Originally Posted by ShawnJ
Well, Nick, as I'm sure you know, whether something was enacted with a secular purpose
is just one prong of a three prong test for whether something violates the Establishment Clause. Of course you know this. I don't doubt for a second you don't. But you're treating "valid secular purpose" as if
it's dispositive. It's not. So I'm unclear how something having a valid secular purpose alone can defeat the prohibition against direct aid in constituting an endorsement of religion. Why would I only have to prove that the funds don't have a valid secular purpose? I've never contested this conclusion.
But the other two, my friend?
The other two? Are you seriously suggesting that providing education advances religion or cutting a check to parents as a scholarship represents an excessive entanglement?
I'm not going to piss in the wind and state your case for you counsel. If you want to make claims about the other two points, then present them.
If it was just a tax refund and that's it-- no other limitations-- yet 90% of the people donated the refund to churches, then yes, that's not going to pose any problems. That's just pure individual choice. There's nothing that funnels it to the religious organizations. However that example is not like the vouchers in Zelman, where if the students were to transfer, the vouchers only covered the cost of religious private school education. If it covered the cost of the more expensive secular private school education as well, there would be less of a funnel to the religious schools.
There is nothing that prevents the secular school that took the 10% from expanding to accommodating additional students. There is nothing that prevents the private schools from dropping their rates to gain the students. This is nothing more than pure individual choice here as well but you don't like their choice. The more expensive schools choose to price themselves out and it is likely because they desire not to service the clientèle. Their lack of desire does not mean the poorer students forgo their rights.
You've read Souter's 32 page dissent? Or the others?
Naw I read the summation which presents the major points without all the previous citations. However you desire to suggest you did so if you believe they addressed it you should state it.
You are vastly oversimplifying and mis-"reading" the opinion.
The majority said this plan does not create a funnel of government money to religious organizations; not that funnels are constitutional.
I'm not misreading the opinion. You are intentionally misconstruing my statement to knock down the strawman. You suggest the mechanism that led to a 90% result is a funnel. The majority opinion stated it isn't. I said the same mechanism could lead to a 100% result and it still wouldn't be a funnel using the same reasoning that stated 90% wasn't. You then distract from this by saying they didn't rule that funnels were legal.
I'm not contending it is a funnel. You are and do so without any support beyond your opinion. Support your contention that a 90% result amounts to a funnel when the majority has ruled it isn't. Use something beyond your desires, and opinions.
Agreeing with something constitutionally is not always a proxy for a person's normative beliefs or policy positions. I would see less of a constitutional problem with this voucher program if there were more equal choices, but I would still oppose it on policy grounds. I hardly see how that's so unbelievable a position. Furthermore, I hardly think you're qualified to talk about my opinions.
We all understand that the authoritarian streak in you demands that reality conform to your whims before people get their rights. Thankfully the Supreme Court has not made that a ruling and thus when
Your view is as follows, the district has failed to educate these poor children and not enough rich schools care to educate them as well, so until these two variables change, they forgo their rights.
Your indignation about being qualified to judge your opinions is so cute.That waspy, east coast, private school exasperation you show when we don't realize WHO you are and give you some sort of proper due is quite hilarious.
You are welcome to state what makes me unqualified to judge your opinion.
You need money to attend a public school?
You do. It may not be provided directly by the parents but it is is provided on a per pupil basis wherever they choose to attend.
Students did get money for "tutorial aid" for public school, but I think the state just threw that in there to pad the statistics. I think the proper comparison is what the money is being spent on outside the school district.
Since you "think" the state manipulated the numbers, why don't you state something to show that. If you think the proper comparison is money spent outside the school district, why don't you quote that portion of the decision with the relevant information. Why don't you further show something beyond what you think since your mere thoughts are not very persuasive to me.
Welcome to Nick's fabulously wonderful world of making things up.
Sure. You've refuted what I've said with an ad-hom. How quaint!
Nowhere have I said Catholic schools are "wealthy" or that the schools "subsidize the voucher cost." I said, and I will repeat again, that that Catholic Church subsidizes tuition for its school students. This is irrefutable. My point was that religious private schools were cheaper than secular private schools as a result of the Church's subsidy to the schools. Because the voucher amount neatly coincided with the tuition rate for religious private schools, 90% of transferring students chose those religious private schools instead of the secular private schools.
The scholarship rate was half the level of monies received by public schools. That amount was NOT determined by the church. You've mentioned the fact that secular schools won't match the rate a half dozen times but you never support in any form or fashion how this constitutes a religious endorsement. Your view is that the Catholic Church offers the educational services at a loss. That still does not mean the parents choosing it is a government endorsement of religion.
Let me quote from the opinion for you.The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.
The government hands out money. That is the end of its role. The fact that the church will take a loss does not change that roll. So please, before you repeat yourself again, show how the church influencing INDIVIDUAL
choices amounts to government endorsement.
But they didn't.
If they did do that, then we would see more equal choices.
You fail to realize that people do not forgo their rights until you feel proper percentages of other people have acted as you desire. You've not stated any support for this beyond the fact that you want it. The choices must be broad, not equal. Please cite some support for this beyond, gimme what I want.
1. For secular private schools, absolutely.
2. The Church does subsidize the cost of education. My thoughts on this point are above.
3. You cannot get around the prohibition of direct aid by claiming taxes are really your money. That's not the way things work.
1. Your support for this is that Shawn doesn't like the percentages. The court does not view you as an authority.
2. The church influencing individual decisions is not the state endorsing religion.
3. That isn't what I am claiming. You state that individuals choosing to go to subsidized Catholic schools is a government endorsement of religion by providing aid to those churches. The first point is that you've not proven it is a government endorsement. The secondary point is that churches providing services at a loss does not amount to "aid."
We are talking about the Establishment Clause, are we not? Which part of "historical black college" has anything to do with religion? The "historical" part? Is it "black?" "COLLEGE!" I know it's college.
I was trying to get you to see past your biases. The fact that they ruled that it doesn't violate the establishment clause you still act as if they did state this really shows your refusal to deal with reality. I simply suggested a scenario where you might be able to deal with reality since you ignore it here and substitute lengthy diatribes about how your opinion can't be judged, how you think the ratios need to be equal, losses are aid, and how you feel the establishment clause has been violated. Your support for all this is, "Yeah, but I'm Shawn."
Get over yourself.