc figure just as long as he doesn't sign any laws about it! Don't you realize how idiotic this mindset is?!

Your refusing of the facts does not invalidate them. The court clearly stated that vouchers would be administered based on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration towards religion in any way.

Except that they open the door to funding religious practices, which is violates the establishment clause. Turning a blind eye to a crime does not absolve you of the fact that you saw a crime and had a chance to do something. Do you seriously expect me to believe that a man with a machine gun firing in random directions while shouting, "If these bullets just happen to hit someone, it's not my problem" is not a murderer or responsible if someone dies?

Your inability to read is apalling. The statement 'I know this' was referring to the fact that America is based on secular not religious principles.

No you don't, as you said that the laws against murder constituted something in the Constitution that is religious in nature. If that's not what you meant, think before you type and be more clear.

However, the analogy still stands. You used nazism as a religion because it shared some principles with religion. My point was that America, a secular nation, also shares principles with religion (murder is wrong), but this does not make America a religious nation. The same can be said about Nazism, simply because it might have shared a few principles with religion does not make Nazism a religion.

Are you fucking insane? Nevermind that this whole Nazism thing is just a giant nitpick of yours, Nazism encourages the belief of Norse gods and praying to them. This is not even close to being analogous to the Constitution and a religion agreeing on the moral implications of murder. Nazism encourages beliefs which cannot be objectively justified; saying murder is wrong can be objectively justified.

Further, if you continue to insist that you know the government of the United States is founded on secular principles, then why do you advocate the government giving the impression that one religion is superior to others, thus violating the secular principle of freedom from religious persecution?

See, that kind of extreamist statement right there shows your mind has split for parts unknown. There is just no way possible to get such a mind boggling conclusion considering the past and present of America.

McCarthy era, dipshit. My fears are perfectly justifiable.

As long as they don't pass laws regarding religion then it doesn't matter. Taking out 'Christianity' and putting in 'Satanists' doesn't change the arguement. What our representatives do personally is of no concern, the laws they pass are what matters here.

Everyone in America has the right to be free from government persecution based on religion. Setting one religion up on a pedestal over others is government persecution.

Again you completely mischaracterize the issue despite repeated correction. Religious organizations will not be 'appropriating' government money! Vouchers will be handed out based upon secular, scholarly standards with NO REGARD FOR RELIGION If a religious organization happens to benifit is on par with them benifiting from a fire service, see court cases above for relevent arguements.

If a parents gets a voucher, coming from tax payer money, and is allowed to spend that money on religious indoctrination, the government must approve of its money being spent on religious rituals, promotions and indoctrination. It's passive approval. This is extremely simple and basic reasoning.

Furthermore, fire fighting services are, again, basic necessities for the safety of the community. This is a piss-poor analogy. Fire fighting services would be nonexistent without a fire fighting department. Schooling services would still go on if every private school closed down. Private schools are not a part of the public education system, and paying their tuition with government money is, in effect, making them a part of the public education system while allowing them to continue religious services. Firefighters putting out a church on fire doesn't do anything of that sort. Whatever idiot judge bought that analogy should be removed for gross stupidity and incompetence.

Return to fantasy land? Your whole arugement seems to be 'my opinion is right, everyone else's is wrong' My arguement, which despite your claims you haven't touched with a 10 ft pole so far, is not only compelling, but supported by some of the most knowledgable scholars and judges in America. An 'appeal to authority' is saying I'm right because so and so said so with no reasoning or evidence. I've made my arguement, it stands on its own merit, simply stating that this is an accepted arguement in American Constitutional law isn't an appeal to authority. The arguement is there and its there with or without court cases. The court cases are mearly more supporting evidence. Court cases are often used to support legal arguements, another tradition in law you apparently would like to disregard.

You've made your "argument" by appealing to the authority of religious bigots who just happen to hold power. I've based my argument on the simple precept that all people should be treated equally and be free from governmental discrimination. You cannot have equality if the government is allowed to elevate one religion over all others, or if the government is allowed to fund religious activity, because in either case, there will always be people who disagree with the religious activities being supported.

Things like this makes me sick. You arn't interested in a dialog on this issue, you are only interested in blowing your foul venom and making inane comments such as this.

