Sen.Blutarsky 0 #51 January 6, 2006 Quotethe Florida Constitution Florida has a constitution, little 'c'? And all this while I thought that Jeb had taken care of that little hinderance. We Senators use the big 'C' Constitution thingie mostly. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #52 January 6, 2006 QuoteFlorida has a constitution, little 'c'? And all this while I thought that Jeb had taken care of that little hinderance. We Senators use the big 'C' Constitution thingie mostly. Lets hope you're using your "Constitution", big 'c' in preparation for those pesky Alito confirmation hearings before you pander off to go campaign. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #53 January 6, 2006 Quote Quotethe Florida Constitution Florida has a constitution, little 'c'? And all this while I thought that Jeb had taken care of that little hinderance. We Senators use the big 'C' Constitution thingie mostly. Florida lawyers take the Florida Constitution very seriously, and they use it frequently. You only think that Florida is one of the Lower 49. Really, it's another country. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #54 January 6, 2006 QuoteReally, it's another country. That's certainly been my impression from driving around down there. Blutarsky 2008. No Prisoners! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brierebecca 0 #55 January 6, 2006 QuoteIn Reply To -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Really, it's another country. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's certainly been my impression from driving around down there. I'd have to agree. It's the one place where people get angry when you flash your boobs at them while driving on the highway. Brie"Ive seen you hump air, hump the floor of the plane, and hump legs. You now have a new nickname: "Black Humper of Death"--yardhippie Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #56 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuoteThat said, I'm not sure I agree with the voucher system. It seems to me that the money is better spent improving the system we have. Rhonda - this seems to be the classic response to anything that is failing or screwed up. "We need more money." "Obviously, if we had more money, we would be better at this." So they get more money and things don't improve. "We didn't have enough money." Ad nauseum. What we're doing now is not giving more money to the school system. We're taking it away. I don't see how that's going to improve anything. rl Here's how taking money away from something can improve things. Back in the early 1900's and late 1800's, we used to have different rules for doing things. It turned out that kids were ideally suited for hauling coal cars in and out of coal mines. There was money being devoted to those children, and their labor helped support families. They could work maybe ten hours, and maybe get 25 cents a day out of it. Back then, a substantial sum of money was being pumped into child labor. Then, along came rule changes. These kids could not longer be allowed to work, particularly in conditions like this. There was greatf financial suffering involved. The coal mines and sweat shops were required to replace these assets with mechines. There were also problems for these poor kids and their families. The 50 cents or dollar a week they pulled in was no longer available, causing suffering. Pumping more money into child labor may have helped save the whole system. Indeed, perhaps had more money been added for masks to prevent the inhalation of coal dust, the system could have prospered. Maybe had these factories p[ut money into a lunch program, these kids would have had a higher quality of life. Indeed, under the right conditions, maybe they could have effectively worked up to 14 hours per day hauling coal cars, lugging ice upstairs, or in the textile trade, resulting in a possible $1.25 per day. Instead, money for child labor was withdrawn. This had the sad effect of removing financing for those 10 year-old boys. It also meant that there were a lot more boys living to the age of 11, 12 and even adulthood. When the societal cost of a broken system outweighs the societal benefit, the funding and mechanics of the system need to be changed. Resources from that need to be withdrawn and put into something else. We see similar things all the time. Research resources are being pulled away from development of fossil fuel technologies and being put into the development of alternative energy sources. The only people who bitch, snivel and moan about that are the people who work for the petroleum industry. Punch card operators of the 60's and 70's are no longer in existence. Yeah, it sucked for them, but society has improved because the outdated technology was replaced. So, we have teachers unions for public schools bitching about money being withheld from public schools. Of course they are upset! Their gravy train is being implicated! I don't blame them. if they would do their jobs well, most people wouldn't want to get their kids the hell outta there. In a definite world of haves and have nots, I think a nice way to make sure the have nots are kept in their place is to leave them no choice but to attend a school that may be inferior. Don't like it? Well, tough. Send them to private school? Can't afford that? Hee hee. We'll get our tax dollars from your being here. And those of us with affluence wonder why the poor don't trust "the man." Look at the schools "the man" puts them into. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #57 January 6, 2006 QuoteI'm pretty sure that I already do live in such a society........I learned the system fairly late in the game, but still managed an ok GPA while getting my BS in Electrical Engineering. My impression was that many universities, particularly in the technical disciplines, have little interest in educating their students. Education is a sideline. The real emphasis is on research...... You better listen people.... (a lot of truth there, especially for those that struggle) Walt - I tried to edit in a graduation cap, but the angle is all wrong. Nice post, a bit jaded. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RhondaLea 4 #58 January 6, 2006 There were bad immediate consequences in all those changes you mentioned, even if the changes were ultimately good. I have no problem imposing hardship on adults. I am one; I can take it. I have a lot of trouble when the fallout lands on children. They are our most precious resource, and we need to take better care of them I agree that our educational system needs to be fixed. I don't agree school vouchers are the way to fix it. I'm so confused. I think I'm having two different arguments in this thread, and I can't keep up this week. Sorry. rlIf you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
