The Supremes Open The Door To A Theocratic America?

[Bill3000]

To the extent that both posts have the word "Jefferson" in it, perhaps, but not in any substantial context. Saying that there is no separation of church and state because you're brushing over the clause, ignoring what the establishment clause means, its intent derived from the man who wrote it, is cantankerous at best.

 

[Earthling]

I don't see what's actually a big deal about this nor why the Supreme Court should have been so split. It seems like the right decision given all other US law and precedent. People claim tax breaks and deductions for donating to religious organizations all the time and if anything this is far more of a secular purpose than most folks giving money to a church, it is going to schooling after all and it's not even religious in all cases. Now in an ideal world I might be stricter on how money given to religious groups works for tax laws all around but this doesn't even fit the category of "claiming to be a religious organization to dodge taxes" type of thing that also is abundant in the US and repeatedly slides by too. If there was a problem with this it's on the stupidity of state legislature to make this a one-to-one credit that could vastly reduce taxes or result in loopholes that cost the state money with sneaky claims, but that's in no way a Constitutional problem and doesn't even really correlate to negative effects on public school funding either.

So tl;dr - not a big deal and if it was it's the right decision here anyway, consistent with all other US law.

 

[MobBoss]

I think part of the problem is that secular people may think that only 'religious' degrees come out of 'religious' colleges/universities.

Which is simply not the case, at all.

 

[Earthling]

No, nobody here said that anywhere or anything like it. It's a complete tangent that should be ignored.

 

[MobBoss]

No, nobody here said that anywhere or anything like it. It's a complete tangent that should be ignored.

What part of 'I think' did you have trouble with?

And fwiw, I disagree with you. I think Formaldehydes 'madrassas' comment is precisely in line with that kind of thinking.

Simply because it hasn't been said a lot, in a thread with a few posts, doesnt mean my opinion isnt valid.

 

[Formaldehyde]

People claim tax breaks and deductions for donating to religious organizations all the time and if anything this is far more of a secular purpose than most folks giving money to a church, it is going to schooling after all and it's not even religious in all cases.

There is quite a difference between a taxable donation and a tax credit. In former case, only a small portion of your donation reduces your taxes by whatever your tax rate is. The latter decreases your taxes that exact amount and transfers it all to a private group with no cost to yourself.

In essence, your tax dollars are directly funding that effort instead of going towards what they normally would. This is deliberately reducing the money the state has to pay for all the programs which benefit everybody else and selfishly directing it elsewhere to their own special interests.

 

[Bill3000]

I think part of the problem is that secular people may think that only 'religious' degrees come out of 'religious' colleges/universities.

Which is simply not the case, at all.

Er, what? Religious universities aren't funded by the state, federally or locally. They're completely private.

 

[Earthling]

Yes I know that but people get tax credits for all sorts of ridiculous stuff I don't agree with either. Stupid legislation that costs the state tax money is not necessarily unconstitutional.

for what it's worth, the OP's articles didn't fully spell this out but it's worth pointing out the law is all in the realm of reason, it's not a completely magic thing for millionaires to avoid tons of taxes or whatever. It's a small amount as the maximum that people can claim and, again, less than tax deductions or credits people get for other stuff.

The maximum credit amount that may be taken for tax year 2010 and tax year 2011 is $500 for single, unmarried head of household and married filing separate filers and $1,000 for married filing joint filers. This amount may change for tax year 2012.

from http://www.azdor.gov/

 

[MobBoss]

Er, what? Religious universities aren't funded by the state, federally or locally. They're completely private.

I think maybe you misread my point. Because that wasnt it at all.

 

[Bill3000]

to be fair you weren't quoting anyone so excuse me if I thought it was related to the OP

 

[amadeus]

Er, what? Religious universities aren't funded by the state, federally or locally. They're completely private.

Students going to religious schools can't get state grants or loans?

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's a small amount as the maximum that people can claim and, again, less than tax deductions or credits people get for other stuff.

