Selling fire, selling Jesus
by M. Stewart
The city of East Liverpool is asking residents to support an 8-mill fire levy renewal in the upcoming General Election. At the same time, the fire chief has hired an attorney to fight a suspension for insubordination, and recently we've had a series of fires in vacant homes around town, so the fire department has been in the news.
Everybody wants a good fire department, and we know that fire departments cost money. Despite the chief’s refusal to accept responsibility for his bad behavior, I have no problem supporting this levy, but there are some things I’d like to know before November:
1. How many full-time firefighters do we have, and what is the salary range?
2. How many full-time firefighters do we need?
3. How much does the city spend on fire department overtime?
4. What is the total budget allocation for the fire department?
- - - -
Check out this AP story on theocratic evangelicals: Protesting pastors back candidates from the pulpit. If nothing else, it reminds us that keeping the church and state separate is a never-ending battle. Here’s information from an organization on the front lines: Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
What I don’t understand is tax-exemption for churches, especially all these sham evangelical churches. Let’s face it, the religion business is no different from any other. It’s all about people making money; they just do it by selling Jesus and Jesus paraphernalia.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the religion business is legitimate, and clearly there is a big demand for it, but I see no reason why the government shouldn’t collect taxes on the profits. It’s this unquestioned tax exempt status that attracts so many con artists to the business, and the exemption isn’t fair to everyone else who has to pay taxes.
As the law stands now, religious entrepreneurs can keep the IRS away as long as they avoid preaching politics from the pulpit—in other words, separate their church from the state. But for some reason the theocrats feel they’re in a position to challenge this important American principle.
To me the answer is clear: Start paying taxes and say anything you want in the pulpit. Otherwise, stick to Jesus.
The city of East Liverpool is asking residents to support an 8-mill fire levy renewal in the upcoming General Election. At the same time, the fire chief has hired an attorney to fight a suspension for insubordination, and recently we've had a series of fires in vacant homes around town, so the fire department has been in the news.
Everybody wants a good fire department, and we know that fire departments cost money. Despite the chief’s refusal to accept responsibility for his bad behavior, I have no problem supporting this levy, but there are some things I’d like to know before November:
1. How many full-time firefighters do we have, and what is the salary range?
2. How many full-time firefighters do we need?
3. How much does the city spend on fire department overtime?
4. What is the total budget allocation for the fire department?
- - - -
Check out this AP story on theocratic evangelicals: Protesting pastors back candidates from the pulpit. If nothing else, it reminds us that keeping the church and state separate is a never-ending battle. Here’s information from an organization on the front lines: Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
What I don’t understand is tax-exemption for churches, especially all these sham evangelical churches. Let’s face it, the religion business is no different from any other. It’s all about people making money; they just do it by selling Jesus and Jesus paraphernalia.
Don’t get me wrong, I think the religion business is legitimate, and clearly there is a big demand for it, but I see no reason why the government shouldn’t collect taxes on the profits. It’s this unquestioned tax exempt status that attracts so many con artists to the business, and the exemption isn’t fair to everyone else who has to pay taxes.
As the law stands now, religious entrepreneurs can keep the IRS away as long as they avoid preaching politics from the pulpit—in other words, separate their church from the state. But for some reason the theocrats feel they’re in a position to challenge this important American principle.
To me the answer is clear: Start paying taxes and say anything you want in the pulpit. Otherwise, stick to Jesus.
posted by M. | 8:58 AM
60 Comments:
I saw on CNBC last night that the reason that non-profits lose their tax-exempt status when acting overtly political is because Lyndon Johnson got mad at a non-profit that was badmouthing him and he pushed through an amendment with no discussion and it's been there ever since.
M.
I will get those questions answered for you and make a post a little later. I have the information but it is at home and I am at work until 11pm tonight.
Ryan
What an accusation Matt, do you honestly believe that the Fire Department is setting fires. I remember a council woman making the same accusation a while back. Also, it seems there is more to this situation with the Chief and Mr. Estell from what I'm reading in the papers today. Maybe you should be objective until all the facts come out in the appeals process. If the paper is correct that Mr. Estell is not returning phone calls and threw a folder at the Chief it seems that there is more. I'll assume all parties are innocent until, hopefully, the full story comes out in the appeals process.
I go to church twice a week, but if my minister got up on Sunday morning and tried to tell me who to vote for, I'd get up and leave and find another church. Politics doesn't belong in the pulpit.
I will say that our church makes enough money to pay the bills, keeping the church doors open, and almost all of the rest of it goes to supporting charitable organizations. That's how it is supposed to be. We don't own fancy art work and don't pay anyone, other than the minister, because everyone volunteers their time and services to the church. Again, that's how it should be. We spend our money helping to take care of our brothers and sisters in need. Again, that's how it's supposed to be.
Innocent--
I didn't accuse the fire department of setting fires. All I did was note that we have had a rash of vacant home fires. It is a reminder that our fire department is necessary. Please don't put words in my mouth.
I plan to support the levy.
M, I don't follow your reasoning of why preachers can not talk about politics in church. Because they don't pay taxes? Wouldn't that mean that the teachers at schools such as Kent couldn't teach politics. A sermon at a church is basically like teaching a class at kent (no one is forcing anyon to go), and neither pay taxes so why is it any different?
To be honest, there is no need for a Paid Department in East Liverpool. It could be run by Volunteers. If the City was serious about saving money, they could do it with a vaolunteer department. Perhaps keep a paid chief but do away with paid firemen. The City could save enough money to get our police department back up to where it needs to be.
Don't follow--
First of all, a state university is not a religious organization, so you are talking apples and oranges here. Besides, I know of no state university whose leadership takes part in organized efforts to officially support presidential candidates.
The issue is one of law. Change the law, and you have an argument. It's the same with the people who don't like the Constitution: not liking what it says doesn't give you the right to claim it doesn't apply to you.
I guess I am just confused on why it bothers you if it is mentioned from the pulpit. Couldn't those elections affect those people as well everyone else. I mean it is ok for Obama to use the whole religion card when running for president (until it backfired, with Jeremiah Wright or whatever his name is). It seems like you want to pick and choose when it is ok to bring religion into the campaign. Maybe this will help calm your atheist nerves, never once has a candidate or political party been pushed at the Christian church I attend. If you want to look at like it is law, then wouldn't it be against the first amendment rights to tell churches they can' discuss these issues?
Speaking of fires , it would appear we have an arsonist(s) in the area. Two barns set ablaze early this morning outside of Wellsville early this morning, one on St Rt 39 , the other on Forbes Road. Within the last two weeks , at least two other similar fires in Hanoverton. If things weren't bad enough for the local economy now some pyromaniac is on the loose. Lets hope the individual(s) responsible are soon apprehended and brought to justice.
Matt wrote. . .
What I don’t understand is tax-exemption for churches, especially all these sham evangelical churches.
[end quote
The reason is, once upon a time church state were pretty much one and the state tends to frown on taxing itself
For a little more info there is the following:
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1030
[exempt]
The notion of tax exemption for church property is an old one. Genesis 47:26 records Pharaoh exempting the priests’ land from taxation, and Ezra 7:14 indicates that none of the priests, Levites, singers, porters or ministers of the house of God were to be charged tax, toll or custom. In the days of Roman Emperor Constantine, church buildings and the land surrounding them were exempt. Centuries later, European countries continued the tradition of exemption, albeit because the church frequently controlled the state.
(or the state controlled the church)
In the U.S., property tax exemption for churches began in colonial days and continued with the birth of the new nation. In 1802, for instance, the Seventh Congress specifically exempted religious bodies from real estate taxes. On the state level, specific exemptions from property taxes for churches were established in Virginia in 1777, New York in 1799, and the city of Washington in 1802. "The exemptions [for churches have continued uninterrupted to the present day," Justice William 3. Brennan has said. ‘They are in force in all 50 states" (quoted by Leo Pfeffer in "The Special
Constitutional Status of Religion," Taxation and the Free Exercise of
Religion, edited by John Baker [Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1978], p. 711).