Don't be ridiculous. If I wasn't interested in a dialogue, I wouldn't have written this much. Just because I chose to top it all off with an insult doesn't mean that I'm not arguing. Perhaps you should look up the "style over substance" fallacy.

[Falcon]

Government public schools are not a necessary service either, your arguement must be a strawman too, by your logic.

Since the state sets a minimum requirement for school attendence and education, I'd say that they are necessary.

The state could stop all its meddling in schools and let various scholarly institutions set national standards, like they already do for more colleges.

You just can't accept that the Supreme Court says your wrong, various civil liberty unions say you're wrong, and frankly a proper reading of the Constitution says your wrong. In the face of all that, just how do you support your opinion?

With arguments and logic, not the petty legal games that the courts must abide by. Stop appealing to their authority.

I'm not appealing to authority. My arguement is there with or without the supporting evidence of the court rulings. The point of using those court rulings is that the courts have come down in favor of my arguement, Constitutionally. How you can say thats an appeal to authority is beyond me. I suppose you are simply another wannabe spewing cheap debate terms.

As I recall we've had several amendments which have changed the Constitution. One of those chages was to abolish slavery, but last I checked there wasn't one to abolish freedom of religion, no matter how much you might wish there were.

So you acknowledge that appealing to the authority of the founding fathers can be shown wrong through objective reasoning? Good. Because you've completely ignored everything I've said, appealing to legalistic games, tradition and authority. Your ideas of the separation of church and state are severely misguided and flawed, and they do more to unify the two than to separate them. They are, thusly, wrong. If they happen to be the law, then the law is also wrong. Try thinking for yourself for once. If you start from a premise of equality, you cannot reach a conclusion condoning governmental religious demonstrations.

I'm glad you are finally beginning to realize that the law is on my side. If the law is good or not is a seperate debate, but make no mistake, the vouches previously proposed are Constitutional.

Setting a historical precedent is a common part of the interpertation of law, it is not a 'logical fallacy' by any stretch of the imagination. Spitting out buzz words that you apparently don't even fully comprehend isn't going to help.

Appealing to tradition is saying, "We've done it this way since whenever, so it's obviously right." You said, "Congress has been opening sessions with a prayer since they were formed, so obviously it's right." That's an appeal to tradition, dumbass.

No, my arguement stands on its own without that, I mearly point out that we've done things in such a way to establish historical precedent to support my arguement. Your mischaracterization would make out that historical precedent is my only arguement, which is not the case.

Again, your propositions are inconsistent with the ideal of equality for all citizens, and the courts can suck my dick if they happen to disagree. In case you didn't notice, courts still allow for life-imprisonment for homosexual acts. These are not people I trust when it comes to basic freedoms.

They do not oppose equality for all citizens, this has been rebuffed before, read up if you cannot remember. Your example of homesexual acts proves nothing since its not Constitutional, that is a issue of legislature.

US Grant, hardly a spectacular man, horrible general (unless tossing men at fortified lines is 'great'), failed at most everything he did in life, no background in law or Constitutionality that I'm aware of, we should value his opinion over scholars of the law....why?

Is he right or wrong, and why?

His quote doesn't even apply to this issue since we arn't talking about making some blanket religious program, the vouchers would be administered on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration to religion. I just dislike Grant and wanted to take the opportunity to run him down.

Oh the irony, after quoting US Grant you slam me for an 'appeal to authority' You see, I haven't appealed to authority (like you just did) because I've provided the reasoning behind the Supreme Courts (and lower courts) rulings (see above mentioned court cases). I've also presented an arguement based upon the rulings of those courts. I've made an arguement, the courts and civil liberty unions agree.

Yes, it's a fallacy, but you wanted to play the appeal to authority game, so you got it.

I've stated my arguement, then I pointed to other prominante institutions which agree with my arguement, this is not an appeal to authority since I'm not saying I'm right only because prominant institutions agree with me. Your grasping, vainly, at something to discredit my arguement instead of address it (because you know its Constitutional, like it or not).

Women have equal rights in the Constitution, see Amendment 19. You cannot lose your rights under the Constitution.

It's called "due process."

What are you talking about? Women have equal rights now, under the Constitution and the law.

