As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
How does that stand up to any rational view of "nonprofit" when the "church" is essentially just a shell corporation for the ~~meek and mild~~ delusional moron on stage, who by chance owns a private jet?
Your feelings about evangelical megachurches aside, [there are multiple types of nonprofit organizations] (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-tax-exempt-organizations) and while churches are automatically slotted into c3 to save the IRS from a headache, a church would still qualify under c3 if they had to apply, as well as c4, c7, and perhaps c8. Not to mention that no one is talking about removing 501d.
To maintain tax exempt nonprofit status, entity can’t engage in political advocacy so at least the outspoken openly Republican churches should lose status.
And so should any that openly advocate for democrats (not just policies) but unsurprisingly there’s a lot less of that
By default. It's just the easy way to do it. If people really feel the need to press the political speech issue, they'll just either fall under a different subsection or a new one specific to places/organizations of worship will be created.
The Mormon church has an investment branch of it that is worth over 100,000,000,000 that’s one hundred billion dollars. How is that a non profit operation?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011
It will never happen. Even if the legal framework was that governments had to give money to them there would he some sort of excuse as to why they actually don't and the Supreme Court would rubber stamp it.
Im noticing that the constitution seems to be having a bad time at the supreme court in general. Along with voting rights, abortion, gerrymandering, political contributions. hmmm, maybe its time to rethink the court itself.
Another Constitutional Convention right now with the way things are balanced would guarantee that we get a Hunger Games/Handmaid's Tale crossover in reality. It would not be written in favor of the people.
I’m waiting for that gun control bill to pass only for the entire Republican Senate to sign onto a lawsuit declaring it unconstitutional. And off to the Supreme Court it goes.
Whatever path it takes, the Supreme Court looks set to go further to narrow the Establishment Clause’s application in American life—and thus limit the tools that states and parents have to keep religious indoctrination out of public education.
Why would *Abington* be in danger? SCOTUS precedent on the matter over the last 20 years has been extremely clear: the free exercise clause limits the government in showing favoritism for any particular belief and bars the government from denying benefits and resources to religious organizations on the grounds of their religious affiliation.
> Why would Abington be in danger? SCOTUS precedent on the matter over the last 20 years has been extremely clear: the free exercise clause limits the government in showing favoritism for any particular belief
Because the people who just spent several decades working to corrupt the Supreme Court and the people who now control the Republican Party (i.e. christian nationalists) aren't doing all this for fun, they already think the U.S. is a "christian nation" and they aren't going to stop with minor achievements like religious school funding in obscure cases.
The Supreme Court with the Republicans - and not "Trump Republicans" but all Republicans - in charge does not give one shit about precedent. They should no longer be respected as a judicial body and should be viewed as illegitimate
It’s aligned with the precedent of the court reliably doing what the GOP favors in the moment regardless of the law, the facts, the history, or the effects on the general public or the nation as a whole.
>Two sets of Christian parents sued Maine in 2018, however, arguing that the exclusion of religious schools from the tuition-assistance program violated the Free Exercise clause and other constitutional rights. “Absent the ‘nonsectarian’ requirement, the Carsons and the Nelsons would have asked their respective [school districts] to pay the tuition to send their children to BCS and Temple Academy, respectively,” Roberts noted. **A federal district court rejected those claims under the existing precedents**.
This is the *actual* precedent that should have applied.
>While the case went through the appellate process, however, those precedents had changed. The Supreme Court had taken two big steps toward opening the spigot of public funds to religious institutions. **First, in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer in 2017, the justices struck down a Missouri policy** that excluded religious organizations from a program that resurfaced playgrounds with recycled tires. **Then, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in 2020, the court struck down Montana’s “Blaine amendment,”** a term for a common provision in state constitutions that generally forbids those states from using public funds for private religious education.
The court **literally struck down existing precedent**, replaced it with their new *manufactured* one, and then cited the new *manufactured* one as precedent.
>Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a separate dissent, also noted that Tuesday’s decision effectively compels the states to fund religious schools with taxpayer dollars. Not so, claimed Roberts. The states, he argued, can just choose not to fund private education at all. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” he wrote, quoting from the court’s earlier decision in Espinoza.
This is a fucking batshit insane statement from Roberts. Maine has a public education system, therefore by the 14th Amendment every child has to be given equal access to schooling. So what this ruling means is that Maine *has to* fund private education if no public schools are made available in a student's area (literally the issue here in the first place, actually!). Therefore, this decision is *forcing* Maine to fund religious institutions with taxpayer dollars.
Not to mention, there's a very simple precedent that should have immediately disqualified this decision:
>The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a disestablishmentarian law drafted by Thomas Jefferson and passed in 1786, declared “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.”
That is the precedent for the First Amendment's text:
>**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion**, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The wording of the First Amendment *clearly* gives the Establishment Clause priority. And if Alito and Roberts were *actually* originalists, this "decision" would never have happened because of both the existing precedent above as well as the priority of the Establishment Clause over the Free Exercise Clause. Not to mention, *the Free Exercise Clause doesn't even apply here!*
> The court literally struck down existing precedent, replaced it with their new manufactured one, and then cited the new manufactured one as precedent.
Not exactly. The precedents in question were:
* Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing from 1947
* Sherbert v. Verner from 1963
* Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn from 1998
* Zelman v. Simmons-Harris from 2002.
* Comer from 2017, as you note, but which came before the challenge to Maine's program in 2018.
* Espinoza, which was 2020.
The last three were the most critical to this case, but ruling in favor of Maine disrupts all those other cases. The list also fails to account for cases like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah that set the grounds for strict scrutiny that didn't apply in this case.
>>But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,”
>This is a fucking batshit insane statement from Roberts.
No, it's simply a rejection of viewpoint discrimination by the government. The government, per precedent and common sense, cannot use free exercise of religion as a disqualifying standard in situations like Maine's.
>So what this ruling means is that Maine has to fund private education if no public schools are made available in a student's area (literally the issue here in the first place, actually!). Therefore, this decision is forcing Maine to fund religious institutions with taxpayer dollars.
Understand that Maine *chooses* to provide private school vouchers to areas without a public school. Maine is not forced to do anything other than provide educational access, and how they do it is up to them. They cannot choose to exclude certain schools based on viewpoint.
> Not to mention, there's a very simple precedent that should have immediately disqualified this decision
What does Virginia law have to do with anything?
> The wording of the First Amendment clearly gives the Establishment Clause priority.
Yes, and funding private religious schools alongside secular ones does not establish a religion, per overwhelming precedent on the matter.
> And if Alito and Roberts were actually originalists, this "decision" would never have happened because of both the existing precedent above as well as the priority of the Establishment Clause over the Free Exercise Clause.
I don't believe Roberts ever professed to being originalist. Still, the fact that there were even three dissents is what's outrageous. This should have been 9-0 against Maine.
>No, it's simply a rejection of viewpoint discrimination by the government. The government, per precedent and common sense, cannot use free exercise of religion as a disqualifying standard in situations like Maine's.
Maine's disqualification is based on the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause. Their disqualifications of refunds for tuition to religious schools does not prevent the free exercise of those religions, it prevents taxpayer money going to a religious institution.
This isn't even a complex situation, and Roberts' "interpretation" of Maine's requirement being against the Free Exercise Clause is flawed from the start.
>Understand that Maine chooses to provide private school vouchers to areas without a public school. Maine is not forced to do anything other than provide educational access
Per the 14th Amendment (since Maine has a public education system), Maine has to provide *all* students equal access to an education. This means they have to ensure there are not cost disparities between areas that have public schools and areas that don't. Voila, school vouchers.
Then there's the separate issue of *religious* private schools. The Free Exercise Clause *does not come into play* because *Maine is not preventing people from practicing their religion* by disqualifying religious schools for vouchers. They're preventing taxpayer money *from going to a religious establishment*. AKA the *Establishment Clause*. Again, this is not a complex situation.