waltappel 1 #59 January 6, 2006 Quote Walt - I tried to edit in a graduation cap, but the angle is all wrong. Nice post, a bit jaded. That's ok. I just don't look right in a cap and gown. Nice edit on the pic, though. Walt Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #60 January 6, 2006 QuoteI agree that our educational system needs to be fixed. I don't agree school vouchers are the way to fix it. Vouchers can help drive the business to those that can do it best. Currently it's not effective in improving poor performing public schools because that's only an option for the rich. With vouchers, those "less rich" can have the option too. Maybe if enough take their business elsewhere, then poor schools wil improve or go out of business. That's stepping in the right direction. Why does the NEA hate the poor kids so much to take away their options? Why are they supporting benefits only the rich can have? Won't someone please think of the children? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #61 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuote Why does the NEA hate the poor kids so much to take away their options? That is such an outrageous statement, I am glad it seems by your last sentence you are being somewhat facetious. It is unconstitutional. That is all. That is why it was struck down. Public money, under the Florida constitution, is to go to public schools. If they want vouchers, the constitution has to change first. And since many were using the vouchers for religious schools, public money was also going to religion.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #62 January 6, 2006 QuotePublic money, under the Florida constitution, is to go to public schools. 1 - instead of public schools, how about publicly funded 'education'? The education can be administrated by schools which are run by any source (public or private, if the cost is comparable, then the vouchers show go with the kid, not the facilities) and give the families the choice where to go with the money. It would seem the Florida constitution should be revised, this doesn't seem fair. 2 - facetious? yes, but I do think making vouchers illegal is not in the interest of children, and especially poor children. So maybe less ironic, than cynical. Just because a union organization and monopoly is government based, doesn't mean squat against the tendencies of unions/monopolies to get corrupt and provide poor service. 3 - The idea that a private school run by a church doesn't fly. We can go into how secularism is just as much as religion as the more formal definition. Or, easier to understand, that the fact that if a school is run by a church, it shouldn't be preferenced, nor descriminated against, if they do in fact provide an education comparable to any other private of public run school. In otherwords, the money doesn't go to "religion" it goes to a "school." I'm all out of gyros. Edit: I'd have an issue if the vouchers were only redeemable at "St Mary's" down the road. taking away vouchers is the same thing - "Education funding" is only redeembable at "The Holy House of the Liberal/Secular Political Correctness and Nativity". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #63 January 6, 2006 Vinny - I wasn't able to find the exact text of the case online yet, so this is guessing, but given the portion of the Florida constitution quoted on page 2 of this thread, this decision seems like a no-brainer for the court. The state constitution states that money from the public fund/state treasury cannot be spent in a manner that directly or indirectly funds religious organizations. If the vouchers can be used at religious schools, it's a clear violation of the Florida constitution. If the people of Florida don't like this, they can change their constitution through their amendment process. If the vouchers were only usable at non-religious schools, perhaps the ruling would have been different. I think it was a good ruling. The Florida constitution gives the people of Florida the right to not have their money spent to further a religion they may or may not agree with. A huge way of furthering religion is through religious schools (take a look at Catholicism for a huge example here). The ruling wasn't about whether the education at the public schools was quality, or whether the schools accepting the vouchers were better. The ruling was about taxpayers having the right to choose to keep their money away from supporting religious organizations. The job of the court in this case was to determine whether or not the voucher program was acceptible under the constitution of Florida. They found it was not. If the people of Florida have an issue with the ruling, they can alter their constitution to either allow state money to be given to support religious organizations, or just make a specific exception for school vouchers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #64 January 6, 2006 Every religious school that I have seen has had manadatory religious study of that religion (not a comparitve study). The Florida constitution also states that that no public money shall go to religious organizations. Like it or not, a school run by a religion, quality or not, is a religious organization. They may teach math and history, but they also have mandatory prayer and religious study. In fact, the Catholic school where I went to church(same grounds) has a sign in the yard boasting that they save tax payers million. If vouchers were used there, that would not really be true. In anycase, like I said, the constitution has to change first. It seems they did not bother to read it when they pushed this through.