I suppose you are one of the morons who would be in favor of the campaign finance reform laws regarding the banning of canidates running political ads 60 days prior to an election. You are right that the government must represent everyone, which is why the government can make no laws regarding religion, but to think that that means that a public servent loses their first amendment rights is insane. There is no precedent for such a concept, it clearly wasn't in the intentions of the founders for such a thing to ever be considered.

Campaign finance is a red herring. Public servants are part of the government and like it or not, they cannot allow their religious beliefs to interfere with their decision making in a legal capacity. If they are incapable of making purely objective decisions, then they should not be in office. Do you honestly think that the people in Congress don't represent the government? If they are supposed to represent a completely religiously neutral government, how can they do so when they themselves are not religiously neutral?

Of course they can't allow their religion to influence their policy making. That doesn't mean that they can't openly practice their religion. Campaign finance is an analogy, its funny how anything you don't want to address you try to push aside as some kind of falacy. It looks like you're hiding.
For the record, the people in Congress represent the people, who are the government, and they are to govern by the Constitution, which says Congress cannot legislate religion. It also doesn't say that you lose your rights upon entry to Congress. You are twisting the law into something it was not in any wildest fantasy intended to be.

Your idea that it's not violating the separation of church and state as long as Congress doesn't pass a law about it is patently absurd. You give free reign to government officials to appropriate government facilities for religious rituals at their leisure, which by itself elevates their religios beliefs over everyone else's, thus violating everyone else's right to be free from the governmental persecution of religion. If Shrub stood up tomorrow and announced that all atheists are evil and deserving of eternal suffering in Hell, you would find this perfectly acceptable because it's his religious belief, which according to you, he is free to perpetuate with his status as a governmental and publc figure just as long as he doesn't sign any laws about it! Don't you realize how idiotic this mindset is?!

There are other considerations to be taken into account, propert financial oversight, etc... that prohibits whole scale religious activity on government property. Your willingness to take things to an unrealistic extream is shocking. For one thing, if representatives went about behaving in such a mannor they'd probably lose their election, if they didn't then the people would have not seen a problem with it, in which case, where is the problem? No ones rights are being harmed.

Your refusing of the facts does not invalidate them. The court clearly stated that vouchers would be administered based on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration towards religion in any way.

Except that they open the door to funding religious practices, which is violates the establishment clause. Turning a blind eye to a crime does not absolve you of the fact that you saw a crime and had a chance to do something. Do you seriously expect me to believe that a man with a machine gun firing in random directions while shouting, "If these bullets just happen to hit someone, it's not my problem" is not a murderer or responsible if someone dies?

It does not violate the establishment clause, no law has been passed. Misinterpertating the Constitution to suit your own religious xenophobia isn't helping here. Your gun analogy is one of those famous 'red herrings' you keep blathering on about.

Your inability to read is apalling. The statement 'I know this' was referring to the fact that America is based on secular not religious principles.

No you don't, as you said that the laws against murder constituted something in the Constitution that is religious in nature. If that's not what you meant, think before you type and be more clear.

No, I'm saying the principles behind laws against murder share commonility with religion, which is what I said, and you refuse to read apparently. I've never seen anyone who blatently LIES about what someone else has said.

However, the analogy still stands. You used nazism as a religion because it shared some principles with religion. My point was that America, a secular nation, also shares principles with religion (murder is wrong), but this does not make America a religious nation. The same can be said about Nazism, simply because it might have shared a few principles with religion does not make Nazism a religion.

Are you fucking insane? Nevermind that this whole Nazism thing is just a giant nitpick of yours, Nazism encourages the belief of Norse gods and praying to them. This is not even close to being analogous to the Constitution and a religion agreeing on the moral implications of murder. Nazism encourages beliefs which cannot be objectively justified; saying murder is wrong can be objectively justified.

Nazism was YOUR nitpick, I just dispelled it. Sharing similar principles with religion does not make Nazism a religion, at best it makes it a secular institution that encourages religion.

Further, if you continue to insist that you know the government of the United States is founded on secular principles, then why do you advocate the government giving the impression that one religion is superior to others, thus violating the secular principle of freedom from religious persecution?

One of those secular principles is freedom of religion, NO ONE IS GOING TO BE PERSECUTED. You are a LIER, there is no nice way to put it when someone REPEATEDLY LIES about someone else's position.