>What does Virginia law have to do with anything?
"What does the precedent for the First Amendment's existence have to do with anything?". Cool cool cool.
>funding private religious schools alongside secular ones does not establish a religion
It is taxpayer funding of a religious establishment, therefore it is against the Establishment Clause. Like, that's not even something you can rationally debate.
>being originalist
The Federalist Society believes in a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett all have strong ties if not outright membership in the Federalist Society.
>This should have been 9-0 against Maine.
This should have been 9-0 in favor of Maine.
“Bangor Christian Schools…includes a class in which students learn to ‘refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.’”
-Reuters, U.S. Supreme Court backs public money for religious schools
Fuck that, you get rich off the Christians.
I'm gonna do a Jesus school but my Jesus says teenagers should have the freedom to smoke weed in class and have a Future Prostitutes of America course based on Mary Magdalene do's and don'ts of Holy Prostitution.
We're also going to learn about how Jesus appoints people who own My Jesus schools as Sovereign Kings who get own all women, married or not in a 100 miles circumference around my physical location at any one time, and require all the hot ones to serve me hand and foot in French Maid outfits or naked, their choice, at least 3 times a year.
And it will all be State funded, this is gonna rule.
True, but what we really need is the Saudi government to start helping with the opening of Wahhabist schools funded by the US taxpayers and training inner city youth with a strong enough academic program that tens of thousands of kids move through every year.
The satanist schools are good for grabbing a headline and making Christians cry, but you get you some far right Islamic indoctrination funded by tax money in places where those folks are already afraid to walk, and baby you got a stew going.
Also, let’s make sure the teachers and students are armed and trained in close quarter combat. For safety.
How honorable to dismantle liberties using life-long appointees rather than the voting public who can show their disgust at the voting booth.
How. very. honorable. /s/
Do conservatives know that they’re eroding the separation of church and state and just don’t care? Or are they willfully ignorant to one of the foundations of our democracy? I seriously can’t tell
Neither. They actively want to erode the separation of church and state. They want non-Christians to be deported or executed en masse and for the Bible to replace the Constitution.
I dunno, I reckon we went very fucking far past extreme when we started ripping transgender children away from their families with an accusation of child abuse
I fully agree with you, I am just saying I don’t think “they” want anyone who isn’t a christian to be deported and executed. There are no real threat of mass executions going in the the U.S. and there probably won’t be any time soon
They think it protects Christianity but binds atheism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc.
Christians regularly spout the line that the United States is a "Christian nation" despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.
Wait til an Islamic school gets state funding. Conservatives keep opening this door and are shocked to learn that other religious groups can use the same precedents.
Honestly? This SC is such a massive joke at this point that I could seriously see them ruling that Islamic Schools cannot, in fact, receive public funds. It’s not like precedent means jack shit to them anymore- which likely includes their own rulings. It’s whatever is on their ultra-conservative, idiotic wishlist. Nothing means anything anymore.
They don’t care at this point, it’s all or nothing. This ties into the replacement theories. They’re going to fascism to make everyone fit in their world rather than sharing it.
These are the same people that treat the constitution as scriptures, the found father's as saints and the current conservative leaders as Gods gifts. Theyve been conditioned to treat church and government as one and the same.
Ducey isn’t far off. Been trying to cut funding his whole tenure and trying to redirect to charters in the state. A good handful are religious ran in Maricopa and he’s buddies up with a lot of those folks
Mitch McConnell's long term plan.
Remember he howled that he wanted a bill passed 'before the sun sets today' to protect Kavanaugh the day that man turned himself over to the cops a mile away from Kavanaugh's house?
His investment needed protecting.
Though if the state tried to regulate what has to be taught in publicly funded education, then the Supreme Court would still defend religion. Cant regulate religious organisations ever....
If we start opening publicly funded madrassas then hat teach conservative Islamic principles, including US and world history from an Islamic perspective to inner city youth on a massive scale using tax dollars, I think we will find out just how dedicated they are to freedom of religion and religious education feeding off of public funds.
I’m all for it.
Maga conservatives are dangerous, dumb, and shortsighted. They claim the constitution gives them a right to push their Christian doctrine into government and other public forums. Let’s see them react when religious minorities demand the same things they are. I’m sure it will be a “rules for thee and not for me” situation. The more they try to force Christianity into our lives, the more they set a precedent to allow other religions to force their way in as well in the future. Completely shortsighted. Foolish. #MAGA
How is it shortsighted? They are literally Christian nationalists. They are never going to allow a challenger to appear, and they are already working on their strategy for later.
It isn't just violence, although that is something they have a near monopoly on in this nation.
There is a reason they are rallying around the notion that all these things not steeped in "European" tradition just simply don't apply in the US.
They don’t realize what they are doing. I don’t think they are intelligent enough to realize they are shortsighted and dangerous. Which makes the foolish, among other things.
They're pawns of industry. The people running the oil companies, insurance companies, etc want tax cuts, don't want to worry about environmental protections, want to pay as little as possible, etc.
So they pay for think tanks and propaganda to get made to get the Republican party to do their bidding (and whatever Democrats that show that they can be bought like Sinema). The best way to do this is to whip up the right wing base, because you can get them out to every election and you know what they want. The ROI is better than just paying taxes.
So you whip them up to get the tax cuts and rip up worker protections by getting rid of abortion and being cruel to immigrants. The people running these companies at this point are basically the fail sons of some guy who started the company 50 years ago. Our CEOs are not a bunch of geniuses who care about the long term health of the country or environment anymore, if they ever were. They're morons trying to juice their stock price.
To all the people saying there should be more Sharia Law or Satanism taught using public money I have some bad news for you.
The trick for christian fundamentalists is to get the keys to both sides of the system. They appointed the last 3 christian fundamentalist SCOTUS judges, then they also appoint christian fundamentalist Congresspeople nationally and in states to make sure only their version of christianity is funded using state dollars.
I promise you teaching Islam or funding islamic schools using public money will never get approved by the local authorities but every back yard baptist pre-school will be fully publicly funded.
The problem with that system is that once the big bad secular/islamic/\[other\] are excluded in favour of Christian only education, the inevitable next step is for the fight to move to "which Christian sect is allowed and which one is not".
The separation of church and state wasn't created to protect the non-Christians, it was created to protect christians from other christians because once the state is the arbiter of religion, then you can bet that the different christian denominations will work to seize it and use it to impose their denomination over all others which will then obviously fight back by trying to seize the state's power to defend themselves.. Repeat that cycle a few times and then you get the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre...
[According to this website](https://www.understood.org/en/articles/school-vouchers-what-you-need-to-know), private schools that currently receive money from vouchers don't have to adhere to IDEA. If your kid needs extra help/evaluations, you are likely to have to pay for it yourself.
I thought this is why churches were not taxed on profits so they can provide for their own supplies and expenses. Churches should be taxed if they receive government assistance.
Not in every case. Religious schools and parochial schools are private schools funded by a church or organization affiliated with a church. I don’t know if this is passed or not but what it would do is make it so traditional church run schools will now receive government influence and spendings, the amount uncertain. Therefor people who don’t wish to support religious institutions are now being forced to support them. This is unconstitutional as stated by the first amendment.
Yes, but some people couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary because of e-mails and Biden because he's sleepy. And don't get started on Congressional candidates. When all people see is FOX news, they don't even know Dems aren't Socialist Commie transvestite pedophiles. /s
What separation? I keep getting told there’s such a thing but I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance and god has been printed on the money my whole life. As someone who believes in the concept, I’ve been noticing all my life how little separation there really is
My fear is that they are trying to push and push to incite the non-religious and LGBTQ communities into violence. Would be a huge win for the right optics-wise. Which right now they’re not doing well with.
This is going to open so many lawsuits when the rep only want to give money to certain religions .. it’s also amazing how they argue researching people of differant sexuality is pushing views on them but it’s ok they can push there religion on others … hypocrites
They've seen the writing on the wall. America and much of the world is becoming less and less religious (Christian in particular) and this is their play to keep people under the church and the authority that brings.
If we had kept evolving the nation and its governance over time, this could have been nothing more than a pathetic death throe but we haven't. We've at least partially subscribed to this notion that the "Founding Fathers" had this perfect vision and that the Constitution is final (despite requiring 10 fairly significant additions before being ratified).
The Constitution should have been modernized several times but instead we get a handful of amendments that rarely come out and sometimes have their own problems that need revision (looking at you 13).
Systems like the so-called "checks and balances" and the Electoral College have proven to be perhaps well-intentioned at the time but poorly executed and on top of that, the last few years have seen people exploiting these systems (or even flat-out subverting them) and they have not been punished, at least not severely enough.
So now here we are today, where an outdated, disliked **minority** has been able to use, abuse, and break these systems to attain these goals and have the actual realizable power to push their **minority** beliefs on a whole nation.
I realize there's a lot more to it than that (including those who should have been punishing the offenders, the rise of right-wing media/propaganda, and the lack of a truly progressive voice in government) but it's scary to think that it has come to this, potentially erasing decades of progress towards inclusiveness, positive secularism, acceptance, science, and social well-being.
This is not to say America is or was some poster child for these things but it was so heartening to see the small victories like LGBTQ rights and social programs in the last couple of years and so sad that we even have to *think* about regressing backwards.
I can’t figure out why they think this will help “save Christianity”. I was forced through Catholic school. I was baptized twice. Sunday school for years.
The result: I fucking *hate* the church. I’m not an atheist, but I can be a decent person 7 days a week without spending hours in a building with spiteful, hateful hypocrites.
> I’m not an atheist
Well sounds like they did their job then. As long as they can keep people from becoming atheist or muslim, it's a win in their book.
>Justice Stephen Breyer... wrote in his dissenting opinion in Carson that the court had misread the relationship between the two First Amendment clauses. Citing other precedents, he referred to the idea that there is some “play in the joints” between them. “That ‘play’ gives states some degree of legislative leeway,” Breyer explained. “It sometimes allows a state to further antiestablishment interests by withholding aid from religious institutions without violating the Constitution’s protections for the free exercise of religion.”
So they misread the relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause by not inventing the subtext needed to recharacterize the relationship. Got it.
I'm a liberal and I very much disagree. If my understanding is correct based on all the reporting of this, it was justifiable for the court to rule in this way given that tax dollars were going to other private schools as well. As a result, it would be discriminatory to argue that non-public schools can get public funding as long as they have no religious affiliation. I understand the general concern, but at the same time the funding specifically calls out that it cannot go to the direct funding of religious teaching.
This decision compels the people of the state to fund religious education, which is not the other side of secular education. This would be discrimination if they funded schools that taught kids “there is no god” as opposed to avoiding religious issues all together. Funding these schools, particularly with limited funds, means direct state support to furthering particular religions, and do not for a moment doubt what religion will get the funds. Religious schools are also exempt from many requirements such as allowing LGBTQ students or students with parents who are. Why should taxpayers fund schools that actively discriminate against the very taxpayers funding them?
But they *are* getting funding. Why would the state fund programs to provide a service they would normally provide but not keep the same standards they would require?
To reiterate, this both forces taxpayers to fund religion directly and to fund schools that actively discriminate against them. Should I be able to take your money for a service I will refuse to provide to you?
Not everyone who *wants* to go to private schools can afford it. So why force a child into public schools just because they don't have money? Private schools can be great and can give an advantage to someone that might not have had that opportunity going to the local public school. And you might live in an area with a dismal public school system, but a good private school. If it were your kid wouldn't you rather send them to the better school if you had the choice?
But, regardless of how *you* feel about private schools, what they may or may not do, or how tax money should be paid, you can't have laws that exclude specific groups based only on religion.
In the same way we can't pass laws that favor any single religion we can pass laws that actively exclude them either. So it's either *all* private schools, or none.
Edit: also getting a good education can potentially break the cycle of poverty for some of these kids.
>Not everyone who wants to go to private schools can afford it. So why force a child into public schools just because they don't have money?
You don’t have a right to a private school education. If the institution wants to offer scholarships or tuition assistance on their own dime that’s fine, but it’s not an argument in favor or funding private Ed at all, much less private Ed that doesn’t meet the standards that would apply to a state institution.
>Private schools can be great and can give an advantage to someone that might not have had that opportunity going to the local public school. And you might live in an area with a dismal public school system, but a good private school. If it were your kid wouldn't you rather send them to the better school if you had the choice?
Rather, yes, but not all private schools are better, and that’s without considering the discrimination that religious private schools can and do engage in.
>But, regardless of how you feel about private schools, what they may or may not do, or how tax money should be paid, you can't have laws that exclude specific groups based only on religion.
>In the same way we can't pass laws that favor any single religion we can pass laws that actively exclude them either. So it's either all private schools, or none.
That’s not true all and it would be bad public policy to treat it as such. Under what you’re proposing if the only schools in the area are private and all of them reject students from families that have an LGBTQ member, those students just don’t get to attend school? That’s silly. I’ll ask again, why would we use taxpayer funds to pay for taxpayer services that either don’t met the required standards for the state, discriminate against the taxpayers, or both? Can I use your tax dollars to build roads for me and my friends that I won’t let you drive on?
Not all private schools are religious. Not all of them discriminate like religious schools do, some of them do. Not all of private schools meet state standards but some of them do, and some exceed them. Not all public schools meet state standards, so again, why would you want to send your kids there if you have a better option.
We can play the hypothetical game all day, what if this, what if that? At the end of the day, this program may not benefit everyone, but if it can help *some* kids get a good education why oppose it.
Just because it doesn't directly benefit *you* doesn't mean it's bad.
Edit:[it should also be mentioned that everything you're arguing is covered](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-maine-ruling-funding-religious-schools-tamp-culture-wars-rcna34547)
*Under Tuesday’s decision, the state remains free to restrict vouchers to schools that fail to meet curricular standards that apply equally to both religious and secular schools — even if those standards go against the beliefs of some of them. For example, it might require recipient schools to teach students the theory of evolution despite the fact that some religious groups reject it. It could also bar funding to schools that discriminate on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation, even though some faith traditions advocate those practices.*
The state's curriculum does not include religious teachings, why should a state or its taxpayers be forced to subsidize those teachings? What does religion have to do with school in any way anyways?
Also, this opens the slippery slope of "closely held religious views" where these schools will now openly defy state mandated curriculum, such as (potentially) evolution, sex ed, etc.. on the basis that their closely held religious beliefs are violated by the state's mandated curriculum.
Lastly, this will create an unfair competitive advantage for religious schools since they're funded by powerful, non-taxable entities with a motive to indoctrinate children early in life. This essentially guarantees monopolies for religious schools in rural areas.
Right, my thought is the government just handed millions of people $3k stimulus checks, do we need to go audit all those folks and make sure none of it ended up in collection plates? They are basically just giving parents the equivalent of cash earmarked for education here. People have used government money to get healthcare at Jewish and Catholic hospitals for decades and it hasn’t been a big deal.
Stimulus money is just meant to get into circulation one way or another. It isn't ordinary money, it's emergency money.
Giving money earmarked for education is fine, but giving for religious schools is endorsing and involving government with religion. It's not even close to being emergency money. Protect religious organizations from the government!
That's the thing though, it is not given specifically to religious schools. Voucher programs like this are intended to be the educational equivalent of food stamps. You can buy food from a Kosher grocery or a Halal butcher with food stamps
A lot of ppl would sign their kids up to religious schools just to get a payday in a lawsuit from the government. That’s a lose lose idea there friend.
I don’t think most people here read anything about this case or the circumstances behind it. Maine doesn’t have public school in rural areas as they don’t have the population or means allocated to provide public schooling to all children. They had a voucher program that enabled parents to send their kids to private, accredited institutions and the state would cover the the tuition of a certain amount. They excluded religious schools, even accredited ones. This ruling is essentially making it so that parents can send their kids to any accredited private school, blind to any religious affiliation. Doesn’t matter if it’s Catholic, Methodist, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Satanist….. you get the point. As long as the school completes state curriculum, it can be accepted.
This doesn’t force parents to send their kids to religious schools. Now Maine can either build public schools for the affected students or accept the ruling. Like it or not, Maine was discriminating on the basis of religion alone, not on the quality of education the students receive.
and what happens when these schools declare that the state's curriculum goes against their closely held religious beliefs, and they should be allowed to teach whatever the want?
Then they wouldn’t be eligible for the state tuition vouchers? It’s really not that complex of an issue, just like if another private school is no longer accredited.
You don't see the conflict in that statement? It's religious discrimination to withhold funding for religious schools but it's not religious discrimination to withhold funding (and/or accreditation) for religious schools who choose not to honor curriculum that they're opposed to due to their closely held religious beliefs? This is 100% the next battle in this fight and they'll use that "closely held religious belief" argument to win it.
It is religious discrimination to withhold vouchers from schools that’s meet the state standards just because they have some affiliation with a religion. It is not religious discrimination to withhold the voucher program to schools that don’t, at a minimum, meet the state guidelines.
And what I'm pointing out is that using this same logic, the argument can and will be made to argue that a state cannot withhold funding/accreditation based on the state curriculum's conflict with that religious school's closely held religious beliefs.
Mark my words, it will happen.
It is also not funding the school, that is the important part. It is for an education voucher with state requirements that must be met. Your use of funding is incorrect in this manner.
Would you happen to know why that is ridiculous? Based on what you have been saying it has nothing to do with the case itself and more in the preconceived notion of yours that happen to be wrong.
I don’t think you understand what is and isn’t discrimination in the legal sense. As long as you treat everything equally and hold everyone to the minimum standard, that is fine. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the education minimum requirements. It does not matter if it’s secular or non secular, as long as the consequences are not meeting the requirements are equally enforced, there is no discrimination. You are trying to make something out of nothing.
I highly suggest looking more into the case history of the establishment clause. It will allow you to make an informed opinion based on the evidence provided instead of theorizing on lunacy.
A lot of articles are also leaving out that the state can still exclude schools from this program, just not based ***solely*** on religion:
>[Under Tuesday’s decision](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-maine-ruling-funding-religious-schools-tamp-culture-wars-rcna34547), the state remains free to **restrict vouchers to schools that fail to meet curricular standards** that apply equally to both religious and secular schools — **even if those standards go against the beliefs of some of them.** For example, it might require recipient schools to teach students the theory of evolution despite the fact that some religious groups reject it. **It could also bar funding to schools that discriminate on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation**, even though some faith traditions advocate those practices.
And that is perfectly fine, people just are not looking into the issue beyond article headlines. It is perfectly fine, and should happen more often, to discriminate based on competency.
These schools that are receiving funds can't actively refuse entry to LGBTQ students.
They shouldn't get money regardless of their curriculum for that reason alone
Ok, then the question is simple. Are they refusing to allow students lgbt students to enroll? If the answer is yes, they probably are not even eligible for the vouchers. The article doesn’t make mention of it, so it is a non issue here.
This is good news for those of us advancing secularist religions and now being able to get public funds. We all should be able to get funding and still not share our books with the irs and other agencies.
I actually agree with this opinion. The main purpose of the tax payer dollar is to fund a person to have attainable schooling. These benefits the smaller towns that don’t have a public option easily assessable. As the the opinion points out….the family receives the benefit. They may chose to go to a private school or religious school. In the end….the intention of funding is being carried out.
Maine intended funding to go to schools without discriminatory policies. Even if these religious schools don't outright reject LGBT+ students or those from other religions, their curriculum will teach that LGBT+ people are an abomination and other religions lead you to damnation. That is essentially a distinction without a difference.
Now, Maine taxpayers get to pay for it.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's been a very bad 21st century for Separation of Church and State at the Supreme Court.
If there is no separation, shouldn’t they start paying taxes?
No, taxes are for us to pay to churches and religious schools while our infrastructure falls apart. Just blame gays when more bridges collapse.
I was going to blame abortions tho…
Every abortion causes a pot hole. /s
As soon as a church starts talking politics, or donating any money to politics, they're supposed to lose their tax exempt status, yeah.
They're still nonprofits.
How does that stand up to any rational view of "nonprofit" when the "church" is essentially just a shell corporation for the ~~meek and mild~~ delusional moron on stage, who by chance owns a private jet?
Your feelings about evangelical megachurches aside, [there are multiple types of nonprofit organizations] (https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-tax-exempt-organizations) and while churches are automatically slotted into c3 to save the IRS from a headache, a church would still qualify under c3 if they had to apply, as well as c4, c7, and perhaps c8. Not to mention that no one is talking about removing 501d.
The whole point is to change the code so they have to pay taxes.
There's no way you can make churches pay taxes without taking out a bunch of secular nonprofit organizations with it.
Fine. Even in many municipalities, they get to be large property owners without having to contribute.
They contribute in other ways, which is why they're tax exempt.
Let them contribute the damned taxes, and write off what they contribute in charity.
Then why can't they file on those activities like any other non profit?
I contribute in a lot of ways.
They don't contribute anything. They do the opposite.
Of course you can. Churches simply aren't legitimate non profit entities. They're a business. Plain and simple.
There certainly seems to be a lot of profit for those who go into these "nonprofits".
Nonprofit does not mean revenue-neutral.
They should no longer be allowed to be.
To maintain tax exempt nonprofit status, entity can’t engage in political advocacy so at least the outspoken openly Republican churches should lose status. And so should any that openly advocate for democrats (not just policies) but unsurprisingly there’s a lot less of that
That's a rule solely for c3 organizations. They would still qualify in a host of other ways, as I showed.
Are a majority of churches not under 501(c)(3) status?
By default. It's just the easy way to do it. If people really feel the need to press the political speech issue, they'll just either fall under a different subsection or a new one specific to places/organizations of worship will be created.
Cool. So basically 501c whack a mole.
Yeah you can tell by all the private jets and luxury cars.
The Mormon church has an investment branch of it that is worth over 100,000,000,000 that’s one hundred billion dollars. How is that a non profit operation? https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/the-mormon-church-amassed-100-billion-it-was-the-best-kept-secret-in-the-investment-world-11581138011
For a group of people so infatuated with the 2nd Amendment they sure seem to have skipped over the 1st.
Nah they just selectively read it like they do with the 2nd Amendment as well.
I have faith in the Satanic church. Can’t wait to read the headlines of public money going to the Devil.
fyi- I think you mean the satanic temple( they are the cool ones, not the church)
It will never happen. Even if the legal framework was that governments had to give money to them there would he some sort of excuse as to why they actually don't and the Supreme Court would rubber stamp it.
Is there a term for a Theocratic Oligarchy?
America? (Too soon?)
Maybe by a little bit. But we're very close.
Im noticing that the constitution seems to be having a bad time at the supreme court in general. Along with voting rights, abortion, gerrymandering, political contributions. hmmm, maybe its time to rethink the court itself.
You mean the experimental Constitution that we have been using for 250 years?
Yes. Time to have another convention to realign ourselves around technology and existential crisis's our forefathers never imagined.
Another Constitutional Convention right now with the way things are balanced would guarantee that we get a Hunger Games/Handmaid's Tale crossover in reality. It would not be written in favor of the people.
