Supreme Court justices show support for church, in Gorsuch's 1st high-profile case

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/19/supreme-court-justices-show-support-for-church-in-gorsuchs-1st-high-profile-case.html

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/19/supreme-court-justices-show-support-for-church-in-gorsuchs-1st-high-profile-case.html

Mixed emotions on this one. I would probably side with the state on this one. Traveling the Middle requires a truly macroscopic view of the world . I do see it as a bit problematic they are excluded, but they are excluded from paying those same taxes. 

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

34 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Mixed emotions on this one. I would probably side with the state on this one. Traveling the Middle requires a truly macroscopic view of the world . I do see it as a bit problematic they are excluded, but they are excluded from paying those same taxes. 

what you do...it cannot be taught

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, ccneat said:

what you do...it cannot be taught

And that is something both sides of the ditch give thanks for 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

1 hour ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Mixed emotions on this one. I would probably side with the state on this one. Traveling the Middle requires a truly macroscopic view of the world . I do see it as a bit problematic they are excluded, but they are excluded from paying those same taxes. 

Definitely with the state here.  Churches have many advantages that other charities do not in regards to funding.  The separation of church and state is important to me

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Just now, Transborderwife said:

Definitely with the state here.  Churches have many advantages that other charities do not in regards to funding.  The separation of church and state is important to me

As a pledge to the middle of the road club, u would assume we align on many issues. If you take advantage of the no taxes thing because of the separation if church and state, then it should apply in reverse 

 

 

[Transborderwife 4,666]

5 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

As a pledge to the middle of the road club, u would assume we align on many issues. If you take advantage of the no taxes thing because of the separation if church and state, then it should apply in reverse 

 

 

Touche...

[yuna628 9,680]

Begs the question why the church cannot fundraise the money for their playground stuff themselves? I'd furthermore think it should also be a state's right's issue. To include churches being given taxpayer dollars would have to be changed in the state's Constitution. What's odd in this story is that the governor at the time just went ahead and did it anyway, without seeking a vote or referendum to change that Constitution. The people of the state should be able to decide. It's clear that the governor did not act appropriately in subverting the state Constitution.

[IAMX 3,055]

Did I read that right.. Kagan?

 

Quote

"

You're denying one set of actors from competing [for the grant money] because of religion," Justice Elena Kagan said. She called it a "clear burden on a constitutional right."

 

I can see the logic in that. This is not government endorsement of religion whatsoever. It's merely allowing another school to compete for a grant. Denying them based on the fact that they are a religious school itself seems to violate the first amendment.

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by IAMX

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Begs the question why the church cannot fundraise the money for their playground stuff themselves? I'd furthermore think it should also be a state's right's issue. To include churches being given taxpayer dollars would have to be changed in the state's Constitution. What's odd in this story is that the governor at the time just went ahead and did it anyway, without seeking a vote or referendum to change that Constitution. The people of the state should be able to decide. It's clear that the governor did not act appropriately in subverting the state Constitution.

All powers not given to the Fed are reserved by the state. The separation of church and state is a power,  enumerated to the Fed 

[IAMX 3,055]

6 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

All powers not given to the Fed are reserved by the state. The separation of church and state is a power,  enumerated to the Fed 

Edited April 20, 2017 by IAMX

[yuna628 9,680]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

All powers not given to the Fed are reserved by the state. The separation of church and state is a power,  enumerated to the Fed 

Well yes I certainly understand that. But the state's Constitution involved is clear and binding- giving money to a church for anything is a no no (unless a vote is held to change it)- and the governor who attempted to get around that should be in trouble.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well yes I certainly understand that. But the state's Constitution involved is clear and binding- giving money to a church for anything is a no no (unless a vote is held to change it)- and the governor who attempted to get around that should be in trouble.

yeah but arent we talking about a jungle gym and rings for kids?  How is that establishing religion?

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

26 minutes ago, yuna628 said:

Well yes I certainly understand that. But the state's Constitution involved is clear and binding- giving money to a church for anything is a no no (unless a vote is held to change it)- and the governor who attempted to get around that should be in trouble.

I am not sure but I think we are agreeing on this issue sorta, but from different angles.  The constitution and precedent are  clear , the state constitution can not supersede a power reserved to the federal govt by the constitution. 

 

The state could not abridge free speech, by writing it into it's constitution. 

 

Now I am sure some layer may come along and set us all straight , with some fancy book werds.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

29 minutes ago, ccneat said:

yeah but arent we talking about a jungle gym and rings for kids?  How is that establishing religion?

Because it's using tax payer money to support the establishment of religion  a very dangerous slope. Church of England and all.