- Joined
- Mar 30, 2021
- Messages
- 26,596
- Reaction score
- 40,860
- Location
- I'm Standing Here Beside Myself
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Two Cases: Carson v. Makin (2022)
In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the State violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by preventing religious observers from receiving public benefits. He cited various cases where the court struck down actions that did so, such as Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran. He wrote that the Maine legislature excluded "private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds" and that such exclusion separates church and state more than intended under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. He wrote that, on the basis of Zelman, "a benefit program under which private citizens 'direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice' does not offend the Establishment Clause." The Court ruled that Maine purposely "identif[ies] and exclude{S} otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise" and that that is "discrimination against religion".
en.wikipedia.org
That's some crazy, convoluted bullshit to get around the establishment clause. But it gets worse. Next month we have...
Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond
The case arises out of a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Charter School Board to approve a Catholic school’s application for charter school funding, making it the first religious charter school in the country. The board’s action drew immediate condemnation. BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler warned that “funding private religious schools with public dollars violates core legal principles protecting religious freedom for all.” Even Oklahoma’s own Attorney General blasted the move as “contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, striking down the charter school approval as unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
Despite those warning signs, the Supreme Court decided to review the decision. 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?
bjconline.org
You need to read some of the twisted, illogical sophistry from judges that led to these cases reaching SCOTUS:
With or without an opt-out right, the parents remain free to pursue their sacred obligations to instruct their children in their faiths. Even if their children’s exposure to religiously offensive ideas makes the parents’ efforts less likely to succeed, that does not amount to a government-imposed burden on their religious exercise.
The case arises out of a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Charter School Board to approve a Catholic school’s application for charter school funding, making it the first religious charter school in the country. The board’s action drew immediate condemnation. BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler warned that “funding private religious schools with public dollars violates core legal principles protecting religious freedom for all.” Even Oklahoma’s own Attorney General blasted the move as “contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, striking down the charter school approval as unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' constitution!
In his majority opinion, Roberts wrote that the State violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause by preventing religious observers from receiving public benefits. He cited various cases where the court struck down actions that did so, such as Espinoza and Trinity Lutheran. He wrote that the Maine legislature excluded "private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds" and that such exclusion separates church and state more than intended under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. He wrote that, on the basis of Zelman, "a benefit program under which private citizens 'direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice' does not offend the Establishment Clause." The Court ruled that Maine purposely "identif[ies] and exclude{S} otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise" and that that is "discrimination against religion".
Carson v. Makin - Wikipedia
Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board v. Drummond
The case arises out of a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Charter School Board to approve a Catholic school’s application for charter school funding, making it the first religious charter school in the country. The board’s action drew immediate condemnation. BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler warned that “funding private religious schools with public dollars violates core legal principles protecting religious freedom for all.” Even Oklahoma’s own Attorney General blasted the move as “contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, striking down the charter school approval as unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
Despite those warning signs, the Supreme Court decided to review the decision. 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?
U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear cases involving religious school funding, parent rights to opt out of grade school curriculum
In the last two weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a pair of religious liberty cases, one of which is a closely watched case in Oklahoma that may reshape the landscape of church-state law surrounding government funding of religion, and the other involves parents’ challenge to a...
bjconline.org
You need to read some of the twisted, illogical sophistry from judges that led to these cases reaching SCOTUS:
With or without an opt-out right, the parents remain free to pursue their sacred obligations to instruct their children in their faiths. Even if their children’s exposure to religiously offensive ideas makes the parents’ efforts less likely to succeed, that does not amount to a government-imposed burden on their religious exercise.
The case arises out of a 2023 decision by the Oklahoma Charter School Board to approve a Catholic school’s application for charter school funding, making it the first religious charter school in the country. The board’s action drew immediate condemnation. BJC Executive Director Amanda Tyler warned that “funding private religious schools with public dollars violates core legal principles protecting religious freedom for all.” Even Oklahoma’s own Attorney General blasted the move as “contrary to Oklahoma law and not in the best interest of taxpayers.” The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed, striking down the charter school approval as unconstitutional under both the Oklahoma and U.S. Constitutions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' constitution!
Last edited by a moderator:
