| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
27 Aug 2007 03:41:50 PM |
| Object: |
Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools IF and only IF they teach
evolution and other government approved doctrines. Thus, we have
another case of the government using money to control churches.
Indeed, the Constitution says that the government cannot affect the
establishment of churches or the free exercises of their faith. Yet,
here, we have the government deciding WHICH church schools are
appropriate, thereby not only limiting their free exercise but
influencing which establishments will remain. Those that remain will
be the state approved churches, like any communist state (china,
russia, etc), while the rest have to operate underground of being
officially approved.
We already had an example of this by way of the military setting
requirements for chaplain education (90 hours in an approved
university). Well, this aid issue is the next step toward the loss of
religious freedom in America, official discrimination of religion.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 06:10:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1188247310.261075.247260@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
No, it wasn't.
The power of the STATES to tax a Federal BANK was stripped away.
The power of the Federal government was strengthened at
the expense of the powers of the states.
And nothing more.
There was not a word about churches, nor religion, nor a thing
denying the Federal government the power to tax as it saw fit.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools IF and only IF they teach
evolution
Cites, please:
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "kT" |
|
| Title: Christian American Fascist Propaganda - Ignore |
27 Aug 2007 04:45:08 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 3:41 pm, Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
christiansuperirrational
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 11:06:13 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 13:41:50 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools IF and only IF they teach
evolution and other government approved doctrines.
Seems logical and fair to me----What's yer point?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 07:55:58 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
and was an important factor in the court decision to not tax churches
The court decision referred to had NOTHING to do with taxing churches.
Rather it had to do with taxing banks. Indeed there has to my
knowledge been no legal case regarding the constitutionality of taxing
churches.
(since by taxing they could destroy a church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
No, it wasn't, since money cannot control a church.
Or do you allow your beliefs to be bought by the highest bidder?
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools IF and only IF they teach
evolution and other government approved doctrines.
Cite please.
(government isn't allowed to give aid to religious schools no matter
what doctrines they teach, dummy).
Thus, we have another case of the government using money to control churches.
No. Even if it were true, the government could only control a church
that was so secular as to rely on money. Such a church would of
course not have anything to do with Jesus Christ, who told someone to
render unto Caesar the coins with Caesar's head on them. The church
of Jesus Christ needs no money, needs no property, needs no employees.
Thus the church of Jesus Christ could not be destroyed by the power to
tax even in a society that unlike the United States allowed churches
to be taxed.
Indeed, the Constitution says that the government cannot affect the
establishment of churches or the free exercises of their faith.
The government said nothing about "churches". There may be no
government establishments of *religion* and the free exercise of
*religion* may not be prohibited.
Yet,
here, we have the government deciding WHICH church schools are
appropriate,
The government does no such thing.
thereby not only limiting their free exercise
Not at all. Even if they did as you claimed, it does nothing about
their free exercise. (it might affect their *paid* exercise, but that
is a horse of a different color).
but influencing which establishments will remain. Those that remain will
be the state approved churches, like any communist state (china,
russia, etc), while the rest have to operate underground of being
officially approved.
You mean like Christianity managed perfectly well until the time of
Constantine?
We already had an example of this by way of the military setting
requirements for chaplain education (90 hours in an approved
university). Well, this aid issue is the next step toward the loss of
religious freedom in America, official discrimination of religion.
Too bad you aren't talking about anything real.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 08:21:35 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 12:12:17 PM |
|
|
In article <1188307295.347704.68440@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Pretty much, unless these concepts can be contested on
grounds other than those on which the rulings were based.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 02:36:20 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent,
It isn't. The ruling in Everson vs Board of Education is a legal
precedent.
since statements don't mean anything
Of course statements "mean something". The Supreme Court does not
make statements. Individual justices write and concur with or object
to opinions. Those opinions contain statements. Those statements
mean something. But they do not mean "law".
...only rulings by your standard.
Not my standard. That is the standard of the US Supreme Court.
Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Unless there is a constitutional amendment, or a new argument is made
which had not been considered (usually with reference to a new case
with different circumstances), yes.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 08:53:24 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
If you truly thought that, instead of looking for an
easy way out, you'd admit that Roe V. Wade is the end
of the matter...right?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 09:11:19 AM |
|
|
On Aug 28, 8:53 am, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
If you truly thought that, instead of looking for an
easy way out, you'd admit that Roe V. Wade is the end
of the matter...right?
You didn't answer the question.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 12:12:48 PM |
|
|
In article <1188310279.729109.243880@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Aug 28, 8:53 am, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
If you truly thought that, instead of looking for an
easy way out, you'd admit that Roe V. Wade is the end
of the matter...right?
You didn't answer the question.