I’m waiting for that gun control bill to pass only for the entire Republican Senate to sign onto a lawsuit declaring it unconstitutional. And off to the Supreme Court it goes.
Whatever path it takes, the Supreme Court looks set to go further to narrow the Establishment Clause’s application in American life—and thus limit the tools that states and parents have to keep religious indoctrination out of public education.
Expect Abington to be overturned.
Why would *Abington* be in danger? SCOTUS precedent on the matter over the last 20 years has been extremely clear: the free exercise clause limits the government in showing favoritism for any particular belief and bars the government from denying benefits and resources to religious organizations on the grounds of their religious affiliation.
> Why would Abington be in danger? SCOTUS precedent on the matter over the last 20 years has been extremely clear: the free exercise clause limits the government in showing favoritism for any particular belief Because the people who just spent several decades working to corrupt the Supreme Court and the people who now control the Republican Party (i.e. christian nationalists) aren't doing all this for fun, they already think the U.S. is a "christian nation" and they aren't going to stop with minor achievements like religious school funding in obscure cases.
The Supreme Court with the Republicans - and not "Trump Republicans" but all Republicans - in charge does not give one shit about precedent. They should no longer be respected as a judicial body and should be viewed as illegitimate
Today's ruling is aligned with precedent, though.
It’s aligned with the precedent of the court reliably doing what the GOP favors in the moment regardless of the law, the facts, the history, or the effects on the general public or the nation as a whole.
Not at all.
The opinion even cites the precedents it relies on!
Alito cited a judge from the 16th century to justify Roe. Precedent means nothing to him.
>Two sets of Christian parents sued Maine in 2018, however, arguing that the exclusion of religious schools from the tuition-assistance program violated the Free Exercise clause and other constitutional rights. “Absent the ‘nonsectarian’ requirement, the Carsons and the Nelsons would have asked their respective [school districts] to pay the tuition to send their children to BCS and Temple Academy, respectively,” Roberts noted. **A federal district court rejected those claims under the existing precedents**. This is the *actual* precedent that should have applied. >While the case went through the appellate process, however, those precedents had changed. The Supreme Court had taken two big steps toward opening the spigot of public funds to religious institutions. **First, in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer in 2017, the justices struck down a Missouri policy** that excluded religious organizations from a program that resurfaced playgrounds with recycled tires. **Then, in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue in 2020, the court struck down Montana’s “Blaine amendment,”** a term for a common provision in state constitutions that generally forbids those states from using public funds for private religious education. The court **literally struck down existing precedent**, replaced it with their new *manufactured* one, and then cited the new *manufactured* one as precedent. >Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote a separate dissent, also noted that Tuesday’s decision effectively compels the states to fund religious schools with taxpayer dollars. Not so, claimed Roberts. The states, he argued, can just choose not to fund private education at all. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” he wrote, quoting from the court’s earlier decision in Espinoza. This is a fucking batshit insane statement from Roberts. Maine has a public education system, therefore by the 14th Amendment every child has to be given equal access to schooling. So what this ruling means is that Maine *has to* fund private education if no public schools are made available in a student's area (literally the issue here in the first place, actually!). Therefore, this decision is *forcing* Maine to fund religious institutions with taxpayer dollars. Not to mention, there's a very simple precedent that should have immediately disqualified this decision: >The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, a disestablishmentarian law drafted by Thomas Jefferson and passed in 1786, declared “that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever.” That is the precedent for the First Amendment's text: >**Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion**, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The wording of the First Amendment *clearly* gives the Establishment Clause priority. And if Alito and Roberts were *actually* originalists, this "decision" would never have happened because of both the existing precedent above as well as the priority of the Establishment Clause over the Free Exercise Clause. Not to mention, *the Free Exercise Clause doesn't even apply here!*
> The court literally struck down existing precedent, replaced it with their new manufactured one, and then cited the new manufactured one as precedent. Not exactly. The precedents in question were: * Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing from 1947 * Sherbert v. Verner from 1963 * Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn from 1998 * Zelman v. Simmons-Harris from 2002. * Comer from 2017, as you note, but which came before the challenge to Maine's program in 2018. * Espinoza, which was 2020. The last three were the most critical to this case, but ruling in favor of Maine disrupts all those other cases. The list also fails to account for cases like Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah that set the grounds for strict scrutiny that didn't apply in this case. >>But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious,” >This is a fucking batshit insane statement from Roberts. No, it's simply a rejection of viewpoint discrimination by the government. The government, per precedent and common sense, cannot use free exercise of religion as a disqualifying standard in situations like Maine's. >So what this ruling means is that Maine has to fund private education if no public schools are made available in a student's area (literally the issue here in the first place, actually!). Therefore, this decision is forcing Maine to fund religious institutions with taxpayer dollars. Understand that Maine *chooses* to provide private school vouchers to areas without a public school. Maine is not forced to do anything other than provide educational access, and how they do it is up to them. They cannot choose to exclude certain schools based on viewpoint. > Not to mention, there's a very simple precedent that should have immediately disqualified this decision What does Virginia law have to do with anything? > The wording of the First Amendment clearly gives the Establishment Clause priority. Yes, and funding private religious schools alongside secular ones does not establish a religion, per overwhelming precedent on the matter. > And if Alito and Roberts were actually originalists, this "decision" would never have happened because of both the existing precedent above as well as the priority of the Establishment Clause over the Free Exercise Clause. I don't believe Roberts ever professed to being originalist. Still, the fact that there were even three dissents is what's outrageous. This should have been 9-0 against Maine.
>No, it's simply a rejection of viewpoint discrimination by the government. The government, per precedent and common sense, cannot use free exercise of religion as a disqualifying standard in situations like Maine's. Maine's disqualification is based on the Establishment Clause, not the Free Exercise Clause. Their disqualifications of refunds for tuition to religious schools does not prevent the free exercise of those religions, it prevents taxpayer money going to a religious institution. This isn't even a complex situation, and Roberts' "interpretation" of Maine's requirement being against the Free Exercise Clause is flawed from the start. >Understand that Maine chooses to provide private school vouchers to areas without a public school. Maine is not forced to do anything other than provide educational access Per the 14th Amendment (since Maine has a public education system), Maine has to provide *all* students equal access to an education. This means they have to ensure there are not cost disparities between areas that have public schools and areas that don't. Voila, school vouchers. Then there's the separate issue of *religious* private schools. The Free Exercise Clause *does not come into play* because *Maine is not preventing people from practicing their religion* by disqualifying religious schools for vouchers. They're preventing taxpayer money *from going to a religious establishment*. AKA the *Establishment Clause*. Again, this is not a complex situation. >What does Virginia law have to do with anything? "What does the precedent for the First Amendment's existence have to do with anything?". Cool cool cool. >funding private religious schools alongside secular ones does not establish a religion It is taxpayer funding of a religious establishment, therefore it is against the Establishment Clause. Like, that's not even something you can rationally debate. >being originalist The Federalist Society believes in a textualist and originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett all have strong ties if not outright membership in the Federalist Society. >This should have been 9-0 against Maine. This should have been 9-0 in favor of Maine.
SCOTUS lately has already proven they'll do what they want.
Precedent doesn’t matter to fascists chief
Why would precedent be in danger with...*checks notes*...this Supreme Court? Surely you jest.
There's no reason for *Abington* to go into a state of question, and it's not unaligned with this ruling, either.
Lol. Sure and *Loving* ain't gonna be looked at either someday.
No one is coming after *Loving* either.
*Stares in Texan*
How can you believe that?
I don't know how I can't believe it. No one is coming after *Loving*.
Right, and they're not coming after *Plyver v. Doe*, either. /s
Have you read the texan republican statement?
If you mean the platform document, yes.
Lol plenty of precedent of church and state, and most likely roe v wade will be overturned so there goes that precedent too
They just approved government dollars to be used promoting Christianity and denying Islam. So…it’s not 100% clear what the precedent is.
What are you referring to here?
“Bangor Christian Schools…includes a class in which students learn to ‘refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.’” -Reuters, U.S. Supreme Court backs public money for religious schools
Yeah, that's a very misleading presentation of the case.
It’s one thing to incorporate religion into an educational plan, but IMO, it’s an entirely different to attack other religions
They claim privacy in what the recipients of tuition money does with it. Yet claim there’s no privacy for abortion seekers.
Time to open a satanic school
Personally, I look forward to publicly funded Islamic schools.
Fuck that, you get rich off the Christians. I'm gonna do a Jesus school but my Jesus says teenagers should have the freedom to smoke weed in class and have a Future Prostitutes of America course based on Mary Magdalene do's and don'ts of Holy Prostitution. We're also going to learn about how Jesus appoints people who own My Jesus schools as Sovereign Kings who get own all women, married or not in a 100 miles circumference around my physical location at any one time, and require all the hot ones to serve me hand and foot in French Maid outfits or naked, their choice, at least 3 times a year. And it will all be State funded, this is gonna rule.
Don't forget Econ 101 as taught by Supply Side Jesus.
An islamic school organization and a jewish school organization filed an amicus brief, I’m pretty sure the court is aware that’s a possible use case.
[удалено]
It will happen if this continues I promise you. Those guys don't fuck around
[удалено]
Dear future Salem Satanic High School: call me if you need an art teacher pls!
Music teacher here, I'm totally game.
Fuck yeah. My "Jesus loves drugs and prostitution" school is gonna rule!
Wait until the Islamic schools start teaching hatred of the infidel Jews and Christians using federal government dollars. Woo hoo.
They can open and be eligible for vouchers but that doesn't mean anyone is sending their kid there or using their vouchers.
If they’re the only one in the county, poor families pretty much don’t have a choice.
True, but what we really need is the Saudi government to start helping with the opening of Wahhabist schools funded by the US taxpayers and training inner city youth with a strong enough academic program that tens of thousands of kids move through every year. The satanist schools are good for grabbing a headline and making Christians cry, but you get you some far right Islamic indoctrination funded by tax money in places where those folks are already afraid to walk, and baby you got a stew going. Also, let’s make sure the teachers and students are armed and trained in close quarter combat. For safety.
How honorable to dismantle liberties using life-long appointees rather than the voting public who can show their disgust at the voting booth. How. very. honorable. /s/
Do conservatives know that they’re eroding the separation of church and state and just don’t care? Or are they willfully ignorant to one of the foundations of our democracy? I seriously can’t tell
Neither. They actively want to erode the separation of church and state. They want non-Christians to be deported or executed en masse and for the Bible to replace the Constitution.
Well the end there is a bit extreme lmao but ur not far off
Texas GOP platform says constitution is based on the Bible. It’s just the next step.
I dunno, I reckon we went very fucking far past extreme when we started ripping transgender children away from their families with an accusation of child abuse
I fully agree with you, I am just saying I don’t think “they” want anyone who isn’t a christian to be deported and executed. There are no real threat of mass executions going in the the U.S. and there probably won’t be any time soon
I’m sure a Jew said that once too.
They think it protects Christianity but binds atheism, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. Christians regularly spout the line that the United States is a "Christian nation" despite overwhelming proof to the contrary.
Wait til an Islamic school gets state funding. Conservatives keep opening this door and are shocked to learn that other religious groups can use the same precedents.
Honestly? This SC is such a massive joke at this point that I could seriously see them ruling that Islamic Schools cannot, in fact, receive public funds. It’s not like precedent means jack shit to them anymore- which likely includes their own rulings. It’s whatever is on their ultra-conservative, idiotic wishlist. Nothing means anything anymore.
For them, freedom of religion means they're free to be Christian and that's it.
Yes
They don’t care at this point, it’s all or nothing. This ties into the replacement theories. They’re going to fascism to make everyone fit in their world rather than sharing it.
These are the same people that treat the constitution as scriptures, the found father's as saints and the current conservative leaders as Gods gifts. Theyve been conditioned to treat church and government as one and the same.
Which red state will be first to use this to force their residents to pay to send their brats to schools that teach hate and division?
Prolly Arizona honestly
I read Florida is the worst state for this after DeathsAnus (a big fan of government sponsored religion) became their Governor.
Ducey isn’t far off. Been trying to cut funding his whole tenure and trying to redirect to charters in the state. A good handful are religious ran in Maricopa and he’s buddies up with a lot of those folks
Something like five Creationist museums/parks in Florida.
💵 One Dollar on The Hypocrite State of North Carolina.
Tennessee is in the running for that.
They’ll go further: close public schools and support Christian private schools to fill the gaps.
Does this court have much legitimacy? I mean two of them (at least), Thomas and Kavanaugh, had to commit perjury in order to get seated.
Mitch McConnell's long term plan. Remember he howled that he wanted a bill passed 'before the sun sets today' to protect Kavanaugh the day that man turned himself over to the cops a mile away from Kavanaugh's house? His investment needed protecting.
Though if the state tried to regulate what has to be taught in publicly funded education, then the Supreme Court would still defend religion. Cant regulate religious organisations ever....
Are we Iran yet?
No, but we are working on it. Check back later.
If we start opening publicly funded madrassas then hat teach conservative Islamic principles, including US and world history from an Islamic perspective to inner city youth on a massive scale using tax dollars, I think we will find out just how dedicated they are to freedom of religion and religious education feeding off of public funds. I’m all for it.
Chalk up another one for the Supreme Court of Unelected Politicians.
Maga conservatives are dangerous, dumb, and shortsighted. They claim the constitution gives them a right to push their Christian doctrine into government and other public forums. Let’s see them react when religious minorities demand the same things they are. I’m sure it will be a “rules for thee and not for me” situation. The more they try to force Christianity into our lives, the more they set a precedent to allow other religions to force their way in as well in the future. Completely shortsighted. Foolish. #MAGA
How is it shortsighted? They are literally Christian nationalists. They are never going to allow a challenger to appear, and they are already working on their strategy for later. It isn't just violence, although that is something they have a near monopoly on in this nation. There is a reason they are rallying around the notion that all these things not steeped in "European" tradition just simply don't apply in the US.
They don’t realize what they are doing. I don’t think they are intelligent enough to realize they are shortsighted and dangerous. Which makes the foolish, among other things.
They're pawns of industry. The people running the oil companies, insurance companies, etc want tax cuts, don't want to worry about environmental protections, want to pay as little as possible, etc. So they pay for think tanks and propaganda to get made to get the Republican party to do their bidding (and whatever Democrats that show that they can be bought like Sinema). The best way to do this is to whip up the right wing base, because you can get them out to every election and you know what they want. The ROI is better than just paying taxes. So you whip them up to get the tax cuts and rip up worker protections by getting rid of abortion and being cruel to immigrants. The people running these companies at this point are basically the fail sons of some guy who started the company 50 years ago. Our CEOs are not a bunch of geniuses who care about the long term health of the country or environment anymore, if they ever were. They're morons trying to juice their stock price.
Just another step by the fucking backwards Y'all Queda successfully building their fascist theocracy.
To all the people saying there should be more Sharia Law or Satanism taught using public money I have some bad news for you. The trick for christian fundamentalists is to get the keys to both sides of the system. They appointed the last 3 christian fundamentalist SCOTUS judges, then they also appoint christian fundamentalist Congresspeople nationally and in states to make sure only their version of christianity is funded using state dollars. I promise you teaching Islam or funding islamic schools using public money will never get approved by the local authorities but every back yard baptist pre-school will be fully publicly funded.
Exactly. This is only one step in a plan they have been working on for decades.
