The thing is, PE, "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. What is there is a ban on the state "establishing" a religion. But if the decision of where the money goes is made by the parents, not the state, then it can't really be taken as establishing a religion. They could just as well have sent the money to an atheist school, or a secular school, or a different religious school, so nobody could reasonably take it as a state endorsement of some religion.

I know the literal phrase is not, but the principle is still applicable. As for the latter part, I completely disagree - how can you *not* take it as state endorsement of religion? There are no secular/atheist private schools in Louisiana; the only nonreligious schools in the state are the public schools. The state government knows full well that they're effectively subsidizing private religious schools like the ones in the OP, and the officials running it don't care, because they get significant campaign money from the Louisiana Family Forum and other such organizations that want to see things like this happening. And as someone who is having income confiscated every year to pay for bullshit like this, I can say with absolute confidence that no, I, a "person of Louisiana" did not "decide" this at all (orathaic's words, not semck's), and that the whole "it's not TECHNICALLY against this ruling" dodge is probably the most infuriating thing about this whole process, because it's been used time and again for decades to fund all kinds of blatantly inappropriate interventions into the state by religious organizations and cost secularists like me who-knows-how-much money for things we don't want to see and certainly don't want to pay for.

"There are no secular/atheist private schools in Louisiana"

That's incredibly unlikely to be true. Have you actually ascertained that? If so -- WOW. I'm from Texas and they're all over, so I guess I would have assumed that was general. (Secular, I mean, not atheist specifically).

At bottom, the school voucher system is about giving parents choice. Just look at how secular many of the movement's leaders are if you don't believe that. Of course, sure, I'm sure various people have all kinds of reasons for supporting it.

Finally, as for "the principle is still applicable" -- how do you figure? The Court has never held that, and I am unaware of any good argument that it should. (Yes, separation is required in many places precisely because it ends up supporting a specific religion. Here, it manifestly does not. For example, there are Muslim schools in Louisiana, and if you wanted to start an explicitly atheist one, nobody would stop you).

@PE: Actually, yeah, we got some of that. And it's pretty friggin' awesome.

http://www.auduboncharter.com/

Don't know if these dudes are getting the state money, but they exist.

It' simple, just don't send your kid to a dumbfuck Christian school

'I can say with absolute confidence that no, I, a "person of Louisiana" did not "decide" this at all'

Fair point - but my position remains the same. YOU as a person of Louisiana, have a bigger voice in state policy than you do in federal policy.

IE it is easier to do things at a more local level, or oppose those other Louisiannans who would spend 'your', em no the state's tax money on religious education...

Besides, if you have kids and they go to a 'evolution' school they will have a competative advantage over those 'nessians' who believe God created the loch ness monster 3-6 thousdand years ago...

If the tax was paid directly to your local school board then even better, you'd have a say in local policy (you could choose to send your kids elsewhere, but your money would still go to fund the local school)

The principle i'm in favour of is local governance. And let the crazies be... (subsidiarity, as it is called but not practiced in the EU)

"they will have a competative advantage over those 'nessians' who believe God created the loch ness monster 3-6 thousdand years ago..."

In fairness, orathaic, I don't think they're saying he created this SPECIFIC monster 6000 years ago. I'm sure they allow it to be a descendant. ; )

I think i'm supporting their right to come up with wuatever batshit crazy ideas they want... And considering the news of a dead tortoise (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-18604682 ) which was 100-200 years old, and the general trend for larger animals to have slower metabolisms and longer life spans... It might just be possible that this very big tortoise like creature was created insitu...

"The thing is, PE, "separation of church and state" isn't in the Constitution. What is there is a ban on the state "establishing" a religion. But if the decision of where the money goes is made by the parents, not the state, then it can't really be taken as establishing a religion. They could just as well have sent the money to an atheist school, or a secular school, or a different religious school, so nobody could reasonably take it as a state endorsement of some religion."

Sure anyone reasonable can. State funds are going to religious institutions. That is the state establishing a religion, perhaps several religions, but establishing and sanctioning religion nonetheless, and my tax dollars going to support this horseshit. The question is whether this matters in the case of Louisiana. I don't know if the 14th amendment applies.

No, SC. To "establish" a religion, the government would have to set up a religion over other religions (or over non-religion), give it its seal of approval so to speak. In letting parents direct their money to secular, religious, atheist, or other schools, the government is not doing this; thus, is not establishing a religion.

"Establish" does not mean aid, nor does it mean support.

The Anglican Church was the established religion of the Virginia Colony. This meant that a tax was collected and the tax money used to pay the fees of the pastors of the ordained pastors of the Church. The House of Burgess in Williamsburg also passed laws regulating who could ordain pastors and the acceptable behavior of pastors. This was done away with by a religious freedom ordinance written by Jefferson and Madison during the Revolution. In Massachusetts, Puritanism was the established religion and Puritans controlled the government of the colony until James II revoked their Charter in the 1680's. You could not be governor of the colony if you were not Puritan. The Puritans in Massachusetts persecuted Quakers, Methodists, Catholics, Anglicans, and dissenting Puritans. Anglicans in Virginia persecuted Puritans, Quakers, Methodists, Baptists, and Catholics. In fact, Anglicans from Virginia attacked Catholics in Maryland in the 1630's. As a result Catholic Maryland wrote an early law allowing religious toleration in the American colonies because Catholics were a persecuted minority in Britain after the execution of Charles I. Tony Blair converted to the Catholocism after he left office, because if I'm not mistaken you still can't be Catholic and be PM in Britain, or you it may be legal, but it sure is frowned upon. Posting on the board kills the time when you have insomnia.

The state of Louisianna probably has it's own constitution, and i doubt it says anything about the establishment of an official religion. That is, i don't see how the US constitution has the power to limit the state in establishing a religion.

If it is only state money, not federal money, going to feed these children ignorance...

The first amendment only applies at the federal level and for many years there were states with constitutions and laws establishing state wide recognized religions, usually because the starts started as colonies of like minded individuals who wanted their state to be a haven for their faith.

Well, Draug, the first amendment only _talks_ about Congress, but it's certainly been held to apply to states in the last 60 years.

http://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=69

Shows when the colonies that had state supported religion removed it from "the books". Most were gone by the 14th Amendment's ratification, but NC and NH ran a little longer. It's a good link and shows that clearly the 1st Amendment did not apply to states at that time and was nor forced upon them. Otherwise, those states would never have ratified the Bill of Rights.

isn't there already like a Mormon state, and a Jewish one?? (not to get all controversial... oh wait, that's exactly what i get, ok just ignore my trollishness)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

Draugnar, incorporation came through the 14th amendment, not at the time of the bill of rights. There is ample evidence from Congress that this was an intended and understood effect of the amendment.

Well guess what...if the school wants to teach that, and the state wants to fund it, there ain't nothing you can do about it, and there ain't nothing to arguing about ignorance. This is the State's right, and if you want to try and question that, then we can just go back to the Civil War now can't we?

No kidding, semck. My point was that whatever congresses intent, the bill of rights was originally sold as federal restrictions because a number of states would not have ratified them otherwise in no small part due to the various colonies having been founded by religiously like minded individuals who wanted their state to be based on their faith but didnt want the feds telling them what that faith would be.

I'm pretty sure the guys who were arguing that states can do whatever they want lost the civil war....but yes, in this case they're likely to get away with it.

Just because the states lost don't mean that they aren't more independent now than they were then...

Gotcha, Draug.

@Dys, I think the point is being missed. _Even the feds_ could give money to religious schools in this way, because it _doesn't actually violate the establishment clause_.

New Hampshire was one of the last. I'm pretty sure they were part of the Union and that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about and didn't bother to read the link I sent before.

That was to Dys. Sorry about the cross post, semck