See, that kind of extreamist statement right there shows your mind has split for parts unknown. There is just no way possible to get such a mind boggling conclusion considering the past and present of America.

McCarthy era, dipshit. My fears are perfectly justifiable.

McCarthy was responding to the very real threat of communism, it is in no way applicable to this situation, you're grasping again.

As long as they don't pass laws regarding religion then it doesn't matter. Taking out 'Christianity' and putting in 'Satanists' doesn't change the arguement. What our representatives do personally is of no concern, the laws they pass are what matters here.

Everyone in America has the right to be free from government persecution based on religion. Setting one religion up on a pedestal over others is government persecution.

No one religion is going to be set up over any other, no religion is going to be persecuted, you are a lier and a fool, misrepresenting what I've said and what will happen at every turn.

Again you completely mischaracterize the issue despite repeated correction. Religious organizations will not be 'appropriating' government money! Vouchers will be handed out based upon secular, scholarly standards with NO REGARD FOR RELIGION If a religious organization happens to benifit is on par with them benifiting from a fire service, see court cases above for relevent arguements.

If a parents gets a voucher, coming from tax payer money, and is allowed to spend that money on religious indoctrination, the government must approve of its money being spent on religious rituals, promotions and indoctrination. It's passive approval. This is extremely simple and basic reasoning.

The money is approved based on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration of religion

Furthermore, fire fighting services are, again, basic necessities for the safety of the community. This is a piss-poor analogy. Fire fighting services would be nonexistent without a fire fighting department. Schooling services would still go on if every private school closed down. Private schools are not a part of the public education system, and paying their tuition with government money is, in effect, making them a part of the public education system while allowing them to continue religious services. Firefighters putting out a church on fire doesn't do anything of that sort. Whatever idiot judge bought that analogy should be removed for gross stupidity and incompetence.

Fire fighting is YOUR TAX MONEY GOING TO RELIGION everytime a church fire is put out. It is EXACTLY the same.

Return to fantasy land? Your whole arugement seems to be 'my opinion is right, everyone else's is wrong' My arguement, which despite your claims you haven't touched with a 10 ft pole so far, is not only compelling, but supported by some of the most knowledgable scholars and judges in America. An 'appeal to authority' is saying I'm right because so and so said so with no reasoning or evidence. I've made my arguement, it stands on its own merit, simply stating that this is an accepted arguement in American Constitutional law isn't an appeal to authority. The arguement is there and its there with or without court cases. The court cases are mearly more supporting evidence. Court cases are often used to support legal arguements, another tradition in law you apparently would like to disregard.

You've made your "argument" by appealing to the authority of religious bigots who just happen to hold power. I've based my argument on the simple precept that all people should be treated equally and be free from governmental discrimination. You cannot have equality if the government is allowed to elevate one religion over all others, or if the government is allowed to fund religious activity, because in either case, there will always be people who disagree with the religious activities being supported.

More lies and misrepresentations, my arguement is that if properly done vouchers do not violate the first Amendment, I have provided court cases to further support my case (they are support, they are not my case), you have provided nothing except your opinion of how you think the Constitution should be interperted. No religion is being elevated over others, there is no governmental descrimination regarding religion, these statements are lies that fly in the face of my repeated statements and explainations to the contrary.

Things like this makes me sick. You arn't interested in a dialog on this issue, you are only interested in blowing your foul venom and making inane comments such as this.

Don't be ridiculous. If I wasn't interested in a dialogue, I wouldn't have written this much. Just because I chose to top it all off with an insult doesn't mean that I'm not arguing. Perhaps you should look up the "style over substance" fallacy.

If I did it would have your picture frame right out beside it. All you do is spew mindless debating phrases and lie about my arguements or the reality of what I'm proposing. You are an apalling human being to treat another thus.

[Durandal]

The state could stop all its meddling in schools and let various scholarly institutions set national standards, like they already do for more colleges.

I tend to agree, as the local state boards of education are prone to political corruption and general ineptitude.

I'm not appealing to authority. My arguement is there with or without the supporting evidence of the court rulings. The point of using those court rulings is that the courts have come down in favor of my arguement, Constitutionally. How you can say thats an appeal to authority is beyond me. I suppose you are simply another wannabe spewing cheap debate terms.