[end exempt]
Apparently I had a redundancy episode with " early this morning."
There is a trash can icon next to my comment if I wish to delete it. Never seen that before. Is that something new ?
Tucker--
Because you are posting as a Blogger "member," you have the option of removing any comment you make on any Blogger Web site.
You have got to be kidding me that East Liverpool does not need a paid fire department, having a volunteer department is great, I support that whole heartedly but what are you going to do when you don't have enough volunteers available because they are on their full time jobs? Not every place of business will turn their employees loose to go fight a fire. Just post a sign somewhere that says, No fires permitted until we have an adequate amount of volunteer firemen available. That would work real well I am sure, and yes, before you ask or make any assumptions, I am the wife of a full time firefighter, no, he is not on the East Liverpool Department. I pray everyday that there are no fires that day, safety services are in place for a reason, how about running a city with a volunteer Police Department, and you can sit there and say it is comparing apples to oranges, maybe it is, I have not lived my entire life in this area, I grew up in a town that had an all volunteer department, was great until they didn't have enough men and 3 houses in the same block all burned down at the hand of an arsonist, wasn't my home that burned but I was lucky that day. I have had a fire at my home and I was extremely glad there was a paid fire department that had the manpower available to save my home.
These are just my thoughts on this, Matt, I figure you know who this is.
My guess is Jennifer...but I disagree. Anyone watching the volunteers at that barn fire Thursday would have to agree they worked together like well-oiled clock.
They actually have MORE updated training than the paid firemen because the cities (at least in this county) don't have money for training.
Volunteers train every single week.
Paid is great, IF you can afford it; ELO no longer can.
Matt,
This may not be a university, but it is a teachers organization.
http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/oct/02/teachers-union-e-mail-touting-obama-draws-backlash/
Both churches and schools are 501-c-3 organizations according to the IRS code. They can take a stand on issues, but not candidates. Problem is, people now are going after evangelical Christians, while the urban churches have been touting and inviting liberal candidates into the pulpit during election season for years.
Mammamia said...
I go to church twice a week, but if my minister got up on Sunday morning and tried to tell me who to vote for, I'd get up and leave and find another church. Politics doesn't belong in the pulpit.
[end quote]
That is exactly the point and the majority of Americans, religious and non religious alike agree with you
From the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080928/ap_on_re/rel_pulpit_protest_1
[excerpt]
Opposition to Sunday's sermon initiative was widespread. A United Church of Christ minister in Ohio rallied other religious leaders to file a complaint with the IRS. Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."
Three former IRS officials also asked the agency to investigate the initiative, questioning the ethics of lawyers asking ministers to break the law.
Two-thirds of adults oppose political endorsements from churches and other places of worship and 52 percent want them out of politics altogether, according to a survey last month from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
[end excerpt]
That is why there is a constitutional principle of church state separation
M.wrote. . .
As the law stands now, religious entrepreneurs can keep the IRS away as long as they avoid preaching politics from the pulpit—in other words, separate their church from the state. But for some reason the theocrats feel they’re in a position to challenge this important American principle.
[end quote]
The Radical Religious Right, i.e. theocrats do not care a wit about law, the people, etc. They only care about getting their doctrines, dogmas, tenets codified into law so that all have to abide by them.
Case in point. A few years ago in Colorado they made a big push to get vouchers passed into law.
Prior to that for 30s years in the 20 some state that the question on vouchers was put to the voters of those states they were defeated time and time again by a 2/3rds to 1/3rd majority.
Polls in Colorado indicated the same trend but it didn't matter to those who wanted vouchers. They didn't dare put it on the ballot to let the people vote on it, they knew it would go down to defeat in a big way. The Gov and state lawmakers defied the wants of the people and passed a voucher law.
It was challenged in court and the Colorado Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional based on the Colorado Constitution.
That is the way it is with these people. This current move is to get churches to violate the law thus allowing the law firm pushing this to file suit so they can get the courts to rule on the current law.
They will pick a a church that has its tax exempt status revoked in a state that they feel allows them the best chance for victory based on the current make up of the courts in that state and file a suit on behave of that church.
They don't give a damn about the churches themselves or the members of those churches. They are using them as pawns. There is money, power and influence at stake.
Don't follow your reasoning said...
M, I don't follow your reasoning of why preachers can not talk about politics in church. Because they don't pay taxes?
[end excerpt]
It is called separation of church and state.
Ministers cannot endorse political candidates. They cannot endorse a political party. They cannot produce voter guides that are slanted towards a certain person running for office or a certain political party if they wish to maintain their tax exempt status.
Churches, by law are automatically given tax exempt status. Other organizations that might seek such status or are maybe eligible for such status have to apply, be reviewed and approved.
Churches are given such status automatically. It is a recognized principle that the power to tax is also the power to control.
If the govt were able to tax churches they could control said churches, could even force some to clase their doors.
That fact coupled with historical tradition, coupled with the constitutional principle of church state separation is why churches are not permitted to become actively involved in politics.
They do so they lose their tax exempt status.
However, as more and more churches and other religious entities work to get their hands into the government coffers through such programs as faith based items, school vouchers the increasing involvement in politics the whole concept of tax exempt for churches will get looked at more and more
and I see a time in the future when they will, in fact, lose that tax exempt status which will in fact force many churches to close their doors.
Matt wrote...
What I don’t understand is tax-exemption for churches, especially all these sham evangelical churches.
It goes back a long long time. In times of old many times the church and stated were one and the same.
Governments tend to look down on the idea of taxing itself.
Here is some more info on it from a web site:
The notion of tax exemption for church property is an old one. Genesis 47:26 records Pharaoh exempting the priests’ land from taxation, and Ezra 7:14 indicates that none of the priests, Levites, singers, porters or ministers of the house of God were to be charged tax, toll or custom. In the days of Roman Emperor Constantine, church buildings and the land surrounding them were exempt. Centuries later, European countries continued the tradition of exemption, albeit because the church frequently controlled the state.
(other times the state controlled the church)
In the U.S., property tax exemption for churches began in colonial days and continued with the birth of the new nation. In 1802, for instance, the Seventh Congress specifically exempted religious bodies from real estate taxes. On the state level, specific exemptions from property taxes for churches were established in Virginia in 1777, New York in 1799, and the city of Washington in 1802. "The exemptions [for churches have continued uninterrupted to the present day," Justice William 3. Brennan has said. ‘They are in force in all 50 states" (quoted by Leo Pfeffer in "The Special Constitutional Status of Religion," Taxation and the Free Exercise of
Religion, edited by John Baker [Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, 1978], p. 711).
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Originally as the various colonies began writing constitutions ministers were prohibited from public office in some states.
Madison even questions including ministers in the census taking
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
a very interesting debate in the House of Representatives, February 2, 1790, when the question of the Federal census was under consideration. The bill, as reported, provided for the enumeration of farmers, mechanics, and other groups, but did not include the learned professions. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts (1746-1813) suggested that it should "specify every class of citizens, into which the community was divided, in order to ascertain the actual state of the society." Mr. Madison, in his reply,
said:
FEBRUARY 2, 1790
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The gentleman from Massachusetts has asked, why the learned professions were not included? I have no objection to giving a column to the general body. I think the work would be rendered more complete by the addition, and
if the decision of such a motion turned upon my voice, they shall be added. But it may nevertheless be observed, that in such a character they can never be objects of legislative attention or cognizance. As to those who are employed in teaching and inculcating the duties of religion, there may be some indelicacy in singling them out, as the General Government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting
religion; and it may be thought to do this, in ascertaining who, and who are not ministers of the Gospel. Conceiving the extension of the plan to be useful however, and not difficult, I hope it may meet the ready concurrence of this House. (295)
FOOTNOTE:
295. Gales, Joseph, Sr. Debates and Proceedings of the Congress of the
united States (Washington , 1834) I, 1106-1108
SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Church and State in the United States, Volume I, Anson Phelps Stokes, D.D., L.L.D, Harper & Bros, N Y (1950) p. 346
**************************************
Buckeye,
The example you gave for vouchers, can't we use the same argument for same sex marriage? Always goes down at election time, but it doesn't matter to the other people, they fight it in the courts and on Constitutionality. The issue is always soundly defeated, but it doesn't matter.
