Is GFA Constitutional?

Originally posted by sumydid
I'm simply wondering from a strictly legal perspective

That's fine. We have answered that point. From a strictly legal pespective, the mere funding of something that is against an individual religion's beliefs is not contrary to the First Amendment.

I have given you an analysis based on what the First Amendment says and what is intended for. googledfudge has shown the absurdity that arises if you interpret it in the way you have suggested. He has also shown that trying to limit the First Amendment's principles to certain religions is, itself, a violation of the First Amendment.

There is a basic legal interpretative principle that, if you can interpret a piece of legislation in two ways, one which results in abursidity, and another which doesn't, then you favour the latter.

I just mention all this, as I know that your only interest in this debate is one of strict legal interpretation, and we have clarified that your interpretation cannot be the correct legal one.

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish ...[text shortened]... acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

you live in a society, as such you abide by its rules. no government program can please everyone; maybe someone doesn't want animal shelters to be funded, does that mean we should end those programs?


you seem to misunderstand what the right to exercise one's religion means

Originally posted by sumydid
If you don't mind I'd like to pose this question to those of us who live in the USA. This is a serious question and in no way is it meant to stir up controversy or anger, or anything. I really, truly, want to know the answer to the question.

The First Amendment to the US Constitution states that [b]"... Congress shall make no law respecting an establish acare crosses the line and becomes unconstitutional.

Am I wrong, and if so, why?

[/b]Further to Suzianne's excellent response in post #2, you are also wrong (I believe) in your interpretation of that section of the US constitution; i.e. you still have the right not to abort your child.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
A Christians concern is simply to pay the tax, not what the government is prepared to do with it.

This is true for you as you have decided to abdicate your democratic right to vote (and clearly your backbone to fight for what is right); a privilage men and women fought and died for.

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, I'm getting tired of this argument. I hear it all the time on conservative talk-radio. It is NOT *your* money any longer once you pay your taxes. Not any more than the money you pay to Sony for your flat screen TV should be used only for political contributions to only politicians of your choice. Would you say you have a voice in how Sony spends its ...[text shortened]... rue, then it sounds like unequal treatment under the law, which IS unconstitutional.

Ok well, at least you said it like it is. You would sooner trust your money in the government's hands than anyone else's. It doesn't get any clearer than that and our opinion on the matter couldn't possibly be any more opposite. I know it's a "talking point" -- seeing as how it's a pillar of Conservative policy -- but, lower taxes means you get to keep more money for yourself, to make your own decisions. The fact that you'd rather hand it over to arguably the most inefficient and corrupt group that exists on the planet, is just baffling to me. It goes against every shred of common sense I've ever known.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
you live in a society, as such you abide by its rules. no government program can please everyone; maybe someone doesn't want animal shelters to be funded, does that mean we should end those programs?


you seem to misunderstand what the right to exercise one's religion means

Not so. And again, since the entire body of the Catholic Church agrees with me on this point and has brought a lawsuit against our government, I'm thinking I'm not quite as far off as you would suggest. They may very well lose their lawsuit but, it's not as if their suit has absolutely zero merit. If that were true, the case would have been tossed out as soon as the legal brief was submitted. The lawsuit was submitted almost 6 months ago and additional churches and insttitutions have joined, the most recent being the Archdiocese in Miami, FL just a couple weeks ago.

Originally posted by sumydid
Not so. And again, since the entire body of the Catholic Church agrees with me on this point and has brought a lawsuit against our government, I'm thinking I'm not quite as far off as you would suggest. They may very well lose their lawsuit but, it's not as if their suit has absolutely zero merit. If that were true, the case would have been tossed out as ...[text shortened]... ions have joined, the most recent being the Archdiocese in Miami, FL just a couple weeks ago.

Yeah, because our legal system never allows frivolous lawsuits! 😞

Originally posted by sumydid
Not so. And again, since the entire body of the Catholic Church agrees with me on this point and has brought a lawsuit against our government, I'm thinking I'm not quite as far off as you would suggest. They may very well lose their lawsuit but, it's not as if their suit has absolutely zero merit. If that were true, the case would have been tossed out as ...[text shortened]... ions have joined, the most recent being the Archdiocese in Miami, FL just a couple weeks ago.

Ooh dearie me, do you really think that is the way the court system works?

I can think of any number of instances where the courts have indicated that they believe the case has no chance of success, but have nonetheless allowed numerous appeals.

In some cases, they allow an appeal as the issue is of such fundamental importance that it needs to be given every opportunity to be tested and to establish a strong precedent to try and prevent frivolous lawsuits being brought in future.

