[Vision2020] Supreme court ruling

DonovArn@aol.com DonovArn@aol.com
Thu, 26 Feb 2004 00:21:59 EST


-------------------------------1077772919
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 2/25/2004 4:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
mushroom@moscow.com writes:
What is ruled out by the Supreme Court is 
enrolling with a religious institution to learn about that particular 
religion and be certified to minister to the followers of that religion.

I think that for once the Supreme Court got something right.
Well, that is not as bad then. Nonetheless, I still kind of disagree with it 
on the bases that the purpose of scholarships (in theory anyway) is so that 
people can get an education to get a job and fulfill the needs of the community. 
It also cuts ANOTHER opportunity for the poor to do something they want to do 
and leaves it only open to wealthier people. My thinking is that it is only 
unconstitutional if they do it for some religions and not for others. 

The other aspect of this that scares me is that it can be denied only on the 
bases that it is tax dollars supporting a religion. In that case, so is giving 
tax-breaks to Churches. I don't like this being taken away. I am Catholic. On 
paper the Church is a Billionaires because we own lots of priceless art, 
religious artifacts, and huge buildings. However we don't have much cash at all. 
Sometimes not even enough to basic costs of operation and salaries. So this 
would really hurt my religion. Michael Jackson could end up owning the preserved 
body of a Saint so the Vatican can pay their property tax in Boston.

Donovan J Arnold

-------------------------------1077772919
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=3DUS-ASCII http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; cha=
rset=3DUS-ASCII">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1264" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style=3D"FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #fffff=
f">
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 2/25/2004 4:48:06 PM Pacific Standard Time, mushroom=
@moscow.com writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style=3D"PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue=20=
2px solid"><FONT face=3DArial>What is ruled out by the Supreme Court is <BR>=
enrolling with a religious institution to learn about that particular <BR>re=
ligion and be certified to minister to the followers of that religion.<BR><B=
R>I think that for once the Supreme Court got something right.</FONT></BLOCK=
QUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>Well, that is not as bad then. Nonetheless, I still kind of disagree wi=
th it on the bases that the purpose of scholarships (in theory anyway) is so=
 that people can get an education to get a job and fulfill the needs of the=20=
community. It also cuts ANOTHER&nbsp;opportunity for the poor to do somethin=
g they want to do and leaves it only open to wealthier people. My thinking i=
s that it is only unconstitutional if they do it for some religions and not=20=
for others. </DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>The other aspect of this that scares me is that it can be denied only o=
n the bases that it is tax dollars supporting a religion. In that case, so i=
s giving tax-breaks to Churches. I don't like this being taken away. I am Ca=
tholic. On paper the Church is a&nbsp;Billionaires because we own lots of pr=
iceless art, religious artifacts, and huge buildings. However we don't have=20=
much cash at all. Sometimes not even enough to&nbsp;basic costs of operation=
 and salaries. So this would really hurt&nbsp;my religion. Michael Jackson c=
ould end up owning the preserved body of&nbsp;a Saint&nbsp;so the Vatican ca=
n pay their property tax in Boston.</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>Donovan J Arnold</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

-------------------------------1077772919--