How is it different? I am interested to hear your spin.
East Liverpool does need a paid fire department. But the paid fire department that they have right now is in shambles. Dont get me wrong those men are excellent firemen and if they hadnt worked their asses off the other day on Dresden they stood to lose a lot more property than they did. They overcame many obstacles such as low staffing and inadequate water supply to save what they did. The city firemen need to realize that they must be willing to accept help with their situation instead of being pissed off over the layoffs. They need to have some paid on call members that supplement the response of the men that are on duty for the shift. Then they will become an effective fire department that will have the opportunity to do many more things and provide great service to the community.
I do not believe that a volunteer fire department would work in elo. Vol. departments are a wonderful thing, but the they need a good core of people in the community to pull volunteers from. This might not be an issue in the outlying stations, but downtown is a big problem. The people that inhabit the slum houses and cmha funded establishments, arent the type of people that are going to make good volunteers. The other core group of people that live downtown are the elderly, who aren't capable of that kind of work. Do you feel like providing a 20 ton truck worth 200-500 grand to some of the winners that live downtown, one wreck and see what happens to the cities insurance after that.
Before people get worked up, I know there are descent people downtown too.
I stopped voting for fire levies a few years ago. I think a volunteer dept. could at first cover the outlying stations that are closed. I have seen this kind of system work well in other towns. Weirton W.va. is one of them. Since the population of E.L is getting smaller and older, a paid dept. is a luxury we cannot afford. I think we would be better served by buying out the present firemen and replacing them with a all volunteer dept..
What about volunteers who get paid when they work (fires, training, etc.)? And fuzzy ear, how do you think Calcutta has a VFD when their "core group" is mostly senior citizens? Your name doesn't throw anyone off. Its obvious what department you work for.
"fuzzy ear said...
I do not believe that a volunteer fire department would work in elo. Vol. departments are a wonderful thing, but the they need a good core of people in the community to pull volunteers from. This might not be an issue in the outlying stations, but downtown is a big problem. The people that inhabit the slum houses and cmha funded establishments, arent the type of people that are going to make good volunteers. The other core group of people that live downtown are the elderly, who aren't capable of that kind of work. Do you feel like providing a 20 ton truck worth 200-500 grand to some of the winners that live downtown, one wreck and see what happens to the cities insurance after that.
Before people get worked up, I know there are descent people downtown too."
This is probably one of the truest comments I've ever seen posted on this blog and something I'd never even considered: where WOULD ELO pull volunteers from?
A paid/volunteer system like Wellsville has would be the best situation if the city can't keep up a fully paid station.
The idea of volunteers manning the outlying stations sounds good, but again you have the problem of where are you going to get them?
Pleasant Heights probably has the best chance of having a willing and able "crop" to pick from, but even then, how many people in that area aren't working throughout the day?
Downtown: forget it, you'd never be able to get an entire crew together of willing, able and QUALIFIED people...can you imagine Butch or Kramer running one of the fire engines? God help us.
East End: same as downtown, not to mention the fire station would probably get robbed while the rest of the firemen were on a fire scene.
North Side: too many retirees and rich folk, probably.
A paid/volunteer station would be best but still would mean the need for a good handful of paid firemen.
Are Wellsville's paid firemen in the union? That's another consideration, whether a union would be in place, which always means higher wages and benefits for the paid firemen.
The city has to come up with another solution because they soon aren't going to be able to afford a fully paid dept.
There are many nearby ESTABLISHED volunteer stations that could help ELO at fires but they are never called for assistance. Why is that? the union
Of all the fire dept's mentioned in the news about the barn fire this week ELO wasn't there, helping. Why is that? the union
Maybe it's just a matter of the city coming up with a different system, one where ELFD has to call for help from the volunteer stations and, in turn, has to go out and help them.
That would mean either abolishing union status or negotiating a contract that allowed it.
That might at least save the paid jobs they now have.
Worth thinking about
No, Wellsville's paid firemen are NOT in a union.
ELO has not called a Volly Department because they are IAFF and think they know everything like most paid guys. Fact is that most vollys have more training than paid guys. They get the training because they WANT to mostly on their own. The IAFF attitude is gonna get one of you paid guys killed. You need man power on the scene not your attitude. And a department like Wellsville would work just fine in ELO. And ELO cant afford a paid department anymore. Time for council to wake up and look at the bigger picture.
ELFD should not respond out of the city. City residents pay for their fire protection. With only four men on in the city there should never be a response out of the city. They needed help at that barn fire and its easy to sit back and second guess now but it was simply a barn fire. That is not worth losing an occupied home and possibly lives in the city. Its actually not worth losing that anywhere.
A volunteer fire dept. would not have to be staffed people in the neighborhood. The voluteers could come from all over. They would staff the stations and be on call via pagers. There is an air of adventure connected to fighting fires, and attracting volunteers would not be a problem.
There are alot of Liverpool Twp firefighters who live in the city, some downtown. To say you couldn't get a VFD staffed is a joke.
EL Alum said...
Buckeye,
The example you gave for vouchers, can't we use the same argument for same sex marriage? Always goes down at election time, but it doesn't matter to the other people, they fight it in the courts and on Constitutionality. The issue is always soundly defeated, but it doesn't matter.
How is it different? I am interested to hear your spin.
[end quote]
No spin required. I would be more then happy to discuss this with you as soon as you quote me the principle that defines marriage from the Constitution.
You seem to forget that there is a constitutional principle separating church (religion) and state (govt)
You won't find any constitutional principle defining marriage in any manner let alone as one man one woman.
Thus they are not even remotely the same
Certain people try to pull that trick with education. They scream for separation of school and state, however, they lack that constitutional principle.
As a matter of fact, state and education was united before the Constitution was ever written, and was connection was reaffirmed under the Constitution in the summer of 1789.
There are no such connections to be found in that document regarding marriage.
Buckeye,
Vouchers have nothing to do with religion, but educating children. And in the Zelman case, The Supreme Court ruled vouchers were indeed Constitutional. You believe the state should be the only one allowed to educate children? That's insane, especially if they don't meet a parents needs. This is the problem in this country, we have given the state more control than the parents. The state doesn't know what is best for every child, there are plenty of great parents out there that can make competent decisions.
Why do you think the Founders did not define marriage? Do you think it was because they didn't believe it was between one man and one woman? It was because there was no need to, it was understood. They never dreamed the concept of marriage would be anything different.
EL Alum said...
Buckeye,
Vouchers have nothing to do with religion,
Nice try but no cigar.
Just because you cannot allow yourself to or refuse to acknowledge that:
[quote]
VOUCHERS REPRESENT A SERIOUS CHALLENGE TO
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
In the late 1990s, a study of a pilot voucher programs in Cleveland
OH found that 80% of the vouchers were used to fund attendance at private
religious schools. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that a New York state
voucher system was unconstitutional because its primary effect was to
advance religion. 3 The state had given tuition reimbursement payments to
low-income parents whose children attended private schools. In about 85% of
the cases, the schools were religious in nature.
Depending upon how the legislation is worded, government vouchers
may represent a snare to private schools. Referring to the "GI Bill for
Children" a federal voucher plan proposed by the Bush administration in
1992, the conservative Heritage Foundation warned that the plan "easily
could lead to onerous federal regulation of private schools...The Bush
proposal seeks to subject private schools to the onerous array of federal
civil rights laws. The bill lists six civil rights statutes and states that
'a school or provider of supplementary academic services that receives
scholarship funds under this Act shall, as a condition of participation
under this Act, comply with the statutes.' " 5
[end quote]
If you really doubt pick up any U.S. Constitutional Law book.
You will find that book will contain a section on religion usually broken down into two parts.
One being Free Exercise , the other being Establishment Clause
Even a very quick glance through the Establishment Clause cases will discover that there a fair number of those cases involved Financial aid to religion in the form of various voucher schemes and scams.
