SCOTUS: No longer content with stacking, they're now dealing from the bottom of the deck

[bearrock]

2 hours ago, tshile said:

Ok. I read the cnn article. 
 

i don’t have a problem with that as long as non-Christian schools are treated the same. 

 

That's gonna be the key isn't it?  I wonder how the populace will react when a madrasa applies for funding?

[Larry]

I can understand the reasoning. 
 

I recall a case, in which the ACLU joined in suing to force a school to allow a prayer group to use the school. The reasoning was that the school allows non-religious groups to meet in the school, after school. So they have to allow the Bible study group the same access. 
 

I can also see a potential counter argument. That in the religious school, converting people to said religion is the organization's primary purpose.  Their divine mission, in fact. 
 

Also looking forward to watching "conservatives who are victims of discrimination" arguing that a gay teacher mentioning that his husband exists is "grooming", but a nun standing in front of a cross teaching that Jesus rose from the dead is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. 

[PeterMP]

I don't really have an issue with it.  I also think it would be reasonable if ME set requirements e.g. 4.5 hours a week on science, 4.5 hours a week on math, 5 hours of week of socialization time, etc.  Create a situation where if the religious schools want to take "class time" to teach religion the kids there have to spend extra time in school.  And even go further and say 8th grade science (or whatever year) has to include X hours on human evolution teaching Y and Z.

 

ME should set the requirements, but I don't think they should be able to simply shut out religious schools.

Is it expected the abortion ruling is going to drop today?

[tshile]

I have a friend who’s kid is in one of these schools. Only because things were screwed up during the pandemic - and the kid did well so they kept on going. 
 

The school is at a church. 
 

there’s very little religious anything going on in class. 
 

your mileage may vary 

[Cooked Crack]

17 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Is it expected the abortion ruling is going to drop today?

 

[PeterMP]

43 minutes ago, Larry said:

but a nun standing in front of a cross teaching that Jesus rose from the dead is an appropriate use of taxpayer funds. 

 

I don't think anybody is arguing that.  What is being argued is that you can't not give an entity funds because that (the nun teaching Christianity) is happening ALSO.

[Larry]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

ME should set the requirements, but I don't think they should be able to simply shut out religious schools.

I've read that some state, might be ME, has it written into their constitution that no public funds can go to any religious entity. 
 

Would that change your opinion?  

[PleaseBlitz]

It seems that the lasting legacy of the late-Roberts era will be (1) the weakening of stare decisis such that any case that has been decided since, I dunno, 1900, is just guidance and can be overturned at any time for any reason and (2) the destruction of the Establishment Clause and replacing it with this notion that Christian religious orthodoxy cannot be separated from the state, because that would amount to discrimination against Christian religious orthodoxy and those that follow it.

 

 

[PeterMP]

3 hours ago, Larry said:

I've read that some state, might be ME, has it written into their constitution that no public funds can go to any religious entity. 
 

Would that change your opinion?  

 

What you are talking about is Blaine Amendments that were generally passed to be discriminatory in nature.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaine_Amendment

 

Generally, today the Bill of Rights is combined with the 14th amendment to prevent a state from violating the Constitution and the Bill for Rights.

 

A state shouldn't be able to have something in their Constitution that violates the people's Constitutional rights.  So no that doesn't really change my opinion any more than if a state had something in their Constitution that made free speech illegal and the Supreme Court came back and said you can't do that.

 

If a state passed a Constitutional Amendment that said it was illegal to say Muslim, Islam, and Allah, the Supreme Court should rightly strike the down as a violation of the 1st and 14th amendment.  States don't get to do whatever they want if it is part of their Constitution.  

[CousinsCowgirl84]

 

Money shouldn’t be going to religious schools. If you don’t like the don’t say gay law in Florida then I don’t see how you can like this. What do you think they teach in those schools? Acceptance certainly isn’t it.

[PeterMP]

35 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Money shouldn’t be going to religious schools. If you don’t like the don’t say gay law in Florida then I don’t see how you can like this. What do you think they teach in those schools? Acceptance certainly isn’t it.

 

It isn't about acceptance.  It is about people's rights.

 

The don't say gay law is a violation of people's 1st amendment rights.  Telling me what I can or cannot say unless there is some harm being done is a violation of freedom of speech.  If a teacher is saying things that interfere with their duties as a teacher, then it is a problem.  If you are gay teacher and in talking to students about your weekend, you talk about the going on a camping trip with your partner, then there isn't an issue and your right to speech should be protected.

 

If you are giving out money to go to a private school but I can't get money to go to a religious private school because they are religious, that's a violation of my rights (assuming the religious aspect of the school isn't interfering with teaching the other things in the state curriculum).

 

In both cases, just saying you can't do X shouldn't be allowed (specifically where X is a Constitutional right).  It should be dependent on the state or some entity to demonstrate there is harm being done or at least that the entity isn't able to live up the educational goals/requirements because of the other thing (e.g. saying gay or their religious beliefs).

 

I can say (based on what I know), the don't say gay bill is a violation of teachers first amendment rights and so is not giving money going to private schools to schools associated with religious organizations simply because they are assocaited with a religious organization.

 

 

Edited June 22, 2022 by PeterMP

[PokerPacker]

3 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

It isn't about acceptance.  It is about people's rights.

 

The don't say gay law is a violation of people's 1st amendment rights.  Telling me what I can or cannot say unless there is some harm being done is a violation of freedom of speech.  If a teacher is saying things that interfere with their duties as a teacher, then it is a problem.  If you are gay teacher and in talking to students about your weekend, you talk about the going on a camping trip with your partner, then there isn't an issue and your right to speech should be protected.

 

If you are giving out money to go to a private school but I can't get money to go to a religious private school because they are religious, that's a violation of my rights (assuming the religious aspect of the school isn't interfering with teaching the other things in the state curriculum).

 

In both cases, just saying you can't do X shouldn't be allowed (specifically where X is a Constitutional right).  It should be dependent on the state or some entity to demonstrate there is harm being done or at least that the entity isn't able to live up the educational goals/requirements because of the other thing (e.g. saying gay or their religious beliefs).

There's no constitutional right to be given money for religious indoctrination.  They are free to learn religious teachings from their non-state-funded church.  If you can't afford private christian school, you can take the funding to go to private non-religious school and then go to Sunday School for your religious learnings.

[PeterMP]

30 minutes ago, PokerPacker said:

There's no constitutional right to be given money for religious indoctrination.  They are free to learn religious teachings from their non-state-funded church.  If you can't afford private christian school, you can take the funding to go to private non-religious school and then go to Sunday School for your religious learnings.

 

The free exercise of your religion is a Constitutional right.  If you are exempting religious organizations that are doing the same thing as other private institutions simply because they are religious, you are interfering with people's ability to exercise of their religion.  Going to a religious school can be part of exercising your religion.  If you will give me $10K go to a private school that isn't religious but won't give me $10K to go a school that is religious simply because it is religious, you have interfered with the free exercise of my religion.  

 

The state can't discriminate against a religious entity simply because it is religious.  That's not separation of church and state.  That's the state being anti-theist.

Edited June 22, 2022 by PeterMP

[PokerPacker]

5 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The free exercise of your religion is a Constitutional right.  If you are exempting religious organizations that are doing the same thing as other private institutions simply because they are religious, you are interfering with people's ability to exercise of their religion.  Going to a religious school can be part of exercising your religion.  If you will give me $10K go to a private school that isn't religious but won't give me $10K to go a school that is religious simply because it is religious, you have interfered with the free exercise of my religion.  

Seems we are at an impasse of opinion on this matter.  You are free to practice your religion without state funding.

[Captain Wiggles]

Churches start paying taxes and mayhaps then I wouldn't have a problem with a private religious school receiving public funds. 🤷‍♂️

[The Evil Genius]

25 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

The free exercise of your religion is a Constitutional right.  If you are exempting religious organizations that are doing the same thing as other private institutions simply because they are religious, you are interfering with people's ability to exercise of their religion.  Going to a religious school can be part of exercising your religion.  If you will give me $10K go to a private school that isn't religious but won't give me $10K to go a school that is religious simply because it is religious, you have interfered with the free exercise of my religion.  

