1
   

Americans United for Separation of Church and State

 
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 06:50 am
Now guys, I would appreciate it if we got back on topic. Thanks! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 08:44 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Now guys, I would appreciate it if we got back on topic. Thanks! Very Happy

Ah yes, now where were we? :wink:
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Mon 20 Nov, 2006 10:40 pm
I think you were about to tell us how much you agree with the activities of G. W. Bush's Department of faith[/u].
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Nov, 2006 12:56 am
mesquite wrote:
I think you were about to tell us how much you agree with the activities of G. W. Bush's Department of faith[/u].


Ah, we have a mind reader. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 08:42 am
Here is an interesting piece on Bush's new appointee to head the government's office for family planning. To me, this is further proof that Bush is the worst president ever.

http://www.slate.com/id/2154249/?nav=tap3
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 08:56 am
Truly a sad state of affairs when the real actions of this administration read like they came from the satire page I provided above.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 09:38 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Because the school has no place teaching anything having to do with religion at all. It implies endorsement and that is completely unAmerican.

This is simply not true. Teaching the history of religion is in no way an endorsement of that religion. Anybody who's ever taken a western civ class has most likely learned about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is not possible to accurately teach the history of modern civilization without covering such significant contributors to it. For instance, how can you understand the history of Europe without being taught how much it was molded by Christian culture? The entire continent was once known as Christiandom for Christ's sake!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 10:20 am
[
Quote:
quote="Atavistic"]
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Because the school has no place teaching anything having to do with religion at all. It implies endorsement and that is completely unAmerican.

This is simply not true. Teaching the history of religion is in no way an endorsement of that religion. Anybody who's ever taken a western civ class has most likely learned about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is not possible to accurately teach the history of modern civilization without covering such significant contributors to it. For instance, how can you understand the history of Europe without being taught how much it was molded by Christian culture? The entire continent was once known as Christiandom for Christ's sake![/quote[/quote]

In high school I took an elective course " Ancient and medieval history" It was taught as history not religion. It did not attempt to sell religion. On the contrary if anything it would tend to make one look at religion, particulasrly Christianity with disdain.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:15 am
au1929 wrote:
[
Quote:
quote="Atavistic"]
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Because the school has no place teaching anything having to do with religion at all. It implies endorsement and that is completely unAmerican.

This is simply not true. Teaching the history of religion is in no way an endorsement of that religion. Anybody who's ever taken a western civ class has most likely learned about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is not possible to accurately teach the history of modern civilization without covering such significant contributors to it. For instance, how can you understand the history of Europe without being taught how much it was molded by Christian culture? The entire continent was once known as Christiandom for Christ's sake![/quote[/quote]

In high school I took an elective course " Ancient and medieval history" It was taught as history not religion. It did not attempt to sell religion. On the contrary if anything it would tend to make one look at religion, particulasrly Christianity with disdain.

So you were taught religion in school without being indoctrinated by it. My point exactly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:20 am
Atavistic wrote:
So you were taught religion in school without being indoctrinated by it. My point exactly.


I can't about au, but most certainly "ancient and medieval history" isn't teaching religion but history.

And even courses "church history" aren't religion but history.


We have 'relgion' as a subject at school.
And certainly, religious history being taught there was from a different point of view than the studying the same period in 'history'.

Something totally different.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:22 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Because the school has no place teaching anything having to do with religion at all. It implies endorsement and that is completely unAmerican.

This guy obviously disagrees with you.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:35 am
If you were addressing me: no, he doesn't.

At least in my time at school no-one bothered if our school syszem was called un-American.

And Cyclo didn't study history at university level as far as know.
So my experiences here are different to his as well.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:43 am
Atavistic wrote:
au1929 wrote:
[
Quote:
quote="Atavistic"]
Cycloptichorn wrote:

Because the school has no place teaching anything having to do with religion at all. It implies endorsement and that is completely unAmerican.

This is simply not true. Teaching the history of religion is in no way an endorsement of that religion. Anybody who's ever taken a western civ class has most likely learned about the history of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. It is not possible to accurately teach the history of modern civilization without covering such significant contributors to it. For instance, how can you understand the history of Europe without being taught how much it was molded by Christian culture? The entire continent was once known as Christiandom for Christ's sake![/quote[/quote]

In high school I took an elective course " Ancient and medieval history" It was taught as history not religion. It did not attempt to sell religion. On the contrary if anything it would tend to make one look at religion, particulasrly Christianity with disdain.

So you were taught religion in school without being indoctrinated by it. My point exactly.


No it was stictly from a historical viewpoint. There was nothing religious about it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 11:48 am
au1929 wrote:
No it was stictly from a historical viewpoint. There was nothing religious about it.


I couldn't have thaught of anything else.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 05:17 pm
Teaching history that covers religion, and teaching comparative religion is fine. However, we should ensure that the lessons cover the persecution, murders, and other horrors attendant religion over the years.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 06:19 pm
Perhaps I'm a bit off-topic then. Forgive me. I don't know of any public schools (certainly none that I attended) that teach religion in a non-historical context. If there are some schools doing this, I suppose that I would agree that this is inappropriate.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 Nov, 2006 10:47 pm
Here is a way that Arizona has found to funnel tax dollars to religious schools. In essence Arizona tax payers can divert up to $500/$1000 of their Arizona income tax liability to the private/parochial school of their choice.

Quote:


Who is eligible for the education tax credit?

Anyone who pays taxes in Arizona, parents, grandparents, friends, and neighbors.


What are the tax credit limits?

Private/Parochial Schools

* Persons filing tax returns as single individuals or as heads of household are allowed $500 per taxable year.
* Married couples filing a joint tax return are allowed $1000 per taxable year.
* A husband and wife who file separate returns when they could have filed a joint return may each claim 1/2 of the tax credit that would have been allowed on a joint return.

Public Schools

* Persons filing tax returns as single individuals or as heads of household are allowed $200 per taxable year.
* Married couples filing a joint return are allowed $400 per taxable year.

Is a tax credit the same as a tax-deductible donation?

No! A tax credit is significantly more beneficial than a tax deduction. A tax credit reduces your Arizona tax liability dollar-for-dollar by the amount of your contribution. A deduction reduces the taxable income upon which taxes are calculated. However, It may be possible to claim the payment as an itemized charitable deduction on your Federal income tax return as well.
Arizona Tuition Tax Credit

This is a law that just keeps getting worse. It started out at $250/$500, then moved to $500/$1000. This year backers of the credits, hoping to generate more money, persuaded legislators to let corporations also get a tax credit.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 01:11 pm
Mesquite, I hope that gets challenged in court. I am pretty sure that it violates the First Amendment.

I think the taxpayers support, in a major and general way, religious organizations. They subsidize religion by excluding them from any type of taxation. Further, contributors to them are allowed a tax deduction for the money or property contributed, which is effectively a huge subsidy.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 Nov, 2006 09:20 pm
Advocate,

It has already been challenged and lost.
Quote:
Wednesday, January 27, 1999

By a 3-2 vote Tuesday, the state high court upheld a 1997 law allowing people to take a tax credit for money donated to organizations that subsidize private school tuition.

"This decision continues the gradual destruction of the wall of separation between church and state that has been under way in the courts," said Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United, one of 11 groups that challenged the program. "It should be a wake-up call to Americans that their fundamental right to support only the religion of their choice is under relentless attack."

Decision Damages Wall of Separation

That decision to dismiss was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2003, and in "" Source

However we still have the law.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Nov, 2006 09:50 am
Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse the Ct. of Appeals. However, I am not optimistic.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:29:24