[quote]
Blond's Constitutional Law 3, MNEMONIC: PEE
1. Purpose
The state action must have a legitimate purpose;
2. Effect
The principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion;
3. Entanglement
There must be no excessive government entanglement with religion;
B. Wall of Separation.
The basic purpose of the Establishment Clause is to erect a
"wall of separation" between church and state. The Clause clearly forbids
the federal government or a state government from:
1. Establishing a church;
2. Passing laws which aid one religion, aid all religions,
or prefer one religion over another;
3. Forcing or influencing a person to go to or to remain
away from church against his will or force a person to profess a belief or
disbelief in any religion;
4. Punishing a person for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or
disbeliefs, for church attendance or
nonattendance;
5. Levying a tax to support religious activities or institutions to teach
or practice religion;
6. Participating openly or secretly in the affairs of any religious
organization or group.
Source material Blond's Constitutional Law, by Neil C. Blond
Pages 390-923.
[quote]
but educating children. And in the Zelman case, The Supreme Court ruled vouchers were indeed Constitutional.
[end quote]
False, get your facts straight.
What the USSC has really ruled in a very political based ruling is the pilot program in use in Cleveland, Ohio did not violate the Establishment Clause.
What the USSC did not do was rule that vouchers, per se were constitutional. There are conditions and requirements that must be met to make any voucher scheme/scam pass USSC muster.
Two other cases that have held certain voucher schemes unconstitutional
were not overruled, thus remain good law.
Ultimately what this means is that the door was left open for other future
USSC cases on the topic of vouchers, which allows other future USSC to
further define this or even to begin to creep back in the opposite
direction.
You can study the political background part of it here. I wouldn't expect you would but you or any others who are interested can do so here:
GOVERNMENT-FUNDED VOUCHERS FOR
PRIVATE SCHOOLS
http://tinyurl.com/3fv5nc
and or
Vouchers: Our Position
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/vouposit.htm
The rest of the facts are: Ohio courts ruled the scam was unconstitutional based on the Ohio Constitution. The USSC reversed that in a 5-4 ruling in another outstanding ignoring of the concept of federalism that goes hand in hand with their ignoring Fla. Law and Fla court rulings when they opened the door for Bush to be prez in 2000, ignoring California Law and California court rulings when they declared M Newdow had no standing in his Under God case before them
You know, another one of those really powerful 5-4 rulings that have become so famous the recent decade or so. %-4 rulings that are the easiest of all to overturn when a makeup of the court changes and since two things routinely happen over time (1 court makes ups changes and 2 the new make up of courts will usually work at reversing previous rulings that they don't like) 5-4 rulings are always in danger of reversal.
---------------------------------------
[quote]
From HispanicVista.com, 8/23/00:
http://www.hispanicvista.com/scripts/editorial.dll?fromspage=cg/news/...
75% of public oppose school vouchers, says poll
HispanicVista.com
BLOOMINGTON, Il --
Despite the rhetoric coming from both presidential campaigns about
schools and vouchers, a new poll show public approval of the public
schools is near its all-time high.
The 32nd Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward
Public Schools found that 47 percent of Americans give the schools in
their community an A or B.
This figure climbs to 70 percent when public school parents are asked
about the school their oldest child attends.
The public's satisfaction with the public schools is demonstrated by
the fact that its chooses, by a margin of 2 to 1, reforming the public
schools over finding an alternative system as the way to bring about
school improvement.
When offered a specific choice, 75 percent of Americans select
improving and strengthening the public schools over providing
vouchers.
_____________________________________________
The public's beginning to wake up to the fact that the school voucher
system is just an unconstitutional
government-welfare-for-religious-schools scam.
Harry
[end quote]
FYI This is the Ohio Constitution that Ohio courts looked at to rule the Cleveland voucher scam unconstitutional. It is the same Constitution the USSC ignored in its shelving of federalism, you know that conservative mainstay.
OHIO CONSTITUTION
[excerpt]
ARTICLE VI—Education
Sec. 1. Funds for religious and educational purposes.
The principal of all funds, arising from the sale, or other disposition of lands, or other property, granted or entrusted to this State for educational and religious purposes, shall be used or disposed of in such manner as the General Assembly shall prescribe by law.
Transportation of pupils to a sectarian school at public expense does not give the religious order such control over any part of the school funds of this state as prohibited by this section. Honohan v. Holtz, 244 N.E.2d 537 (Ohio 1968).
Sec. 2. School funds.
The general assembly shall make such provisions, by taxation, or otherwise, as, with the income arising from the school trust fund, will secure a thorough and efficient system of common schools throughout the state; but no religious or other sect, or sects, shall ever have any exclusive right to, or control of, any part of the school funds of this state.
ARTICLE XII—Finance and Taxation
Sec. 2. Limitation on tax rate, exemption.
. . . general laws may be passed to exempt burying grounds, public school houses, houses used exclusively for public worship, institutions used exclusively for charitable purposes, and public property used exclusively for any public purpose, but all such laws shall be subject to alteration or repeal; and the value of all property so exempted shall, from time to time, be ascertained and published as may be directed by law.
"Public worship" refers to the open and free celebration or observance of rites and ordinances of a religious organization. Faith Fellowship Ministries, Inc. v. Limbach. 513 N.E.2d 1340 (Ohio 1987).
The whole property of a synagogue was deemed to be "used exclusively for public worship" where part-time caretaker husband and full-time custodian wife lived on top floor. In re Bond Hill-Roselawn Hebrew School, 84 N.E.2d 270 (Ohio 1949).
Mandatory prayer, Bible reading, and religious instruction in public schools violates this section. Bd. of Ed. v. Minor, 23 Oh. St. 211 (Ohio 1872).
[end excerpt]
******************************************
[quote]
You believe the state should be the only one allowed to educate children?
[end quote]
Since I have never said the above it doesn't need addressed.
Here was the issue, remember
EL Alum said...
Buckeye,
The example you gave for vouchers, can't we use the same argument for same sex marriage? Always goes down at election time, but it doesn't matter to the other people, they fight it in the courts and on Constitutionality. The issue is always soundly defeated, but it doesn't matter.
How is it different? I am interested to hear your spin.
[end quote]
buckeyeelo said...
No spin required. I would be more then happy to discuss this with you as soon as you quote me the principle that defines marriage from the Constitution.
You seem to forget that there is a constitutional principle separating church (religion) and state (govt)
You won't find any constitutional principle defining marriage in any manner let alone as one man one woman.
Thus they are not even remotely the same
Certain people try to pull that trick with education. They scream for separation of school and state, however, they lack that constitutional principle.
As a matter of fact, state and education was united before the Constitution was ever written, and was connection was reaffirmed under the Constitution in the summer of 1789.
There are no such connections to be found in that document regarding marriage.
"With only four men on in the city there should never be a response out of the city. They needed help at that barn fire and its easy to sit back and second guess now but it was simply a barn fire. That is not worth losing an occupied home and possibly lives in the city. Its actually not worth losing that anywhere."
What a pompous statement.
Thank God I live in the township where our VOLUNTEERS think EVERY structure is worth fighting for.
As for it being "simply" a barn fire, you asshole. How about if it was "simply" your garage that housed your body shop or carpenter's shop or window business or tow truck business (or any of the others that the paid firement operate in their "spare" time)?
Would it be "simply" your business, as it was these farmers?
What a stupid thing to say.
No fire is worth jeopardizing human life, but real firemen realize the value behind a person's belongings, too.
Wow buckeyeelo “aka cooler on line “that was a lot of copying and pasting. If vouchers are for religious purposes, how is it they are called vouchers for private tech schools? Is Notre Dame a religious school? How about all the Wesleyan Colleges out there. Are they listed in the constitution as being exempt, because last time I looked these “religious schools were getting a lot of government funding?”
F and B said...
Wow buckeyeelo “aka cooler on line
[end quote]
Ahhhhh, the usual that one can expect from certain people.
[quote]
“that was a lot of copying and pasting.
[end quote]
Mahayana, took all of maybe five minutes.