And you think six months is a long time in the context of this issue? The UK took 12 years to finally resolve the fact that a Jaffa Cake is a cake, not a biscuit!

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Ooh dearie me, do you really think that is the way the court system works?

I can think of any number of instances where the courts have indicated that they believe the case has no chance of success, but have nonetheless allowed numerous appeals.

In some cases, they allow an appeal as the issue is of such fundamental importance that it needs to be ...[text shortened]... ? The UK took 12 years to finally resolve the fact that a Jaffa Cake is a cake, not a biscuit!

It appears I was wrong. Sitting next to a lawyer friend of mine and she has confirmed that the case which took 12 years was not in relation to Jaffa Cakes.

It was about Marks and Spencer toasted teacakes.

My sincere apologies for any confusion caused.

Originally posted by sumydid
Not so. And again, since the entire body of the Catholic Church agrees with me on this point and has brought a lawsuit against our government, I'm thinking I'm not quite as far off as you would suggest. They may very well lose their lawsuit but, it's not as if their suit has absolutely zero merit. If that were true, the case would have been tossed out as ...[text shortened]... ions have joined, the most recent being the Archdiocese in Miami, FL just a couple weeks ago.

that is 0 evidence of the case "having merit". i am unsure what the exact workflow is in the grand american justice system but there are numerous reasons this wasn't dismissed. maybe a judge didn't want to be the one dismissing this so he passed the responsibility to someone else. maybe he/she wishes to give the appearance of considering all evidences before passing judgement.


the fact remains: the government is taxing the people and some of that money is not getting used as some people want. you don't agree? petition your elected officials to do something about it. nobody is being forbidden to exercise his religion here.


EDIT: not to mention the state must be separated from religion and must take precedence over religion. otherwise there is no point to having a state at all, as anyone can make a religion(let's call it Horribilism) saying God asks for daily human sacrifices, and to deny horribilists that is to deny their right to freely practice their religion.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Ooh dearie me, do you really think that is the way the court system works?

I can think of any number of instances where the courts have indicated that they believe the case has no chance of success, but have nonetheless allowed numerous appeals.

In some cases, they allow an appeal as the issue is of such fundamental importance that it needs to be ...[text shortened]... ? The UK took 12 years to finally resolve the fact that a Jaffa Cake is a cake, not a biscuit!

thats wrong, jaffa cake is obviously a biscuit

Originally posted by sumydid
Not so. And again, since the entire body of the Catholic Church agrees with me on this point and has brought a lawsuit against our government, I'm thinking I'm not quite as far off as you would suggest. They may very well lose their lawsuit but, it's not as if their suit has absolutely zero merit. If that were true, the case would have been tossed out as ...[text shortened]... ions have joined, the most recent being the Archdiocese in Miami, FL just a couple weeks ago.

consider this: the government should use some taxation money to treat people of cancer(if your country doesn't do that, i don't care, it should). the fact that you don't have cancer and you don't want that money to be used in that manner is irrelevant (and it would kind of be proof you are an a$$hole if you would be against it). this is the same with Obamacare using the money for something you don't agree with.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
thats wrong, jaffa cake is obviously a biscuit

Cakes go hard when they go stale

Biscuits go soft

Jaffa Cakes are a cake

(That's a pretty decent summary of the judgment, by the way)

Originally posted by sumydid
Ok well, at least you said it like it is. You would sooner trust your money in the government's hands than anyone else's. It doesn't get any clearer than that and our opinion on the matter couldn't possibly be any more opposite. I know it's a "talking point" -- seeing as how it's a pillar of Conservative policy -- but, lower taxes means you get to keep mo ...[text shortened]... is just baffling to me. It goes against every shred of common sense I've ever known.

You have a reading comprehension fail.

That is not at all what she was saying, not even close.

What she said was that what money you give to government through taxes is legally "no longer your money".

She didn't say that you had to like, or agree with what the government spent it's money on.

She didn't make any comment on government being corrupt or otherwise.

She didn't say anything about how much money you should give to government, or how high taxes should be.

She didn't say that you couldn't oppose what the government did with its tax revenues.

Just that you can't legally do it on religious grounds.

I don't agree with everything either of you are saying, But at least she is not lying about what you are saying
and is responding to your actual posts not what she imagines your posts to be.


And if you think that the US government is the MOST inefficient and corrupt group on the planet then you need
to get out more.

It's not even in the same league as some other governments, let alone other institutions, in terms of inefficiency and
corruption.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Cakes go hard when they go stale

Biscuits go soft

Jaffa Cakes are a cake

(That's a pretty decent summary of the judgment, by the way)

It's sad.... because you have to pay VAT on cakes but not biscuits...

Which is why they had the lawsuit.