Nor did you.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 09:26:01 AM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 28, 8:53 am, IAAH <i...@dodgeit.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 27, 7:55 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kand...@hotmail.com> wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
John Marshall said something approximately like that, and has had his
words misquoted and taken out of context ever since.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/10.htm
That the power to tax involves the power to destroy; that the power to
destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there
is a plain repugnance, in conferring on one government a power to
control the constitutional measures of another, which other, with
respect to those very measures, is declared to be supreme over that
which exerts the control, are propositions not to be denied. But all
inconsistencies are to be reconciled by the magic of the word
CONFIDENCE. Taxation, it is said, does not necessarily and
unavoidably destroy. To carry it to the excess of destruction would
be an abuse, to presume which, would banish that confidence which is
essential to all government.
Oops, in context it doesn't quite say what people want it to mean.
Using the power to tax in order to destroy would be an abuse, is what
he actually said.
The Supreme Court said that
No. An individual said that. The Supreme Court issues legal rulings.
It does not "say" anything.
Thank you for acknowledging that "separation of church and state"
isn't a legal precedent, since statements don't mean anything...only
rulings by your standard. Thus, if the court rules that the Good News
Gospel club has equal rights to public schools or that Chaplains are
constitutional, it is the end of the matter...right?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
If you truly thought that, instead of looking for an
easy way out, you'd admit that Roe V. Wade is the end
of the matter...right?
You didn't answer the question.
It wasn't addressed to me, and I notice that you had to
ignore the point.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 04:36:16 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 04:43:23 PM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 06:13:16 PM |
|
|
In article <1188251003.815500.154820@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
Religious discrimination is written into the Constitution.
Or more accurately: limitations on government actions wherever
religion is involved.
Don't like it? Try to get an Amendment passed.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 08:16:49 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 6:13 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1188251003.815500.154...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
Religious discrimination is written into the Constitution.
Or more accurately: limitations on government actions wherever
religion is involved.
Don't like it? Try to get an Amendment passed.
-- cary
So, you are telling me that a BILL of RIGHTS amendment was meant to
found discrimination? Next, you'll be saying the gun rights amendment
was meant to discriminate against those with guns..right? Get a
clue. The Bill of Rights weren't meant to give the government powers
but to restricts them. Go read up on why they are even there.
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 12:09:21 PM |
|
|
In article <1188307009.275805.17800@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 6:13 pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1188251003.815500.154...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
Religious discrimination is written into the Constitution.
Or more accurately: limitations on government actions wherever
religion is involved.
Don't like it? Try to get an Amendment passed.
-- cary
So, you are telling me that a BILL of RIGHTS amendment was meant to
found discrimination?
I'm telling you that a BILL of RIGHTS amendment says that
the government cannot become entangled in religious matters.
It can become entangled in all manner of other affairs, such
as commerce, but religion is out of bounds.
Next, you'll be saying the gun rights amendment
was meant to discriminate against those with guns..right?
No, that would be illogical, unsupportable, and simply wrong.
Which makes it more likely something you might say.
I'm not as excitable as you.
Get a clue. The Bill of Rights weren't meant to give the government powers
but to restricts them.
If you will point out to me which part of my statement:
Or more accurately: limitations on government actions wherever
religion is involved.
you seem to be having trouble with, I shall try to say
it more simply.
Go read up on why they are even there.
Oh, I know why this one is there: to keep the goverment from
aiding you in promoting your personal choice of religions.
And to prevent it from helping me in promiting mine.
Fair enough?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 11:11:53 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 06:16:49 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Religious discrimination is written into the Constitution.
Or more accurately: limitations on government actions wherever
religion is involved.
Don't like it? Try to get an Amendment passed.
-- cary
So, you are telling me that a BILL of RIGHTS amendment was meant to
found discrimination? Next, you'll be saying the gun rights amendment
was meant to discriminate against those with guns..right? Get a
clue. The Bill of Rights weren't meant to give the government powers
but to restricts them. Go read up on why they are even there.
Doesn't have to be "written--in the constitution".
The Bill of RIghts is a limitation on
government---extended to include some limitations (or
inclusions) of State government
States are creatures of a Federal governent
Schools are government(s) under state authority
The Limitations on (school) government to use public
money to "promte" religion is well established.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 02:28:42 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
So, you are telling me that a BILL of RIGHTS amendment was meant to
found discrimination?
No. The Bill of Rights was discriminatory in nature.
The Bill of Rights weren't meant to give the government powers
but to restricts them.
Correct. And one power that it restricted was the power to aid any
sort of religion. Since there was no restriction on government aiding
non-religious/secular activities, this was discriminatory - by intent.
Government CAN make laws respecting establishments of secularity.
This explicitly favors institutional secularism.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "met00" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
31 Aug 2007 10:58:05 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
Next, you'll be saying the gun rights amendment
was meant to discriminate against those with guns..right?
Actually the second was written to ensure that the federal government
never took away the rights of individuals to be part of a well regulated
militia.
Of course, the NRA would dispute that, but then why did the founders
bother to qualify the right to own a firearm with a clause that
described WHY that right existed?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 11:08:33 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:43:23 -0700, Wide Eyed in Wonder
<writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
NONSENSE !
This nation is a secular nation---it is not a
theological society.