It is already on my computer, or I know where to find it in short order, since I posted it where Google would pick it up and archive it, (UseNet Newsgroups) That is the benefit of doing this since 1994
Actually you folks are getting a free education with the material I post, but I seriously doubt you are really interested in learning any actual facts concerning this topic so I suppose it is wasted on some. Others might be interested, if so kewl. If not, that is life too.
[quote]
If vouchers are for religious purposes, how is it they are called vouchers for private tech schools?
[end quote[
Are they?
For Constitutional law purposes the use of the term vouchers refer to K-12 schools. There is no constitutional question involved for vouchers to k-12 private non religious schools. The constitutional question comes into play with regards to vouchers to attend pvt religious k-12 schools
Far and away most private k-12 schools are pvt religious schools. Thus the large number of Establishment Clause cases concerning the issue of vouchers.
[quote]
Is Notre Dame a religious school? How about all the Wesleyan Colleges out there.
[end quote]
Colleges and Universities are not k-12 schools thus not part of this discussion.
However, if you really want the answers I can point you in directions you can go to get the answers.
[quote]
Are they listed in the constitution as being exempt, because last time I looked these “religious schools were getting a lot of government funding?”
[end quote]
Courts don't go looking for business. Someone has bring suit and bring possible constitutional violations before the court system.
Give it time, people will do just that.
Since more and more judges and justices want to serve their political philosophies and party affiliations instead of law there are times to being suits before the courts and times not to.
Right now the far right is falling all over themselves trying to get as many various suits before the courts as they can knowing that things go in cycles. This too will pass and a lot of things that have been passed in the past 20 years will be reversed when the court makeup change as they will in time.
It took Rehnquist over 20 years to get any kind of voucher case passed by the Supreme Court. He had a lot of defeats in those 20 years. The Cleveland case hangs by a thread. It could easily be reversed at some future point.
Why do you people insist on arguing with Buckeye? Everytime there is an interesting post, he copies and pastes some info that no one reads. Maybe if you ignore him he will just go away. Please quit egging him on! I beg you!
Buckeyeelo ( aka Cooler on Line ) said
“Colleges and Universities are not k-12 schools thus not part of this discussion”.
This discussion started about tax exemptions for religious institution.
Also vouchers are NOT limited to K-12. Webster defines Voucher as a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a child's education in either a public or private school. ( I copied and pasted that)
With only four men on in the city there should never be a response out of the city. They needed help at that barn fire and its easy to sit back and second guess now but it was simply a barn fire. That is not worth losing an occupied home and possibly lives in the city. Its actually not worth losing that anywhere."
What a pompous statement.
Thank God I live in the township where our VOLUNTEERS think EVERY structure is worth fighting for.
As for it being "simply" a barn fire, you asshole. How about if it was "simply" your garage that housed your body shop or carpenter's shop or window business or tow truck business (or any of the others that the paid firement operate in their "spare" time)?
Would it be "simply" your business, as it was these farmers?
What a stupid thing to say.
No fire is worth jeopardizing human life, but real firemen realize the value behind a person's belongings, too.
What if it was your house that you were trapped in that was burning while your township fire department was out on 39 pissing on a barn fire. Im sure you would feel differently. I never said the structure wasnt worth fighting for. Firefighting is a risk versus benefit analysis. Was it worth the risk of losing lives? I bet if it was your life that was put in danger you would feel very differently about it.
Since departments go from one area to another for mutual aide they call in stand by crews to cover ones area. So if there was a fire in ones area and that certain department would have a crew covering their station so it wouldnt be a problem. We all work together and if it comes down to it, standing by on another departments floor might be dumb but one day it might save a life.
and to PS. Just because there are TWP firefighters living in the city doesnt mean that they are going to join. I personally know all of the guys on ELFD and respect their job. I dont want to see anyone lose their job and let someone come do it for free. Yeah volunteers might have more training weekly but if you worked 24 hours and get 48 off would you want to spend a day off back where you just were for 24 hours training. All of the guys on ELFD are all very smart guys and know how to do their job but just dont have the man power. As for the volly dept in the city it will never work. Do you want markie mills and butch clutter being the OIC? i dont think so.
F and B said...
[quote]
Buckeyeelo ( aka Cooler on Line ) said
“Colleges and Universities are not k-12 schools thus not part of this discussion”.
This discussion started about tax exemptions for religious institution.
[end quote]
This particular side issue began when I mentioned vouchers as an example to something else. You don't seem to be able to get anything correct
[quote]
Also vouchers are NOT limited to K-12. Webster defines Voucher as a coupon issued by government to a parent or guardian to be used to fund a child's education in either a public or private school. ( I copied and pasted that)
[end quote]
Webster isn't consulted with regards to how courts label particular actions, programs etc.
You are more than welcome to set aside Webster and actually read court cases to see what they involved, what things were called, etc.
I would be more then happy to provide you with a list of all such cases. Actually I provided a URL to such a list in this very thread already
I can also give you a list of a "ton" of law review or law journal articles written by authors across the spectrum, from those who favor vouchers to those who oppose vouchers. I can safely say that probably in 98-99% of the time when the term voucher is used it pertains to k-12 schools.
Different standards, terms etc apply to colleges and universities.
Now can a person never find any example of where the term voucher was used when talking about a institution of higher learning? No, probably not, which is why I said 98-99% instead of 100% of the time.
However, I think even you can understand my point, unless you don't want to understand it which wouldn't be surprising.
50cent said...
Why do you people insist on arguing with Buckeye? Everytime there is an interesting post, he copies and pastes some info that no one reads. Maybe if you ignore him he will just go away. Please quit egging him on! I beg you!
[end quote]
How can something that is flawed (incorrect and can be shown to be incorrect) be interesting? Mmmmmmm,I wonder if you mean something you believe and agree with?
Copies and pastes. There is more to that then you or a lot of others understand. Where do you think whatever I "copy and pastes" came from, originally?
It came from hours of research in libraries, in books, looking at microfilm and microfiche by me. It came from additional hours of scanning in to my computer or reading in to my computer, or hunt and pecking in to my computer. It came from a reply I put together to answer someone someplace in UseNet Newsgroups at some time between 1994 and the present. It is archived in Google.
I point that out to make a simple point. What I provide is a free education for anyone willing to partake of it, an education that provides a good deal of information that I can confidently state few that read this blog knows.
A few might know some of the evidence I provide but I am sure there is a lot I do or can provide that those few don't know.
No one reads, perhaps but I doubt you know who or what others read or don't read. But should you be accurate about that, that is your and their loss. That is what I do, I offer knowledge for anyone who cares to take it.
Maybe I will go away, unlikely. Though we all do die and I will be a year older in a few days. I have been doing this for 14 years and haven't gone away yet.
The ELFD most certainly has great firemen, no one is arguing that. But the point is, the city cannot afford a fully paid fire dept. anymore.
Times have changed and something has to give.
As the other poster wrote, when volunteers leave their station, they put other depts on standby, so the same could be done in ELO.
What it takes is a fire dept and and administration willing to discuss alternatives, not sit back and smugly say, "This is how it's always been done and we're not changing."
It must change or eventually they will all be laid off. or the police force will be and then God help the city with no cops on duty. It's bad enough now with the lack of police officers.
buckeyeelo ( aka Cooler on Line )
Only in your mind does the word voucher pertain to K-12. I’ll give you an example that won’t be to hard to look up. In 2004 the State of Colorado started a program called COF. It gave vouchers to students to attend college instead of the money going directly to the colleges. I’ll try to make my point again so even you can understand it. Government money has gone to religious institutions for many years. Notre Dame (that’s a Catholic College in Indiana) has received that government money for many years. I don’t see anyone crying separation of church and state. I really don’t even know what you’re arguing about, in Ohio the Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers for K-12 and colleges are legal.
