- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 27,071
- Reaction score
- 41,922
- Location
- Hiding from ICE
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Two Cases: Carson v. Makin (2022)
<snipped for brevity>
This is the part I am not sure of. I am sure that more cases will be filed in appellate courts when govts decide to try, but I am not sure how those cases will be decided as long as a Trump administration is appointing judgeships.It is important to take control of all societal foundations.
Private religious schools are one of those institutions that must be brought under government control. Making government money available, or rather making private religious schools grow dependent on government money is the surest way to accomplish this. Once they decide to include government money in their budget projections, strings can be attached to that money.
At that point, the schools will either comply with the new rules (just a few at first) or they will forfeit the funds. Eventually, the private schools will teach what the government dictates exclusively.
The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Most state constitutions already had such provisions, and thirty-eight of the fifty states have clauses that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.Pity they never passed the national Blaine Amendment.
That's some crazy, convoluted bullshit to get around the establishment clause.
It is important to take control of all societal foundations.
Private religious schools are one of those institutions that must be brought under government control. Making government money available, or rather making private religious schools grow dependent on government money is the surest way to accomplish this. Once they decide to include government money in their budget projections, strings can be attached to that money.
At that point, the schools will either comply with the new rules (just a few at first) or they will forfeit the funds. Eventually, the private schools will teach what the government dictates exclusively.
That's some crazy, convoluted bullshit to get around the establishment clause.No it isn't.
The state is providing funds to parents, and the parents choose the school. If the parents choose a religious school, there is no violation of the establishment clause. It's no different from a person who receives snap benefits choosing to buy kosher or halal food.
This is exactly how the states have forfeited their constitutional sovereignty.This was always my argument against accepting gov funds when my daughters attended a Catholic Academy. I can see a deduction against taxes that go to public schools, but direct funding opens up the government influence that you are fleeing in a private school.
School choice, vouchers, avoid the dependence on government funding. Parents decide where the tax dollars will be spent.It is important to take control of all societal foundations.
Private religious schools are one of those institutions that must be brought under government control. Making government money available, or rather making private religious schools grow dependent on government money is the surest way to accomplish this. Once they decide to include government money in their budget projections, strings can be attached to that money.
At that point, the schools will either comply with the new rules (just a few at first) or they will forfeit the funds. Eventually, the private schools will teach what the government dictates exclusively.
The GQP has always hated public schools because their religious bullshit isn't allowed in them.School choice, vouchers, avoid the dependence on government funding. Parents decide where the tax dollars will be spent.
That's some crazy, convoluted bullshit to get around the establishment clause.
The Blaine Amendment was a failed amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would have prohibited direct government aid to educational institutions that have a religious affiliation. Most state constitutions already had such provisions, and thirty-eight of the fifty states have clauses that prohibit taxpayer funding of religious entities in their state constitutions.
The measures were designed to deny government aid to parochial schools, especially those operated by the Catholic Church in locations with large immigrant populations.[1] They emerged from a growing consensus among 19th-century U.S. Protestants that public education must be free from "sectarian' or "denominational' control, while it also reflected nativist tendencies hostile to immigrants.[2]
The amendments are generally seen as explicitly anti-Catholic because when they were enacted public schools typically included Protestant prayer, and taught from Protestant bibles, although debates about public funding of sectarian schools predate any significant Catholic immigration to the U.S.[3] Thus, at the time of the Blaine amendments, public schools were not non-sectarian or non-denominational in the modern sense; nor were they completely secular.
Looks like it was a result of an 's' in brackets. A cited opinion said "identify and exclude," where the context of the sentence in the opinion doing the citing needed the words to be "identifies and excludes," so they made the common editing choice to note the replacement of tense with brackets:What the hell happened with the strike through line? My apologies.
"identif[ies] and exclude[s]."
Arguably the single most important constituency for the Democrat party is the teachers union. Anything that threatens teachers union bosses control over public schools and by extension the flow of $ into union coffers and then to Democrat campaign donationsThe GQP has always hated public schools because their religious bullshit isn't allowed in them.
I'm curious: what was it about Trinity Lutheran that you found "troubling?" All it concluded was that money available for a specific purpose cannot be withheld from an otherwise-eligible entity just because that entity worships a sky fairy. Specifically, there was a state grant to establishments with playgrounds to replace their hard surfaces with shredded rubber (I think). If a daycare center was eligible for such a grant, why not a church? The first amendment prohibits favoring, but it also prohibits disfavoring religious institutions.After troubling rulings requiring state funding to include religious institutions in Trinity Lutheran (2017), Espinoza (2020), and Carson (2022), will the Court finally find a religious funding line they won’t cross?
Because that's what the 1st Amendment says. Worship your sky fairy on your own dime. Bad enough you roll tax free.I'm curious: what was it about Trinity Lutheran that you found "troubling?" All it concluded was that money available for a specific purpose cannot be withheld from an otherwise-eligible entity just because that entity worships a sky fairy. Specifically, there was a state grant to establishments with playgrounds to replace their hard surfaces with shredded rubber (I think). If a daycare center was eligible for such a grant, why not a church? The first amendment prohibits favoring, but it also prohibits disfavoring religious institutions.
So, why do you think the first amendment should disallow a group from receiving public funds available to others for no reason other than their sky fairy association?
It says there shall be no establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Because that's what the 1st Amendment says.
I wasn't aware replacing hard play surfaces with shredded rubber constituted worship of a sky fairy, regardless of whose dime pays for it.Worship your sky fairy on your own dime. Bad enough you roll tax free.
Religious schools are required by law to have playgrounds, Therefore, it is their responsibility to pay for the playgrounds, The playgrounds are just as much a part of the school as the class rooms. It's all one school.It says there shall be no establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
What is it about a grant to replace hard play surfaces with shredded rubber that "establishes" a religion, particularly when the grant is available to anyone with a playground?
Now you're aware.I wasn't aware replacing hard play surfaces with shredded rubber constituted worship of a sky fairy, regardless of whose dime pays for it.
But it's a playground. It's not worship, even if you say it is. Where do you get this notion that religious institutions can be discriminated against in the receipt of public services generally available to anyone else?Religious schools are required by law to have playgrounds, Therefore, it is their responsibility to pay for the playgrounds, The playgrounds are just as much a part of the school as the class rooms. It's all one school.
That is typical republispewage.Arguably the single most important constituency for the Democrat party is the teachers union. Anything that threatens teachers union bosses control over public schools and by extension the flow of $ into union coffers and then to Democrat campaign donations
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?