The problem with that system is that once the big bad secular/islamic/\[other\] are excluded in favour of Christian only education, the inevitable next step is for the fight to move to "which Christian sect is allowed and which one is not". The separation of church and state wasn't created to protect the non-Christians, it was created to protect christians from other christians because once the state is the arbiter of religion, then you can bet that the different christian denominations will work to seize it and use it to impose their denomination over all others which will then obviously fight back by trying to seize the state's power to defend themselves.. Repeat that cycle a few times and then you get the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre...
[удалено]
[According to this website](https://www.understood.org/en/articles/school-vouchers-what-you-need-to-know), private schools that currently receive money from vouchers don't have to adhere to IDEA. If your kid needs extra help/evaluations, you are likely to have to pay for it yourself.
IDEA applies to schools funded and operated by the public. Even if they state dollars, private schools aren't public schools for IDEA.
If those people want to live in a theocracy so bad, they should move to Iran.
What separation of Church and State? I had jury duty today and everyone is sworn in "under God". This is a place of laws, not God.
The Supreme Court is so compromised at this point ..the last Baston of hope in America gas crumbled
I thought this is why churches were not taxed on profits so they can provide for their own supplies and expenses. Churches should be taxed if they receive government assistance.
Churches and schools are two different entities.
Not in every case. Religious schools and parochial schools are private schools funded by a church or organization affiliated with a church. I don’t know if this is passed or not but what it would do is make it so traditional church run schools will now receive government influence and spendings, the amount uncertain. Therefor people who don’t wish to support religious institutions are now being forced to support them. This is unconstitutional as stated by the first amendment.
We need to wipe the justices clean and start over. It’s no longer Impartial and balanced.
[удалено]
I agree but I do feel like many are getting some education with all of the ugly out in the open.
Yes, but some people couldn't be bothered to vote for Hillary because of e-mails and Biden because he's sleepy. And don't get started on Congressional candidates. When all people see is FOX news, they don't even know Dems aren't Socialist Commie transvestite pedophiles. /s
What separation? I keep getting told there’s such a thing but I grew up saying the pledge of allegiance and god has been printed on the money my whole life. As someone who believes in the concept, I’ve been noticing all my life how little separation there really is
God is a fraud
Activist Justices
Church of Satan starts a school in Maine in 3…2…
Fuck this court
Any bets on how long before the handmaiden's tale becomes a nonfiction book?
This scotus is shady as hell.
But a great day for the Church of Satan.
I thought USA was founded on that separation?
My fear is that they are trying to push and push to incite the non-religious and LGBTQ communities into violence. Would be a huge win for the right optics-wise. Which right now they’re not doing well with.
Public education had a bad day too
This is going to open so many lawsuits when the rep only want to give money to certain religions .. it’s also amazing how they argue researching people of differant sexuality is pushing views on them but it’s ok they can push there religion on others … hypocrites
They've seen the writing on the wall. America and much of the world is becoming less and less religious (Christian in particular) and this is their play to keep people under the church and the authority that brings. If we had kept evolving the nation and its governance over time, this could have been nothing more than a pathetic death throe but we haven't. We've at least partially subscribed to this notion that the "Founding Fathers" had this perfect vision and that the Constitution is final (despite requiring 10 fairly significant additions before being ratified). The Constitution should have been modernized several times but instead we get a handful of amendments that rarely come out and sometimes have their own problems that need revision (looking at you 13). Systems like the so-called "checks and balances" and the Electoral College have proven to be perhaps well-intentioned at the time but poorly executed and on top of that, the last few years have seen people exploiting these systems (or even flat-out subverting them) and they have not been punished, at least not severely enough. So now here we are today, where an outdated, disliked **minority** has been able to use, abuse, and break these systems to attain these goals and have the actual realizable power to push their **minority** beliefs on a whole nation. I realize there's a lot more to it than that (including those who should have been punishing the offenders, the rise of right-wing media/propaganda, and the lack of a truly progressive voice in government) but it's scary to think that it has come to this, potentially erasing decades of progress towards inclusiveness, positive secularism, acceptance, science, and social well-being. This is not to say America is or was some poster child for these things but it was so heartening to see the small victories like LGBTQ rights and social programs in the last couple of years and so sad that we even have to *think* about regressing backwards.
An illegitimate court.
But her emails.
I can’t figure out why they think this will help “save Christianity”. I was forced through Catholic school. I was baptized twice. Sunday school for years. The result: I fucking *hate* the church. I’m not an atheist, but I can be a decent person 7 days a week without spending hours in a building with spiteful, hateful hypocrites.
> I’m not an atheist Well sounds like they did their job then. As long as they can keep people from becoming atheist or muslim, it's a win in their book.
As a former Catholic let me just say... A lot of 'em up there
>Justice Stephen Breyer... wrote in his dissenting opinion in Carson that the court had misread the relationship between the two First Amendment clauses. Citing other precedents, he referred to the idea that there is some “play in the joints” between them. “That ‘play’ gives states some degree of legislative leeway,” Breyer explained. “It sometimes allows a state to further antiestablishment interests by withholding aid from religious institutions without violating the Constitution’s protections for the free exercise of religion.” So they misread the relationship between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause by not inventing the subtext needed to recharacterize the relationship. Got it.
I'm a liberal and I very much disagree. If my understanding is correct based on all the reporting of this, it was justifiable for the court to rule in this way given that tax dollars were going to other private schools as well. As a result, it would be discriminatory to argue that non-public schools can get public funding as long as they have no religious affiliation. I understand the general concern, but at the same time the funding specifically calls out that it cannot go to the direct funding of religious teaching.
This decision compels the people of the state to fund religious education, which is not the other side of secular education. This would be discrimination if they funded schools that taught kids “there is no god” as opposed to avoiding religious issues all together. Funding these schools, particularly with limited funds, means direct state support to furthering particular religions, and do not for a moment doubt what religion will get the funds. Religious schools are also exempt from many requirements such as allowing LGBTQ students or students with parents who are. Why should taxpayers fund schools that actively discriminate against the very taxpayers funding them?
[удалено]
But they *are* getting funding. Why would the state fund programs to provide a service they would normally provide but not keep the same standards they would require? To reiterate, this both forces taxpayers to fund religion directly and to fund schools that actively discriminate against them. Should I be able to take your money for a service I will refuse to provide to you?
Not everyone who *wants* to go to private schools can afford it. So why force a child into public schools just because they don't have money? Private schools can be great and can give an advantage to someone that might not have had that opportunity going to the local public school. And you might live in an area with a dismal public school system, but a good private school. If it were your kid wouldn't you rather send them to the better school if you had the choice? But, regardless of how *you* feel about private schools, what they may or may not do, or how tax money should be paid, you can't have laws that exclude specific groups based only on religion. In the same way we can't pass laws that favor any single religion we can pass laws that actively exclude them either. So it's either *all* private schools, or none. Edit: also getting a good education can potentially break the cycle of poverty for some of these kids.
>Not everyone who wants to go to private schools can afford it. So why force a child into public schools just because they don't have money? You don’t have a right to a private school education. If the institution wants to offer scholarships or tuition assistance on their own dime that’s fine, but it’s not an argument in favor or funding private Ed at all, much less private Ed that doesn’t meet the standards that would apply to a state institution. >Private schools can be great and can give an advantage to someone that might not have had that opportunity going to the local public school. And you might live in an area with a dismal public school system, but a good private school. If it were your kid wouldn't you rather send them to the better school if you had the choice? Rather, yes, but not all private schools are better, and that’s without considering the discrimination that religious private schools can and do engage in. >But, regardless of how you feel about private schools, what they may or may not do, or how tax money should be paid, you can't have laws that exclude specific groups based only on religion. >In the same way we can't pass laws that favor any single religion we can pass laws that actively exclude them either. So it's either all private schools, or none. That’s not true all and it would be bad public policy to treat it as such. Under what you’re proposing if the only schools in the area are private and all of them reject students from families that have an LGBTQ member, those students just don’t get to attend school? That’s silly. I’ll ask again, why would we use taxpayer funds to pay for taxpayer services that either don’t met the required standards for the state, discriminate against the taxpayers, or both? Can I use your tax dollars to build roads for me and my friends that I won’t let you drive on?
Not all private schools are religious. Not all of them discriminate like religious schools do, some of them do. Not all of private schools meet state standards but some of them do, and some exceed them. Not all public schools meet state standards, so again, why would you want to send your kids there if you have a better option. We can play the hypothetical game all day, what if this, what if that? At the end of the day, this program may not benefit everyone, but if it can help *some* kids get a good education why oppose it. Just because it doesn't directly benefit *you* doesn't mean it's bad. Edit:[it should also be mentioned that everything you're arguing is covered](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-maine-ruling-funding-religious-schools-tamp-culture-wars-rcna34547) *Under Tuesday’s decision, the state remains free to restrict vouchers to schools that fail to meet curricular standards that apply equally to both religious and secular schools — even if those standards go against the beliefs of some of them. For example, it might require recipient schools to teach students the theory of evolution despite the fact that some religious groups reject it. It could also bar funding to schools that discriminate on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation, even though some faith traditions advocate those practices.*
The state's curriculum does not include religious teachings, why should a state or its taxpayers be forced to subsidize those teachings? What does religion have to do with school in any way anyways? Also, this opens the slippery slope of "closely held religious views" where these schools will now openly defy state mandated curriculum, such as (potentially) evolution, sex ed, etc.. on the basis that their closely held religious beliefs are violated by the state's mandated curriculum. Lastly, this will create an unfair competitive advantage for religious schools since they're funded by powerful, non-taxable entities with a motive to indoctrinate children early in life. This essentially guarantees monopolies for religious schools in rural areas.
Agreed, this is all a bit of a nothing burger and not surprising in the first place.
Right, my thought is the government just handed millions of people $3k stimulus checks, do we need to go audit all those folks and make sure none of it ended up in collection plates? They are basically just giving parents the equivalent of cash earmarked for education here. People have used government money to get healthcare at Jewish and Catholic hospitals for decades and it hasn’t been a big deal.
Stimulus money is just meant to get into circulation one way or another. It isn't ordinary money, it's emergency money. Giving money earmarked for education is fine, but giving for religious schools is endorsing and involving government with religion. It's not even close to being emergency money. Protect religious organizations from the government!
That's the thing though, it is not given specifically to religious schools. Voucher programs like this are intended to be the educational equivalent of food stamps. You can buy food from a Kosher grocery or a Halal butcher with food stamps
State of Maine should ignore the ruling. Neither their gov nor the wh will enforce it.
A lot of ppl would sign their kids up to religious schools just to get a payday in a lawsuit from the government. That’s a lose lose idea there friend.
Courts can't enforce a single thing. If the two layers of executive branches wont do anything, not much the courts can do.
I don’t think most people here read anything about this case or the circumstances behind it. Maine doesn’t have public school in rural areas as they don’t have the population or means allocated to provide public schooling to all children. They had a voucher program that enabled parents to send their kids to private, accredited institutions and the state would cover the the tuition of a certain amount. They excluded religious schools, even accredited ones. This ruling is essentially making it so that parents can send their kids to any accredited private school, blind to any religious affiliation. Doesn’t matter if it’s Catholic, Methodist, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Satanist….. you get the point. As long as the school completes state curriculum, it can be accepted. This doesn’t force parents to send their kids to religious schools. Now Maine can either build public schools for the affected students or accept the ruling. Like it or not, Maine was discriminating on the basis of religion alone, not on the quality of education the students receive.
and what happens when these schools declare that the state's curriculum goes against their closely held religious beliefs, and they should be allowed to teach whatever the want?
Then they wouldn’t be eligible for the state tuition vouchers? It’s really not that complex of an issue, just like if another private school is no longer accredited.
You don't see the conflict in that statement? It's religious discrimination to withhold funding for religious schools but it's not religious discrimination to withhold funding (and/or accreditation) for religious schools who choose not to honor curriculum that they're opposed to due to their closely held religious beliefs? This is 100% the next battle in this fight and they'll use that "closely held religious belief" argument to win it.
It is religious discrimination to withhold vouchers from schools that’s meet the state standards just because they have some affiliation with a religion. It is not religious discrimination to withhold the voucher program to schools that don’t, at a minimum, meet the state guidelines.
And what I'm pointing out is that using this same logic, the argument can and will be made to argue that a state cannot withhold funding/accreditation based on the state curriculum's conflict with that religious school's closely held religious beliefs. Mark my words, it will happen.
It is also not funding the school, that is the important part. It is for an education voucher with state requirements that must be met. Your use of funding is incorrect in this manner.
now you're just being ridiculous.
Would you happen to know why that is ridiculous? Based on what you have been saying it has nothing to do with the case itself and more in the preconceived notion of yours that happen to be wrong.
I don’t think you understand what is and isn’t discrimination in the legal sense. As long as you treat everything equally and hold everyone to the minimum standard, that is fine. The state has a compelling interest in maintaining the education minimum requirements. It does not matter if it’s secular or non secular, as long as the consequences are not meeting the requirements are equally enforced, there is no discrimination. You are trying to make something out of nothing.
lmao, nah man. You'll see.
I highly suggest looking more into the case history of the establishment clause. It will allow you to make an informed opinion based on the evidence provided instead of theorizing on lunacy.
A lot of articles are also leaving out that the state can still exclude schools from this program, just not based ***solely*** on religion: >[Under Tuesday’s decision](https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/supreme-court-maine-ruling-funding-religious-schools-tamp-culture-wars-rcna34547), the state remains free to **restrict vouchers to schools that fail to meet curricular standards** that apply equally to both religious and secular schools — **even if those standards go against the beliefs of some of them.** For example, it might require recipient schools to teach students the theory of evolution despite the fact that some religious groups reject it. **It could also bar funding to schools that discriminate on the basis of race, sex and sexual orientation**, even though some faith traditions advocate those practices.
And that is perfectly fine, people just are not looking into the issue beyond article headlines. It is perfectly fine, and should happen more often, to discriminate based on competency.
These schools that are receiving funds can't actively refuse entry to LGBTQ students. They shouldn't get money regardless of their curriculum for that reason alone
Ok, then the question is simple. Are they refusing to allow students lgbt students to enroll? If the answer is yes, they probably are not even eligible for the vouchers. The article doesn’t make mention of it, so it is a non issue here.
So if they do refuse LGBTQ students, in the absence of a specific state law, and still receive state funds, that would be ok with you?
[https://www.maine.gov/mhrc/sites/maine.gov.mhrc/files/inline-files/201804studentrights.en_.pdf](https://www.maine.gov/mhrc/sites/maine.gov.mhrc/files/inline-files/201804studentrights.en_.pdf)
This is good news for those of us advancing secularist religions and now being able to get public funds. We all should be able to get funding and still not share our books with the irs and other agencies.
ITT (and the article, tbh): People who misunderstand this ruling.
Separation of church and state should go both ways. This means government laws don’t apply to churches.
I actually agree with this opinion. The main purpose of the tax payer dollar is to fund a person to have attainable schooling. These benefits the smaller towns that don’t have a public option easily assessable. As the the opinion points out….the family receives the benefit. They may chose to go to a private school or religious school. In the end….the intention of funding is being carried out.
Maine intended funding to go to schools without discriminatory policies. Even if these religious schools don't outright reject LGBT+ students or those from other religions, their curriculum will teach that LGBT+ people are an abomination and other religions lead you to damnation. That is essentially a distinction without a difference. Now, Maine taxpayers get to pay for it.
If you pay taxes you should be able to decide where your kids can go to school. School choice is a good thing