I understand putting departments on standby and I realize that departments in this area do. But at some point somewhere down the line someones area is uncovered. Maybe not one of the first five departments out the door but eventually it has to stop with standby somewhere. If New Manchester comes to Liverpool Twp then who is covering their area. Newell and Chester were out too. Someones area had to be uncovered. I am not a paid fireman nor have any affiliation with ELFD other than seeing them out working. Something definitely has to give within the ELFD. They cannot continue to operate as they do. They are good firemen but four men first due at a structure and not knowing if they will get any backup is not the way to go. One of those firemen is going to get killed eventually due to the lack of manpower at their fires.
risk, I don't think you do understand. Each dept. doesn't send EVERY ONE of its firefighters to stand by at another station.
There are enough volunteers to send to the other stations while keeping some at their own. No station sits empty. That's the idea behind mutual aid and helping each other out that the VOLUNTEERS do all the time.
The paid depts don't do that.
F and B said...
Only in your mind does the word voucher pertain to K-12.
[end quote]
False:
You have to include in the mind of SCOTUS justices, in the minds of author after author such as to Name Just a few:
Vouchers and Religious Schools: The New Constitutional Questions
Thomas Berg
University of St. Thomas, St. Paul/Minneapolis, MN - School of Law
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=409180
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alan E, Brownstein Professor of Law UC Davis School of Law
Constitutional Questions About Vouchers; 57 New York University Annual Survey of American Law 119 (2000)
Debating Vouchers After Zelman, 5 Government, Law and Policy Journal 6 (20
Joint Statement of Church-State Scholars on School Vouchers and the Constitution, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, Nov. 2002 (with Thomas Berg, Erwin Chemerinsky, John Garvey, Douglas Laycock, Ira Lupu, William Marshall and Robert Tuttle)
http://tinyurl.com/3u9r7p
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven K. Green
Professor of Law; Director of the Center for the Study of Religion, Law & Democracy Willamette University
* Locke v. Davey and the Limits to Neutrality Theory, 77 Temple Law Review 913 (Winter 2004).
* Blaming Blaine: The Mixed Legacy of the Blaine Amendment, 2 First Amendment Law Review 107 (Winter 2003).
* Seminal or Symbolic: The Meaning of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris and its Future Impact, in Paul Peterson, ed., What is Next for School Vouchers (Hoover Institute Press/Stanford University Press, 2003).
* Religious Discrimination, Public Funding, and Constitutional Values, 30 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 1 (Fall 2002).
* The Illusionary Aspect of ˜Private Choice, 38 Willamette Law Review 549 (Fall 2002).
* Critical Legal Issues Involving Vouchers, 75 St. John’s Univ. Law Review 209 (Spring 2001).
* The Constitutionality of Vouchers After Mitchell v. Helms, 57 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 57 (2001).
* Charitable Choice and Neutrality, 57 N.Y.U. Annual Survey of American Law 33 (2001).
* The Ambiguity of Neutrality, 86 Cornell Law Review 101 (March 2001).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Douglas Laycock
Derek Davis, etc.
_________________________________________
I recommend you read the following:
Establishment Clause
Cases that were decided under the two doctrines No-Aid-To-Religion or Sacred-Secular Doctrines set forth in Everson [ Under the Rules of law that were set out in Everson, in 1947 through the late 1990 there were over 40 major Establishment clause cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. What follows are only those cases that deal with financial aid to private schools of the k-12 variety or colleges and universities. It should be noted that throughout that time period the U.S. Supreme Court always treated colleges and universities differently than they did k-12 schools.]
* Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) (accommodation)
* Bd. Of Ed. v Allen, 392 U.S. 236 (1968) (textbooks-accommodation)
* Lemon v. Kurtzman & Early v. Dicenson, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (separation)
* Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672 (1971) (higher education-accommodation)
* Essex v Wolman, 409 U.S. 808 (1972) (separation)
* Hunt v McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (higher education-acommodation)
* Levitt v. PEARL, 413 U.S. 476 (1973) (separation)
* PEARL v Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756 (1973) (separation)
* Sloan v Lemon, 413 U.S. 825 (1973) (separation)
* Marburger & Griggs v Public Funds for Public Schools, 417 U.S. 961 (1974) (separation)
* Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349 (1975) Textbooks, both accommodation and separation)
* Romer v Maryland Public Works Board, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) (higher education-accommodation)
* Wolman v Walter, 433 U.S. 229 (1977) (variety of services-both accommodation and separation)
* NY v Cathedral Academy, 434 U.S. 125 (1977) (separation)
* Byrne v Public Funds for Public Schools, 442 U.S. 907 (1977)
* Committee for Public Education and Religious v Regan, 444 U.S. 646 (1980) (accommodation)
* Grand Rapids v Ball, 473 U.S. 373 (1985) (separation)
* Aguilar v Felton, 473 U.S. 402 (1985) (separation)
The above line of cases led lower courts to time and time again strike down various voucher schemes, some of which were appealed onto the U.S. Supreme Court and are listed in the above list, others that were never appealed beyond that lower court ruling.
Cases that fall under the Equal Treatment Doctrine [ cases of all kinds -- accommodation of religion. Kindly note that cases of all kinds have to be included here, otherwise there are even less cases]:
* Widmar v. Vincent (1981) (using a University facilities)
* Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. (1983) (Rehnquist-- financial aid, k-12 private religious schools)
* Bowen v. Kendrick, 487 U.S. (1988) ( financial aid, religious organizations that counsel teens on sex, family planning, etc.)
* Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226 (1990) (O'Connor--student clubs)
* Zobrest v. Catalina School District, 509 U.S. 1 (1993) Rehnquist — In the Zobrest case, the Court, for the first time, authorized a public employee to participate in sectarian education on the premises of a parochial school.
* Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches School District, 508 U.S. 385 (1993) (White — use of school's auditorium for the showing of religiously based films on child rearing)
* Capital Square Review Board v. Pinette (1995) (Scalia — erecting a religious symbol in a public forum next to a seat of government)
* Rosenberger v. Rector (1995) (O'Connor — financial assistance to a Christian student publication by a state university. However, factually speaking the money was money collected from students.
* Agostini v. Felton (1997) (O'Connor — financial aid, k-12 private religious schools)
* Mitchell v. Helms (2000) (Thomas — financial aid, k-12 private religious schools)
* Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) (Rehnquist — financial aid, k-12 private religious schools)
Agostini v. Felton(1997) and Mitchell v. Helms (2000) were used by this court to overturn Meek v. Pittenger (1975), Wolman v Walter (1977), Grand Rapids v Ball (1985) and Aguilar v Felton (1985). I think you would be hard pressed to find in the 200 + year history of the U.S. Supreme Court another example whereby the court used two cases to overturn four of its previous rulings in a period of three years.
But even as the above "new precedence" was being railroaded through, lower courts were still using the established precedence of no-aid-to-religion to strike down various voucher schemes.
********************************************************************************
In the above list there are three cases dealing with higher education
* Hunt v McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (higher education-acommodation)
* Romer v Maryland Public Works Board, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) (higher education-accommodation)
* Widmar v. Vincent (1981) (using a University facilities)
There is a fourth case
Locke v. Davey
On February 25, 2004, the United States Supreme Court announced its ruling in Locke v. Davey, holding that Washington State is allowed to deny scholarship funds to students studying devotional theology. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority: “The State of Washington established the Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use the scholarship at an institution where they are pursuing a degree in devotional theology. We hold that such an exclusion from an otherwise inclusive aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
Note the use of the term: scholarship funds.
I will stand by my original claim:
Webster isn't consulted with regards to how courts label particular actions, programs etc.
You are more than welcome to set aside Webster and actually read court cases to see what they involved, what things were called, etc.
I would be more then happy to provide you with a list of all such cases. Actually I provided a URL to such a list in this very thread already
I can also give you a list of a "ton" of law review or law journal articles written by authors across the spectrum, from those who favor vouchers to those who oppose vouchers. I can safely say that probably in 98-99% of the time when the term voucher is used it pertains to k-12 schools.
Different standards, terms etc apply to colleges and universities.
Now can a person never find any example of where the term voucher was used when talking about a institution of higher learning? No, probably not, which is why I said 98-99% instead of 100% of the time.
However, I think even you can understand my point, unless you don't want to understand it which wouldn't be surprising.
****************************************************************************
It is senseless to try and continue this discussion here. Why? Simple, as Matt adds more and more new topics people stop looking back at old topics.
I don't do this for you, your mind is already set regarding this topic and nothing is going to change it.
I post for the lurkers who read but seldom if ever reply or post.
Now, I will be more then happy to continue this discussion and I can suggest one of two forums where we can do that
#1 Usenet Newsgroups, specifically Alt education or alt politics, usa constitution. In that forum you will find others who hold the same position you do as well as those who are somewhere in the middle and still others hold opposing positions.
You had better know your stuff though because many of the people there are very well informed, not just with opinions but with evidence, facts, etc,
#2 Is a Yahoo group on church state separation.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
You have to apply to join but you will be approved with no problem.
Do I expect you to show up in either one of those two places? Nope, not in a million years. You wouldn't do well there and would probably be made to look very foolish very quickly in a much larger forum than ORL in the case of UseNet Newsgroups
Now I can keep this discussion up till the cows come home. I have done this discussion for years and have vast amounts of information available to me to use in showing you are incorrect.
To sum this up the vast majority of voucher cases heard by the SCOTUS were cases that involved k-12 schools.
The very few cases that involved public monies and institutions of higher learning established a whole different set standards, rules and often times terms.
Scholarships, grants, loans, construction funding and other such terms were used by the courts
Even in colleges and universities there are limits and restrictions on the use of govt monies to pay for religious classes or schooling. See Locke v Davey also see IRS rules and regulations.
[quote]
I’ll give you an example that won’t be to hard to look up. In 2004 the State of Colorado started a program called COF.
[end quote]
You mean the Stipend Program
http://www.western.edu/admin/cof.html
You can play word games all you want. You may call it a voucher they call it a stipend.
Your example doesn't alter vouchers pertain to k-12 schools in Con law.
[quote]
It gave vouchers
[end quote]
It gave a stipend. their word not mine.
[quote]
to students to attend college instead of the money going directly to the colleges. I’ll try to make my point again so even you can understand it. Government money has gone to religious institutions for many years. Notre Dame (that’s a Catholic College in Indiana) has received that government money for many years.
[end quote]
In the above list there are three cases dealing with higher education
* Hunt v McNair, 413 U.S. 734 (1973) (higher education-acommodation)
* Romer v Maryland Public Works Board, 426 U.S. 736 (1976) (higher education-accommodation)
* Widmar v. Vincent (1981) (using a University facilities)
There is a fourth case
Locke v. Davey
On February 25, 2004, the United States Supreme Court announced its ruling in Locke v. Davey, holding that Washington State is allowed to deny scholarship funds to students studying devotional theology. Justice Rehnquist wrote for the majority: “The State of Washington established the Promise Scholarship Program to assist academically gifted students with postsecondary education expenses. In accordance with the State Constitution, students may not use the scholarship at an institution where they are pursuing a degree in devotional theology. We hold that such an exclusion from an otherwise inclusive aid program does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.”
[quote]
I don’t see anyone crying separation of church and state. I really don’t even know what you’re arguing about, in Ohio the Supreme Court has ruled that vouchers for K-12 and colleges are legal.
[end quote]
Not quite
First of all the Ohio Supreme Court actually shot down the original Cleveland voucher case because it violated a portion of the Ohio Constitution
You keep making blunders which doesn't help your credibility any
What you are talking about is SCOTUS. Now they overturned the Ohio Supreme Court
Next, would you be so kind and cite the portion of the SCOTUS Zelman v. Simmons-Harris opinion where it states that the ruling applies to colleges?
Last but not least the Zelman v Simmons-Harris is a very narrow ruling and has a number of requirements that any other such program would have to satisfy before they would pass constitutional muster.
That ruling did not give a green light to vouchers and you seem to think.
Vouchers are routinely being shot down in state courts across the nation
because state constitutions prohibit the use of public monies going to pvt religious schools.
I am a Firefighter for a paid on call department. Some people on here have made some decent comments about this and some have not.
Someof you people need think about what your going to say before you actually say it. For example this person here:
"Put that on the ballot said...
ELO has not called a Volly Department because they are IAFF and think they know everything like most paid guys. Fact is that most vollys have more training than paid guys. They get the training because they WANT to mostly on their own. The IAFF attitude is gonna get one of you paid guys killed. You need man power on the scene not your attitude. And a department like Wellsville would work just fine in ELO. And ELO cant afford a paid department anymore. Time for council to wake up and look at the bigger picture."
Apparently this person and a lot of people making comments on here have no idea what they are talking about and are just running their mouths. For this person to say that the ELFD has not called a volly dept into the city just beacuse they are IAFF and they think they know everything is rediculous!!! And for people on here to say that vollys get more training than career guys is another mis-informed comment. Yeah vollys train every week and sometimes on the weekend. What do you think guys do at the firehouse when they aren't out on a job somewhere?? They train. They may not be doing the hands on training everyday, but they are doing something to better the skills and learn their area a little bit better. In Ohio, a volunteer firefighter is required to have 36 hours of training to become a firefighter. A career ff is required to have 240 hours. Now right off the bat who has more. Now once again as a reminder I am not a career firefighter. But I am supporting them because as a firefighter they are my Brothers and Sisters. For you Firefighters and civilians on here bashing the ELFD members is a disgrace!! You should be supporting them in every way possible. East Liverpool needs a career fire department. Its not always about fighting fires. If they were volunteer, who would be going around doing inspections in all of the commercial buildings in the city? And not to mention the day to day duties that go along with being in an older, industrialized area with a lot of vacant properties. The ELFD needs the support from their community.
Up North
The problem is that you are "up north". We aren't the same "down south". Up north you get more funding from the county and state. Down south we are lower than snail shit in the eyes of the county and state. ELO cannot afford a full time fire dept. I like having a full time FD but its a LUXURY that ELO can no longer afford. As far as the training, again NO MONEY to train down south.
Hey "go volunteer and save money"! They don't need anymore cops, they just need the ones they have to DO THEIR JOBS! If they weren't taking there kids to school, hiding at their homes during their shifts or shooting their girlfriends car dashes at the park, crime might not be the way it is today!
Some what the same as UP NORTH but I feel the need to speak my mind. To begin with, I am not from East Liverpool nor the surrounding townships. I do however work in the city. I AM a firefighter for a paid on call department that covers a city, and I have to say that I am honestly bothered by some of your blogs. Reading these I can tell many of you are fellow firefighters and by the sounds of it a good number of you being volunteer. Firefighting is one of the most honorable jobs there is, not always the most rewarding or pleasurable but we are held in high regard. Firefighters are also one of the tightest knit groups of people you will find. To me it is a BROTHERHOOD regardless of Career, Paid on Call, or Volunteer we are all brothers. We all do this job for the same reason, we all answer the 2am BS call for the same reason, and to see some of you putting down and discrediting the firefighter of The City of East Liverpool...your BROTHERS is a shame. Knowing many of these men and watching them do their job I can honestly say The City of East Liverpool has an outstanding group of firemen. Are they understaffed?...by all means YES!!! Are there changes that need to be made?...ABSOLUTELY, but does any one person have the answers?....NO!! And here many of you are trying to take your BROTHERS careers away from them. Come on now, you should be supporting your BROTHERS rather than trying to put them down, we should all be supporting the FULL TIME fire department. Any one who claims a Volunteer Fire Department would work in The City of East Liverpool has got to be completely ignorant of the job, and should be sent to have their heads examined. To read Assistant Chief Jones' article in the paper the other day stating the City responds on 27 structure fires a year should attest to this! You would be hard pressed to find a fire department in the East Liverpool area to do the same. Now I know many departments in that area respond automatic aid with many different departments, but I am saying in your first due response area. Many of us would be stuck if we were asked to recall the last 27 working structure fires we responded to, and these men do it in one year!! So for any one with even the faintest thought a Volunteer Department would is mistaken: For one man power would not allow it. Yes I understand that the City may only have 4 or 5 guys on a shift at one time, but how many men will the township offer?? No one can answer that until the call come in. If it is anything like the department I work for you may get 4 or 5 guys or you may get 25 it is to unpredictable. And if memory serves me many of the township trucks are simply 2 man commercial chassis pumper...so the guys who don't make a truck drive their cars to the scene?? On the narrow city streets?? That should make for an interesting hose lay, or access for additional trucks! Secondly is response time! Say what you want but there is no VOLUNTEER department in the area that will hold a candle to a FULL TIME company's response time on a regular basis. I do realize the Chief Barcus' 10 to 15 minutes is a little far fetched, but still those guys are either right above or right behind their trucks every minute of the day! They have no drive to the station, or a one minute walk for that matter. Now as far as the City not calling the township for mutual aid I was kind of wondering about this myself, so rather than throwing around assumptions that it's the UNIONS fault, or that the CITY guys hate DOLLIES I simply asked one of them. His answer was that the last time the IAFF issued a strike notice the township manned a truck around the clock at the CITY'S station. Now if this is true, and I'm not say it is, I don't blame them one bit for having a hard time calling the township in. That would be a blatant slap in the face, and once again not supporting the BROTHERHOOD! And as far as the CITY not responding to the township or any other jurisdictions............WHY?? The CITY has an 8 mil levy on the books paying them to protect The City of East Liverpool. The CITY is and should be their sole responsibility. Knowing the department I work for responds automatic aid with the neighboring jurisdiction, but we DO NOT leave our CITY uncovered. Those residents paid for those truck's and those men.....Those are the truck's and men showing up at their door in the case of an emergency. Not a truck from 3 towns over because of playing musical fire stations trying to cover mutual aid!