 

The state can't discriminate against a religious entity simply because it is religious.  That's not separation of church and state.  That's the state being anti-theist.

 

People shouldn't be given public funding from the government to go to private schools.

 

Problem solved. 😁

[PeterMP]

7 minutes ago, Captain Wiggles said:

Churches start paying taxes and mayhaps then I wouldn't have a problem with a private religious school receiving public funds. 🤷‍♂️

 

Taxing a Church simply because it is a Church would be a violation of the 1st Amendment.  If you want to generally start taxing non-profit entities (which includes most Churches), then that changes things.

 

(And I'll point out that I'm for taxing non-profit entities AT LEAST ontheir on investments.  I'm also for beefing up the laws related to non-profit entities and the IRS to go after some of the supposedly non-profit entities that are just being run for the benefit f the people in charge.)

[JCB]

As far as I know the issue isn’t taxation of churches, though. According to the Lemon test from Lemon v. Kurtzmann, which itself was a sharpening of the funding issues adjudicated in Everson v. BOE, if the services provided aren’t clearly marked off then you’re muddying the Establishment Clause. So you can distribute vouchers that parents can use for private schools of their choice, you can reimburse for transport to schools, but as soon as you start funding what happens in the building, we’re in very different territory. There may be a convincing argument for this, but I certainly haven’t heard it. And certainly not from the right-wing religious entitlement crowd.

[Larry]

9 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

People shouldn't be given public funding from the government to go to private schools.

 

Problem solved. 😁

What I want to do is, if they want public money, then they have to accept all of the rules imposed on the public schools. 
 

Any kid who wants to attend, gets to. Regardless of the parent's income. Whether the kid speaks English. Race. Religion. Gender identity. 
 

And the taxpayer money is the only income they get. Not "well the taxpayers pay this month, and then the parents pay on top of that."

[LadySkinsFan]

You all know that public funds for private schools is a direct result of the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school discrimination, when the white population created more private schools so their white children wouldn't be schooled alongside children of color, specifically black children?

 

White private schools have been trying to get public funding ever since. Looks like they succeeded. 

[dfitzo53]

23 minutes ago, Larry said:

What I want to do is, if they want public money, then they have to accept all of the rules imposed on the public schools. 
 

Any kid who wants to attend, gets to. Regardless of the parent's income. Whether the kid speaks English. Race. Religion. Gender identity. 
 

And the taxpayer money is the only income they get. Not "well the taxpayers pay this month, and then the parents pay on top of that."

Not to mention following state curriculum and providing special education services.

 

I'm strongly against any private school, regardless of religious affiliation, receiving public funds. I don't have a legal or constitutional basis for that, it just doesn't strike me as what the system was designed for.

 

Somebody mentioned charter schools earlier, and those occupy a different space than private schools. They are public schools, and while they have some independence in terms of mission and operations, they are still subject to periodic reviews. If the public (as represented by the school board) doesn't approve of their results or methods, they can't stay open.

[PleaseBlitz]

All the schools need to do is not use the public funds for religious purposes.  If a church runs a school, and gets money from the government to run the school, then the school should be secular.  The church can still be a church, but none of the public funds can go do anything but the secular school.   The churches/schools that brought this case don't want to do that, they want to be a church and offer religious schooling, and take government money to run them.  That's the only problem, but it's a big problem because now the general public is forced to pay for these schools to teach kids to hate, and the general public isn't really down with that. 

 

 

[The Sisko]

22 hours ago, bearrock said:

That's gonna be the key isn't it?  I wonder how the populace will react when a madrasa applies for funding?

Hopefully the Church of Satan beats them to it. It’s hard to know which would trigger the fundies the most tho.

 

4 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

You all know that public funds for private schools is a direct result of the Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school discrimination, when the white population created more private schools so their white children wouldn't be schooled alongside children of color, specifically black children?

 

White private schools have been trying to get public funding ever since. Looks like they succeeded. 

QFT. The so-called school choice movement is just segregation with a nicer name and a thin patina of legitimacy. 

[The Evil Genius]

 

 

 

[The Evil Genius]