It fits the definition of an appeal to authority. You're saying, "Because so and so said this, I am right," while basically ignoring your opposition's arguments to the contrary.

I'm glad you are finally beginning to realize that the law is on my side. If the law is good or not is a seperate debate, but make no mistake, the vouches previously proposed are Constitutional.

No, it is not a separate debate, because this thread originally concerned arguments for why church and state should be separated. It is not about the current laws of separation.

No, my arguement stands on its own without that, I mearly point out that we've done things in such a way to establish historical precedent to support my arguement. Your mischaracterization would make out that historical precedent is my only arguement, which is not the case.

All your other arguments are flawed on the basis of the basic consideration that all citizen are to be treated equally. You simply appeal to tradition to defend their flawed nature. We have historical precedent for Americans being locked up and held in custody with no trial; it's called McCarthyism, and according to the courts, it was constitutional. These establishments are not infallible.

They do not oppose equality for all citizens, this has been rebuffed before, read up if you cannot remember. Your example of homesexual acts proves nothing since its not Constitutional, that is a issue of legislature.

Really? So governmental sponsorship of one religion treats everyone else of that religion equally? That's a funny idea of equality.

<snip Grant stuff, as it is becoming a red herring and was fallacious>

What are you talking about? Women have equal rights now, under the Constitution and the law.

That was in response to your claim that rights can never be taken away under the Constitution. It's a nitpick, to be sure, but they can.

Of course they can't allow their religion to influence their policy making. That doesn't mean that they can't openly practice their religion. Campaign finance is an analogy, its funny how anything you don't want to address you try to push aside as some kind of falacy. It looks like you're hiding.

Don't pull this baiting bullshit. We're not talking about campaign finance, so it's a red herring, and you actually having the audacity to label my refusal to run and chase it as "hiding" is simply ludicrous and an extraordinarily poor example of debating tact.

Furthermore, by praying that God will guide their decision making before each session, they are allowing their religion to influence their decision.

For the record, the people in Congress represent the people, who are the government, and they are to govern by the Constitution, which says Congress cannot legislate religion. It also doesn't say that you lose your rights upon entry to Congress. You are twisting the law into something it was not in any wildest fantasy intended to be.

Yet again, how can these people represent a religiously neutral government when they themselves are not religiously neutral?

There are other considerations to be taken into account, propert financial oversight, etc... that prohibits whole scale religious activity on government property. Your willingness to take things to an unrealistic extream is shocking. For one thing, if representatives went about behaving in such a mannor they'd probably lose their election, if they didn't then the people would have not seen a problem with it, in which case, where is the problem? No ones rights are being harmed.

Nice dodge, but I'm not done with you yet. Again, would there be a Constitutional problem, according to you, if Shrub stood in front of the White House podium and declared that all atheists should rot in Hell because they're all bad people for not believing in God? Answer the damn question, because it's the logical extension of your approval of government representatives being allowed to use their status to exercise their religion as they see fit.

It does not violate the establishment clause, no law has been passed. Misinterpertating the Constitution to suit your own religious xenophobia isn't helping here. Your gun analogy is one of those famous 'red herrings' you keep blathering on about.

Bullshit. Under the Constitution, the government knows no distinction between its citizens on account of religion, race or sex. Allowing people to pray in Congress automatically sets up a distinction. The man with the gun is a general analogy regarding a situation which is extremely simple to evaluate. Your idiotic comments on campaign finance reform are nothing of the sort; it was just a red herring. Tell me what this statement has to do with the separation of church and state:

I suppose you are one of the morons who would be in favor of the campaign finance reform laws regarding the banning of canidates running political ads 60 days prior to an election.

NOTHING. You didn't even make an argument; you just loudly proclaimed that it was idiotic to disagree with that idea. How the fuck is that an analogy in any way?

No, I'm saying the principles behind laws against murder share commonility with religion, which is what I said, and you refuse to read apparently. I've never seen anyone who blatently LIES about what someone else has said.

I'll acknowledge that that is what you meant to say, but your original wording was poor, at best. Again, for everyone to see, you said:

America's government has religious elements in it, murder is a crime for example, that doesn't make the Constitution a religious document.