Now to say that a volunteer is better trained than a CAREER firefighter is the most pompous comment made yet! CAREER firemen are required to have 240 hours firefighter I&II certifications to do their job, compared to the VOLUNTEERS 36 hours that is simply just enough education to get your self hurt. None the less the CAREER fireman is on duty 24 hours a day, do you honestly think they do nothing but sit around the station and eat and sleep? WRONG! They train just as the rest of us do. None the less the community involvement and fire prevention as shown in the news paper today. My thought to resolve some of the problem is to keep the FULL TIME fire department, but supplement it with PART TIME firefighters. This type of department is used around the area in such places as Canfield and Brookfield, and seems to work well. I am sure that none of you are hoping to be laid off or have your employer close up, but that is what your asking for with these guys. Just to make them unemployed and send them to the cheese line. These men are in my prayers every time they respond to a call as they should be with all of you!!
Support your BROTHERS, don't cut their legs out from underneath of them! As far a funding goes the department I work for receives the same type of funding as East Liverpool....what ever the council deems sufficient! Yes there are grants available, and you must admit that Assistant Chief Jones did n excellent job getting funding for their new ladder truck. And you say there is no money to train??......continual in house training is FREE...you go out and pre-plan you practice with your SCBA....you throw ladders and practice search and rescue, all training I'm sure goes on in the fire houses of East Liverpool! Firemen are notorious for adapting and over coming odds! I am sure the men in East Liverpool will do the same!
“For this person to say that the ELFD has not called a volly dept into the city just beacuse they are IAFF and they think they know everything is rediculous!!!”
You might want to read the Morning Journal on line today and see what the neearest volunteer station has to say about this issue.
“What do you think guys do at the firehouse when they aren't out on a job somewhere?? They train. They may not be doing the hands on training everyday, but they are doing something to better the skills and learn their area a little bit better.”
You apparently have never hung around this station much unless you count doing personal duties "training"
“Its not always about fighting fires. If they were volunteer, who would be going around doing inspections in all of the commercial buildings in the city? “
Ask the property owners around town how often they've been inspected. You also apparently haven't read local papers which have reported lack of inspections.
Maybe you need to come "down south" and take a look before you speak.
"Now as far as the City not calling the township for mutual aid I was kind of wondering about this myself, so rather than throwing around assumptions that it's the UNIONS fault, or that the CITY guys hate DOLLIES I simply asked one of them. His answer was that the last time the IAFF issued a strike notice the township manned a truck around the clock at the CITY'S station. Now if this is true, and I'm not say it is, I don't blame them one bit for having a hard time calling the township in. That would be a blatant slap in the face, and once again not supporting the BROTHERHOOD!"
Supporting a union is one thing, leaving an entire city to the mercy of a striking fire dept. is something else again. The volunteers in this case were doing the honorable thing: protecting a community while the paid firefighters struck. And how many years ago was this anyway, for God's sake? Not in recent memory. Get over it.
The bottom line is this: the city can't afford a fully paid dept. Volunteers or part-timers are going to have to be used.
Suck it up and admit it.
To Brotherhood: just to clear up some of your statements the Twp does have 2 main 5 man cab engines and 2. 3 man cab pumper tankers. Also no FF responds in personal vehicles to any type of call. Period. And the twp does have guys trained at the 240 level and in EMS.
Bob, I am aware that you have 240 hour trained firefighters in the Township. Well at least one that I know of. And I know this because I was an instructor in his class. My point was that no one type of fire department is better trained than any other!!
Hey said...
Hey "go volunteer and save money"! They don't need anymore cops, they just need the ones they have to DO THEIR JOBS! If they weren't taking there kids to school, hiding at their homes during their shifts or shooting their girlfriends car dashes at the park, crime might not be the way it is today!
I say that people in glass houses should not throw stones. Fortunatly for you and the rest of the ELFD, I am not going to stoop that low! Grow up and dont bad mouth the PD when the VFD's are attacking you. Thats why you will be part time or volunteer before long cause people like you create tension between the two departments.
Remember it says in the constitution in big bold letters that church and state should be seperate...........and I own a fleet of space shuttles........and the moon is made out of spare ribs, yummy !!!
enemy--
See First Amendment.
enemy of Marx said...
Remember it says in the constitution in big bold letters that church and state should be seperate...........and I own a fleet of space shuttles........and the moon is made out of spare ribs, yummy !!
[end quote]
In your effort to be witty and sarcastic you actually shot yourself in the foot by stating a truth without realizing it. That truth:
The unamended constitution separated church and state.
The Constitution does separate church and state at a time when national documents of many other western nations and most U S state constitutions actually continued with language continued unions between church and state.
Where and how did the US Constitution separate church and state:
Let me show and count the ways
(1) The actual separation language (as separation clause):
US CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 6, PARAGRAPH (section) 3 (emphasis **** added)
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; (****) but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.(****)
Based on your original comments I don't expect that you would ever understand the importance, the impact of those few words in their own time period. In places that had established churches such as most European counties, and most U S states, office holders and those who held positions of public trust took oaths to defend the church, they were the defenders of the state and of the church. That is how church and state unions were maintained.
(2) The matter of oaths
oath of office for the President of the United States is specified in the U.S. Constitution (Article II, Section 1):
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The oath may be sworn or affirmed.
Note the above, the oath may be sworn or affirmed.
Affirmed is a non religious form of taking an oath.
That is another example of that separation of church and state
Did you know that the First Federal Congress in the first session of the First Federal Congress had actually included "so help me God" in the oaths of office but they ultimately removed those words when they approved the final versions see below in a article I wrote in either 2004 or 2005.
CONGRESS REMOVED GOD -- A LESSON IN "ORIGINAL INTENT http://members.tripod.com/~candst/meetup/Congremv.pdf
(3) The reinforcement of the separation of church and state that was embodied in the unamended constitution:
U S CONSTITUTION, 1ST AMENDMENT
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Now I would finish by asking you to quote any language from the U S Constitution that gives to religion any power, authority, any offices, any trappings, any rights, any recognition, any position in or at the table of government. Any language that requires any person in the US to attend any religious functions, to support religion, to defend religion, to be of any particular religion, or even to be religious.
You won't find any such language in the US Constitution, though you can find such language in many national documents of other western countries of the time and in many US state constitutions.
Why can't you find such in the US Constitution? Because that document separate the two, separate church (religion) and state (government) or you could say separated state (government) and church (religion).
Post a Comment
<< Home