That "small amount" has already cost Arizona $350M in revenue alone. But it is actually much worse than that:

The consequence of the court's ruling, as Kagan suggests, is that it gives legislatures a "road map" to insulate the financing of religion from court challenge. She offers extreme examples, such as a state choosing to reward Jews for their piety to the tune of $500 per year, to be claimed on their tax returns in lieu of an annual stipend. Or a state subsidizing the ownership of crucifixes by authorizing a tax credit equal to the price paid.

Does it really matter how this kind of support is structured? Of course not. But that truism will have to wait for a more intellectually honest court — one that actually values Madison's vision.

 

[woody60707]

Hey, you had your chance to cut funding for Plan Parenthood. Now the fundies are just fighting fire with fire.

 

[Earthling]

And Arizona losing money doesn't make it unconstitutional, it just makes it stupid. Also, I'd recommend you and everyone read through this at least enough to get the gist of it so we don't see any false claims, the standards set up here seem reasonably consistent with many charitable organizations.

http://www.azdor.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CKcT5ZKMobY=&tabid=136

I don't see Kagan's statement as anything more than ridiculous hyperbole that's a justification for eliminating all tax deductions, credits, etc... everywhere. This SC court decision doesn't seem to change anything in that regard and the suggested slippery slope outcomes are not likely to fly, the worst that would happen is future court rulings. Now, I'm not saying I would be entirely against the course of overhauling over tax system in such a way but it wasn't the SC's place to make that argument on this case, and it's inconsistent with tons of precedents that already would imply the same things. I don't think the court can be faulted for NOT making a revolutionary and extremely disruptive decision that would throw tons of laws into chaos nationwide, the default is kinda expected, especially on a matter like this.

 

[Tani Coyote]

As I dislike spitting on the Constitution regardless of level, this is appalling. It's just another example of big government conservatism discarding the Constitution when convenient: DOMA was another matter. I wasn't aware common legislation could go around something constitutional... convenient.

---

That said, despite my separationist values, I often see religious schools outperform secular ones and find myself torn: efficiency or morals?

We should study what exactly causes better grades in religious schools. Fear of God?

 

[Ajidica]

Since religous schools are private, they can be far, far more selective in their admittance and select only the best students. Religous schools also cost quite a bit to attend, so you tend to get wealthier parents who are more involved in their kids life or parents for whom this is a signifigant investment and want to get their money out of it, so they make sure their kid is doing the best they can possibly do.
In short, it isn't the school it is the parent.

 

[Earthling]

religious schools don't outperform secular ones, at least in the US.

The one annoying thing about the ruling I'm not sure many have brought up is the "standing" part. The SC seems to be doing that an awful lot lately and it's kinda stupid. But I'm not actually sure how much of an effect this really has on anything. Someone with explicit sources or more experience is more than welcome to clear this up. It usually seems like these "standing" excuses to toss out a case don't really affect what happens when someone brings up a future case though, even to the SC, at most just delays something and on this subject and its ruling again it's not critical.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Well then... time to chop down this money tree!

Though finding ways to stimulate parents to get off their asses and get their kids to do well in school would be nice.

I did well because I was absolutely terrified of my mother. Which is funny as she doesn't need to use any form of physical punishment or even grounding! It's a lot easier than one would think. Just a parent's anger is enough to set some children straight.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I don't see Kagan's statement as anything more than ridiculous hyperbole that's a justification for eliminating all tax deductions, credits, etc... everywhere.

I guess that opinion makes you an expert on constitutional law and her not, along with the other 3 dissenting Supremes? Talk about "ridiculous hyperbole"...

Needless to say, this case would have gone exactly the opposite if Reagan and GWB hadn't put so many provincial religious reactionaries on the bench, much like many other similar 5-4 decisions.

 

[Earthling]

I guess that opinion makes you an expert on constitutional law and her not

This statement is absurd and after all, you're not claiming to be an expert on Constitutional law yourself are you? By your own logic you would have to say that the decision is correct because more of the Supreme Court justices ruled the other way if you were to go with such an absurd premise. It's utter fallacy to say you're allowed to criticize the "conservative" justices' reasoning but criticizing other justices' reasoning doesn't count.