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #65 January 6, 2006 Actually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #66 January 6, 2006 QuoteThe Florida constitution also states that that no public money shall go to religious organizations. ...... . no issues with that statement, it was unconstitutional to a bad law on that constitution. I noted they need to change that rule. Else they are specifically being religiously prejudicial (prejudice against something is just as bad as prejudice/unfair preference for something) - and this is merely the state of florida being very clear in trying to intruct their residents in a certain religious philosophy. If I were a resident, I'd resent the idea that I am not allowed to choose any school I want - even one run by a church. I don't need that kind of Big Brother. (I'd personally avoid religious schools, I'm rather cynical about organized religions, but that should MY choice as a parent, not the states.) The net result is public school system is a "union-run monopoly". Can you think of anything worse? That said, by passing unconstitutional laws is not the right way to get a desired effect. They need to jump through the correct process. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #67 January 6, 2006 QuoteActually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null? The upper court is right. The decision must not involve religion in any way (for or against). Florida is in violation of the higher law in this case by making a decision which specifically 'endorses' a position on religion. Just as wrong as if they put a clause in the state constitution to say public education funds could ONLY be used in a catholic school. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #68 January 6, 2006 No one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. They are not taking your choice away there at all. I don't think schools run by religion should be supported AT ALL by public money. Just my opinion.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #69 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteActually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null? The upper court is right. The decision must not involve religion in any way (for or against). Florida is in violation of the higher law in this case by making a decision which specifically 'endorses' a position on religion. Just as wrong as if they put a clause in the state constitution to say public education funds could ONLY be used in a catholic school. No, what I am saying is that the upper court did NOT comment on the religious aspect. They only made an opinion on the public money for private school aspect. So does that make the lower courts opinion on the religious part null? It should be noted that because there is a section in the Florida constitution on no government support of relgious bodies, a court COULD comment that a law is in violation of that...as the lower court did.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #70 January 6, 2006 QuoteNo one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. some kids can't afford to do that I like to think of education funding as being for the kids, not being for the schools. Your statement containing "at all" is a religious position and the government should not support any religious position with funding or law. You can't have it only one way. I'm serious on this one. Even though I also think that people should not CHOOSE to send kids to religious schools if those schools have a 'missionary/recruitment' type of agenda. But it's not my place to force that position on others. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #71 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. some kids can't afford to do that I like to think of education funding as being for the kids, not being for the schools. Your statement containing "at all" is a religious position and the government should not support any religious position with funding or law. You can't have it only one way. My not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #72 January 6, 2006 Quotedoes that say the lower court's opinion is null? Frankly, I think the SC should have commented that the lower court was upholding a legal position that establishes an endorsement based on religion - which would be blatantly wrong if it was a national position. What I don't know is whether the SC has the duty to do that or if it is out of their jurisdiction. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #73 January 6, 2006 QuoteMy not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense. Don't be obtuse, unless you're being funny, then by all means continue..... But if you're serious; It's a decision based on solely religious criteria. If you want to call it 'anti-religious' that's fine, but only semantics. Edit: Have a great weekend. I'll start the margaritas and tequila shots. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #74 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes that say the lower court's opinion is null? Frankly, I think the SC should have commented that the lower court was upholding a legal position that establishes an endorsement based on religion - which would be blatantly wrong if it was a national position. What I don't know is whether the SC has the duty to do that or if it is out of their jurisdiction. The lower court would not be "establishing" anything. From Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution: "No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." They would be upholding what is already in their constitution.