Your religion is a personal choice
Not being "religious" is not a religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 08:00:34 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
"religious discrimination" generally means the favoring of some
religions at the expense of others. If all religions are treated
equally then there is no "religious discrimination".
If you mean that there is discrimination between the treatment of
religion, and the treatment of non-religion, then indeed there is.
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That would be an incredibly weak religion, to be destroyed merely
because it wasn't favored by government.
Think of the power of Judaism, which has been discriminated against by
most every government that it existed under.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 08:18:08 AM |
|
|
On Aug 27, 8:00 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
"religious discrimination" generally means the favoring of some
religions at the expense of others. If all religions are treated
equally then there is no "religious discrimination".
If you mean that there is discrimination between the treatment of
religion, and the treatment of non-religion, then indeed there is.
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That would be an incredibly weak religion, to be destroyed merely
because it wasn't favored by government.
Think of the power of Judaism, which has been discriminated against by
most every government that it existed under.
lojbab
So, the Bill of Rights were meant to give the government power over
rights...is that why they were demanded...to make sure the government
COULD step on rights?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 12:10:37 PM |
|
|
In article <1188307088.377590.310050@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
On Aug 27, 8:00 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government
"religious discrimination" generally means the favoring of some
religions at the expense of others. If all religions are treated
equally then there is no "religious discrimination".
If you mean that there is discrimination between the treatment of
religion, and the treatment of non-religion, then indeed there is.
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That would be an incredibly weak religion, to be destroyed merely
because it wasn't favored by government.
Think of the power of Judaism, which has been discriminated against by
most every government that it existed under.
lojbab
So, the Bill of Rights were meant to give the government power over
rights...
Only if you think you have an God-given right to take my
tax dollars to promote your own personal taste in religions.
Or to me to promote mine.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 02:30:16 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 8:00 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you mean that there is discrimination between the treatment of
religion, and the treatment of non-religion, then indeed there is.
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That would be an incredibly weak religion, to be destroyed merely
because it wasn't favored by government.
Think of the power of Judaism, which has been discriminated against by
most every government that it existed under.
So, the Bill of Rights were meant to give the government power over
rights...is that why they were demanded...to make sure the government
COULD step on rights?
That does not follow from anything that I said.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 02:56:08 PM |
|
|
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Wide Eyed in Wonder <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Aug 27, 8:00 pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder <writing...@yahoo.com> wrote:
If you mean that there is discrimination between the treatment of
religion, and the treatment of non-religion, then indeed there is.
BECAUSE THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES SUCH DISCRIMINATION.
and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That would be an incredibly weak religion, to be destroyed merely
because it wasn't favored by government.
Think of the power of Judaism, which has been discriminated against by
most every government that it existed under.
So, the Bill of Rights were meant to give the government power over
rights...is that why they were demanded...to make sure the government
COULD step on rights?
That does not follow from anything that I said.
Well, hey now, it's every bit as sequitury as his demand
that I say either that Darwin created evolution, or else
that it must have been discussed for "hundreds of years".
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "met00" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
31 Aug 2007 11:03:14 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
So, the Bill of Rights were meant to give the government power over
rights...is that why they were demanded...to make sure the government
COULD step on rights?
No, the Bill Of Rights is about limiting the power of the government.
Thus the 10th Amendment that states that the rights are the peoples and
the States, not the Federal Government.
The Federal government is defined strictly as secular, which is why many
of us want "In G-d we trust" and "Under G-d" removed from the public
square as supported by the federal government. For both define a
monotheistic acceptance of a deity, which since there are many who
believe in multiple deities, is the establishment of a religious belief
by the Federal Government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
27 Aug 2007 06:08:26 PM |
|
|
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
On Aug 27, 4:36 pm, Peter Franks <n...@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
To deny ALL the religious funds SOLELY on the basis of their being
religious would be to A>admit to religious discrimination by the
government and B> aid the non-religious over the religious to
succeed...thus, helping destroy the religious.
That didn't answer my question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 11:06:55 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:36:16 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
"More perfect union"
"for the good of society"
"it's moral"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Peter Franks" |
|
| Title: Re: Government Intrusion on Religion (by way of aid) |
28 Aug 2007 11:47:03 AM |
|
|
wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 14:36:16 -0700, Peter Franks
<none@none.com> wrote:
Wide Eyed in Wonder wrote:
The power to tax is the power to destroy. Do you know who said that?
The Supreme Court said that and was an important factor in the court
decision to not tax churches (since by taxing they could destroy a
church). Thus, the use of money to control churches was stripped away
from government....or was it.
Now, the government is telling religious colleges and schools that
they can have aid for their schools...
What is the legitimate constitutional basis for the federal distribution
of "aid for their schools" for ANY school, secular or religious?
"More perfect union"
The Preamble does not delegate any powers or authority.
"...[the preamble] has never been regarded as the source of any
substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or
on any of its departments."
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 22 (1905)
"for the good of society"
I find no such phrase in the Constitution. Please point it out.
"it's moral"
I find no such phrase in the Constitution. Please point it out.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
