Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (613456)	5/27/2011 6:40:27 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 1583713

religious symbols are not allowed in public schools.. And schools that accept vouchers aren't public schools, try again. "There is no constitutional requirement that money that came from the government not be used for religiously connected purposes." I think you're wrong. I've shown how I'm right. Maybe multiple examples confuse you so I'll use just a couple. You can use GI Bill money to attend a seminary. That's money from the federal government going to a religious education. You can use Social Security checks (again money from the government) for any sort of religious purpose. If you want more examples just look back further in this conversation. The federal government can't directly fund religion, but it can give people money that they can use to fund religion (well it generally can't, the exact details of the specific limits are beyond the scope of this conversation, but it can't directly pay for religious education in most circumstances). And not just cash, it can give them cards, or coupons or vouchers. As long as the recipient is deciding to spend the funds on the religious activity and not the government, there is no reasonable constitutional objection. Its been the practice of the federal government for a long time, and no court has ever ruled against it. If social program payments are constitutional in the first place (and nowadays almost no one claims they are not) then the recipients using them for religious purposes is also constitutional (and in fact it might face a constitutional challenge if the government tried to forbid spending the money that way).