There's already a thread on this.Should tax dollars be used to fund religious education? Our country has long recognized the principle of 'separation of church and state', and applied the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion to the government paying for religious schools. Until now. The three legitimate justices voted to continue not to allow it, the six radical right pandered to the religious right as Republicans want to overturn the principle.
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.www.cnn.com
6-3 vote we need another. I didn't see another thread.There's already a thread on this.
Should tax dollars be used to fund religious education? Our country has long recognized the principle of 'separation of church and state', and applied the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion to the government paying for religious schools. Until now. The three legitimate justices voted to continue not to allow it, the six radical right pandered to the religious right as Republicans want to overturn the principle.
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.www.cnn.com
Tax dollars should fund education. If the religious education is accredited, then there is no problem.Should tax dollars be used to fund religious education? Our country has long recognized the principle of 'separation of church and state', and applied the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion to the government paying for religious schools. Until now. The three legitimate justices voted to continue not to allow it, the six radical right pandered to the religious right as Republicans want to overturn the principle.
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.www.cnn.com
Next they will probably tell us that we all have to be evangelical christiansShould tax dollars be used to fund religious education? Our country has long recognized the principle of 'separation of church and state', and applied the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion to the government paying for religious schools. Until now. The three legitimate justices voted to continue not to allow it, the six radical right pandered to the religious right as Republicans want to overturn the principle.
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.www.cnn.com
You are just wrong. Omitting someone because of religion is establishing a prejudice against it. No establishment of religion and no prevention of he free exercise thereof.Should tax dollars be used to fund religious education? Our country has long recognized the principle of 'separation of church and state', and applied the constitutional prohibition on government establishment of religion to the government paying for religious schools. Until now. The three legitimate justices voted to continue not to allow it, the six radical right pandered to the religious right as Republicans want to overturn the principle.
Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs
The 6-3 ruling is the latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights and bring more religion into public life.www.cnn.com
I agree I'd rather not fund private schools, but if they do, there is a legitimate basis for "discriminating" to not fund religious schools, and that is the constitutional restriction on state support for a religion. It's one thing to say a private school teaches reading and writing, and another to say it teaches a specific religion. It's little different than the ban on school-led prayer, which the right also wants to overturn.I haven't read the decision yet, but it makes sense to me that if the state is going to fund private schools, it shouldn't discriminate based on religious affiliation. I wish the state would not fund private schools. In fact I wish states would ban private schools. But logically and ideologically if private schools are going to be funded by the state it should be on a non-discriminatory basis.
But the constitution also says you can't discriminate based on religion. If a state funds secular schools but not religious schools how is that not discrimination based solely on religion? If religion is taken completely out of the equation, I think you get the result the opinion calls for.I agree I'd rather not fund private schools, but if they do, there is a legitimate basis for "discriminating" to not fund religious schools, and that is the constitutional restriction on state support for a religion. It's one thing to say a private school teaches reading and writing, and another to say it teaches a specific religion. It's little different than the ban on school-led prayer, which the right also wants to overturn.
Several.There's already a thread on this.
Wrong. There are many schemes for politicians supporting a particular religion they want votes from with tax dollars.Tax dollars should fund education. If the religious education is accredited, then there is no problem.
Tax dollars paying for a kids education is not establishing an official religion, so separation of church and state is a non-issue here.
Because 'no religion' is not just another religion. That's like saying that banning school-led prayer is just as much a religious act as having school-led prayer.But the constitution also says you can't discriminate based on religion. If a state funds secular schools but not religious schools how is that not discrimination based solely on religion? If religion is taken completely out of the equation, I think you get the result the opinion calls for.
Well said there should be no valid criticism of the ruling after reading this unless someone is blind to why the constitution saysBut the constitution also says you can't discriminate based on religion. If a state funds secular schools but not religious schools how is that not discrimination based solely on religion? If religion is taken completely out of the equation, I think you get the result the opinion calls for.
Religious indoctrination isn't education.I haven't read the decision yet, but it makes sense to me that if the state is going to fund private schools, it shouldn't discriminate based on religious affiliation. I wish the state would not fund private schools. In fact I wish states would ban private schools. But logically and ideologically if private schools are going to be funded by the state it should be on a non-discriminatory basis.
You're just being biased, which is exposed by your use of the term "legitimate justices." You're arguing from a team vs. team viewpoint which means you just don't like anything the other side does, no matter the merits. You're not being rational.Wrong. There are many schemes for politicians supporting a particular religion they want votes from with tax dollars.
Bush did it with his "Office of Faith-Based Initiatives", there were many schemes for funneling dollars by replacing government services with church-provided services, and this is another to steer money to political partners who happen to run schools as a vehicle for getting tax dollars. There is a reason the three legitimate Justices vote on the other side. Go read the dissent.
Your comments are ill-informed to put it much too mildly. They're false. I won't say dishonest, but that's not really a compliment considering the flaws you need to believe them.You're just being biased, which is exposed by your use of the term "legitimate justices." You're arguing from a team vs. team viewpoint which means you just don't like anything the other side does, no matter the merits. You're not being rational.
Yeah, those public schools need a monopoly on indoctrination! LOLReligious indoctrination isn't education.
You're just being biased, which is exposed by your use of the term "legitimate justices." You're arguing from a team vs. team viewpoint which means you just don't like anything the other side does, no matter the merits. You're not being rational.
Thank you, and you're not wrong.You will either get a big nu-uh as a reply or be blocked because you dare question his partisan rants.
The one I have seen today across multiple media platforms is the Freedom of Religion is Freedom from Religion. I just don’t understand that because it does not follow out logically to other rights. Freedom of the Press is not also Freedom from the Press. Freedom of speech is not also Freedom from speech.Thank you, and you're not wrong.
I don't get why so many people act like rabid dogs when debating an idea! It's like they willfully refuse to see reason!
I understand the separation of Church and State, but some people want to use it as an excuse to attack all religious expression in the public sphere.
Yep, but freedom FROM speech is becoming a thing, and that's scary.The one I have seen today across multiple media platforms is the Freedom of Religion is Freedom from Religion. I just don’t understand that because it does not follow out logically to other rights. Freedom of the Press is not also Freedom from the Press. Freedom of speech is not also Freedom from speech.
Only in the collective conservative imagination.Yeah, those public schools need a monopoly on indoctrination! LOL
I understand the separation of Church and State, but some people want to use it as an excuse to attack all religious expression in the public sphere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?