Where, in that statement, is anything about a "commonality" rather than an implication that the idea that murder is wrong is a religious one? Again, be more clear.

Nazism was YOUR nitpick, I just dispelled it. Sharing similar principles with religion does not make Nazism a religion, at best it makes it a secular institution that encourages religion.

ROTFLMAO! I said that Nazism was a religion, but my main point was that no religion could hold some sort of status in Congress. You contested that Nazism isn't a religion. That is your fucking nitpick.

One of those secular principles is freedom of religion, NO ONE IS GOING TO BE PERSECUTED. You are a LIER, there is no nice way to put it when someone REPEATEDLY LIES about someone else's position.

If no one is going to be persecuted, then why do you not have a problem with Congress persecuting non-Christians by opening each session with a Christian prayer?

McCarthy was responding to the very real threat of communism, it is in no way applicable to this situation, you're grasping again.

WHAT?! So locking atheists up because they're all assumed to be communists is acceptable? This is 100% analogous to your claim that the United States can never be described as being close to a religious theocracy, because McCarthy singled out atheists and persecuted them because he was allowed to use his authority to perpetuate his religion! Jesus Ass-Fucking Christ, are you really this deluded, or are you just playing games?

No one religion is going to be set up over any other, no religion is going to be persecuted, you are a lier and a fool, misrepresenting what I've said and what will happen at every turn.

If no one religion is going to be set up over all others, then why is Congress allowed to open each session with a Christian prayer?

The money is approved based on secular and scholarly standards with no regard or consideration of religion

Which is secret, government language for, "If it goes to a religious institution, that's acceptable," meaning that they find funding religious institutions acceptable.

Fire fighting is YOUR TAX MONEY GOING TO RELIGION everytime a church fire is put out. It is EXACTLY the same.

No, it's tax money going to save lives and possessions, and it's basic human decency to help out your fellow man. Again, it's a necessary service to society. Are you seriously suggesting that because a church may benefit from the police or fire department protection, that there are no limits to what tax money they can directly or indirectly receive? This analogy could easily be used to justify the government giving all sorts of money to religious organizations under the pretense that they benefit from public services.

Sitting by and doing nothing when a church is burning down is hardly analogous to not giving parents money to send their kids to religious schooling.

More lies and misrepresentations, my arguement is that if properly done vouchers do not violate the first Amendment, I have provided court cases to further support my case (they are support, they are not my case), you have provided nothing except your opinion of how you think the Constitution should be interperted. No religion is being elevated over others, there is no governmental descrimination regarding religion, these statements are lies that fly in the face of my repeated statements and explainations to the contrary.

The government, in effect, is making private schools a part of the public education system, while allowing them to maintain the traditional benefits of being a private school -- not having to respect the right to freedom of religion, speech, et cetera. Do you know why private schools were originally allowed to do these things?

BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T RECEIVING TAX PAYER MONEY.

What part of this are you too fucking brain-dead to understand?

PS: Mike, are we not allowed to have multiple tags anymore on a block of text anymore, or something? I kept trying to put bold tags around the 24pt text above, and it kept giving me fucked up output.

[Durandal]

Before you reply, we should probably clean this debate up. This is something I do when I get into long exchanges. They tend to get saturated with irrelevant stuff that is only loosely related to the subject. So, we can go one of two ways:

1. We can end the debate now, with no hard feelings and no implied concessions on either side, with the understanding that we just can't convince each other either way.

2. We can start over and wipe the slate clean. One of us can present an argument for our position, and we can go from there until we both get bored.

Your thoughts?

[Falcon]

Before you reply, we should probably clean this debate up. This is something I do when I get into long exchanges. They tend to get saturated with irrelevant stuff that is only loosely related to the subject. So, we can go one of two ways:

1. We can end the debate now, with no hard feelings and no implied concessions on either side, with the understanding that we just can't convince each other either way.


2. We can start over and wipe the slate clean. One of us can present an argument for our position, and we can go from there until we both get bored.

Your thoughts?

We have fundamentally different interpertations of the Constitution, which is not really a bad thing, but it will probably preclude us from convincing each other. For my part I've stated my arguement and I think it speaks for itself, I have nothing new to contribute so if there is nothing to clarify I'll just ignore your last post (I havn't read it) and we can just stop.