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites GTAVercetti 0 #75 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteMy not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense. Don't be obtuse, unless you're being funny, then by all means continue..... But if you're serious; It's a decision based on solely religious criteria. If you want to call it 'anti-religious' that's fine, but only semantics. Edit: Have a great weekend. I'll start the margaritas and tequila shots. This two message thing has got to stop. If not wanting money, which comes from people of all different beliefs, to be given through the goverment, which is supposed to have no religion, to religious instutions is anti-religious, then yes, I am anti-religious. I don't want public money to support them. If they want to exist, they should have the support of their congregation, the people who desire them to exist, alone. Have a good weekend. I will see you on the island.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 3 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #62 January 6, 2006 QuotePublic money, under the Florida constitution, is to go to public schools. 1 - instead of public schools, how about publicly funded 'education'? The education can be administrated by schools which are run by any source (public or private, if the cost is comparable, then the vouchers show go with the kid, not the facilities) and give the families the choice where to go with the money. It would seem the Florida constitution should be revised, this doesn't seem fair. 2 - facetious? yes, but I do think making vouchers illegal is not in the interest of children, and especially poor children. So maybe less ironic, than cynical. Just because a union organization and monopoly is government based, doesn't mean squat against the tendencies of unions/monopolies to get corrupt and provide poor service. 3 - The idea that a private school run by a church doesn't fly. We can go into how secularism is just as much as religion as the more formal definition. Or, easier to understand, that the fact that if a school is run by a church, it shouldn't be preferenced, nor descriminated against, if they do in fact provide an education comparable to any other private of public run school. In otherwords, the money doesn't go to "religion" it goes to a "school." I'm all out of gyros. Edit: I'd have an issue if the vouchers were only redeemable at "St Mary's" down the road. taking away vouchers is the same thing - "Education funding" is only redeembable at "The Holy House of the Liberal/Secular Political Correctness and Nativity". ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #63 January 6, 2006 Vinny - I wasn't able to find the exact text of the case online yet, so this is guessing, but given the portion of the Florida constitution quoted on page 2 of this thread, this decision seems like a no-brainer for the court. The state constitution states that money from the public fund/state treasury cannot be spent in a manner that directly or indirectly funds religious organizations. If the vouchers can be used at religious schools, it's a clear violation of the Florida constitution. If the people of Florida don't like this, they can change their constitution through their amendment process. If the vouchers were only usable at non-religious schools, perhaps the ruling would have been different. I think it was a good ruling. The Florida constitution gives the people of Florida the right to not have their money spent to further a religion they may or may not agree with. A huge way of furthering religion is through religious schools (take a look at Catholicism for a huge example here). The ruling wasn't about whether the education at the public schools was quality, or whether the schools accepting the vouchers were better. The ruling was about taxpayers having the right to choose to keep their money away from supporting religious organizations. The job of the court in this case was to determine whether or not the voucher program was acceptible under the constitution of Florida. They found it was not. If the people of Florida have an issue with the ruling, they can alter their constitution to either allow state money to be given to support religious organizations, or just make a specific exception for school vouchers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #64 January 6, 2006 Every religious school that I have seen has had manadatory religious study of that religion (not a comparitve study). The Florida constitution also states that that no public money shall go to religious organizations. Like it or not, a school run by a religion, quality or not, is a religious organization. They may teach math and history, but they also have mandatory prayer and religious study. In fact, the Catholic school where I went to church(same grounds) has a sign in the yard boasting that they save tax payers million. If vouchers were used there, that would not really be true. In anycase, like I said, the constitution has to change first. It seems they did not bother to read it when they pushed this through.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #65 January 6, 2006 Actually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null?Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #66 January 6, 2006 QuoteThe Florida constitution also states that that no public money shall go to religious organizations. ...... . no issues with that statement, it was unconstitutional to a bad law on that constitution. I noted they need to change that rule. Else they are specifically being religiously prejudicial (prejudice against something is just as bad as prejudice/unfair preference for something) - and this is merely the state of florida being very clear in trying to intruct their residents in a certain religious philosophy. If I were a resident, I'd resent the idea that I am not allowed to choose any school I want - even one run by a church. I don't need that kind of Big Brother. (I'd personally avoid religious schools, I'm rather cynical about organized religions, but that should MY choice as a parent, not the states.) The net result is public school system is a "union-run monopoly". Can you think of anything worse? That said, by passing unconstitutional laws is not the right way to get a desired effect. They need to jump through the correct process. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #67 January 6, 2006 QuoteActually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null? The upper court is right. The decision must not involve religion in any way (for or against). Florida is in violation of the higher law in this case by making a decision which specifically 'endorses' a position on religion. Just as wrong as if they put a clause in the state constitution to say public education funds could ONLY be used in a catholic school. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #68 January 6, 2006 No one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. They are not taking your choice away there at all. I don't think schools run by religion should be supported AT ALL by public money. Just my opinion.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #69 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteActually, it was not about religion in the supreme court. The lower court agreed on the religion issue, but the supreme court only made mention of using public money outside of the public school system. They avoided religion. I don't know enough about law to know how significant that is. Maybe someone can answer. If the lower court said it violated the separation portion of the Constitution, but the upper court does not mention it (does not disagree; simply leaves it out) does that say the lower court's opinion is null? The upper court is right. The decision must not involve religion in any way (for or against). Florida is in violation of the higher law in this case by making a decision which specifically 'endorses' a position on religion. Just as wrong as if they put a clause in the state constitution to say public education funds could ONLY be used in a catholic school. No, what I am saying is that the upper court did NOT comment on the religious aspect. They only made an opinion on the public money for private school aspect. So does that make the lower courts opinion on the religious part null? It should be noted that because there is a section in the Florida constitution on no government support of relgious bodies, a court COULD comment that a law is in violation of that...as the lower court did.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #70 January 6, 2006 QuoteNo one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. some kids can't afford to do that I like to think of education funding as being for the kids, not being for the schools. Your statement containing "at all" is a religious position and the government should not support any religious position with funding or law. You can't have it only one way. I'm serious on this one. Even though I also think that people should not CHOOSE to send kids to religious schools if those schools have a 'missionary/recruitment' type of agenda. But it's not my place to force that position on others. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #71 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo one is saying you cannot send your kid to a "church" school. Ya just gotta pay for it yourself. some kids can't afford to do that I like to think of education funding as being for the kids, not being for the schools. Your statement containing "at all" is a religious position and the government should not support any religious position with funding or law. You can't have it only one way. My not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #72 January 6, 2006 Quotedoes that say the lower court's opinion is null? Frankly, I think the SC should have commented that the lower court was upholding a legal position that establishes an endorsement based on religion - which would be blatantly wrong if it was a national position. What I don't know is whether the SC has the duty to do that or if it is out of their jurisdiction. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #73 January 6, 2006 QuoteMy not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense. Don't be obtuse, unless you're being funny, then by all means continue..... But if you're serious; It's a decision based on solely religious criteria. If you want to call it 'anti-religious' that's fine, but only semantics. Edit: Have a great weekend. I'll start the margaritas and tequila shots. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #74 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuotedoes that say the lower court's opinion is null? Frankly, I think the SC should have commented that the lower court was upholding a legal position that establishes an endorsement based on religion - which would be blatantly wrong if it was a national position. What I don't know is whether the SC has the duty to do that or if it is out of their jurisdiction. The lower court would not be "establishing" anything. From Article I, Section 3 of the Florida Constitution: "No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution." They would be upholding what is already in their constitution.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GTAVercetti 0 #75 January 6, 2006 QuoteQuoteMy not wanting goverment money given to religions is religious? That doesn't make any sense. Don't be obtuse, unless you're being funny, then by all means continue..... But if you're serious; It's a decision based on solely religious criteria. If you want to call it 'anti-religious' that's fine, but only semantics. Edit: Have a great weekend. I'll start the margaritas and tequila shots. This two message thing has got to stop. If not wanting money, which comes from people of all different beliefs, to be given through the goverment, which is supposed to have no religion, to religious instutions is anti-religious, then yes, I am anti-religious. I don't want public money to support them. If they want to exist, they should have the support of their congregation, the people who desire them to exist, alone. Have a good weekend. I will see you on the island.Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
