|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 21, 2022 7:12:04 GMT -8
This has major implications and continues to illustrate an ideological hijacking by the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 21, 2022 22:27:16 GMT -8
This has major implications and continues to illustrate an ideological hijacking by the right. No actually I completely agree with that ruling. Religious private K-12 schools should stand on the same equal footing as non-religious private K-12 schools. There's no ideological hijacking here. There is a desire for equality of choice in private schooling. |
|
|
|
Post by mayham81 on Jun 22, 2022 7:35:50 GMT -8
Yes, it's wonderful that institutions with built-in discriminatory hiring practices and pushing religion in their teaching are now funded by the government.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 22, 2022 7:36:11 GMT -8
This has major implications and continues to illustrate an ideological hijacking by the right. No actually I completely agree with that ruling. Religious private K-12 schools should stand on the same equal footing as non-religious private K-12 schools. There's no ideological hijacking here. There is a desire for equality of choice in private schooling. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 22, 2022 10:43:50 GMT -8
No actually I completely agree with that ruling. Religious private K-12 schools should stand on the same equal footing as non-religious private K-12 schools. There's no ideological hijacking here. There is a desire for equality of choice in private schooling. We have a separation of church and state for a reason. Correct - that's known as the establishment clause. Maine is not establishing any religion if they provide equal funding to Christian private schools, Jewish private schools, Islamic private schools, and non-sectarian private schools. The second clause of the first amendment states that no law shall be made that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. By funding non-sectarian private schools but not funding religious private schools, that prohibits the free exercise of a religion because it's forcing parents to enroll their students in non-religious private schools (or pay more in private school tuition). Effectually, it locks out a lot of students from attending the private school of their religious choice in Maine. |
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Jun 22, 2022 10:52:04 GMT -8
I honestly thought the need for the Church of Satan, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster/Pastafarianism, etc. was over. But alas, here we are - hopefully there are gonna be some badass kids getting government money to learn the virtues of the FSM.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 22, 2022 11:35:45 GMT -8
We have a separation of church and state for a reason. Correct - that's known as the establishment clause. Maine is not establishing any religion if they provide equal funding to Christian private schools, Jewish private schools, Islamic private schools, and non-sectarian private schools. The second clause of the first amendment states that no law shall be made that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. By funding non-sectarian private schools but not funding religious private schools, that prohibits the free exercise of a religion because it's forcing parents to enroll their students in non-religious private schools (or pay more in private school tuition). Effectually, it locks out a lot of students from attending the private school of their religious choice in Maine. I understand your take, but don't agree with it. The court is heading further and further to the right and the results will be less than favorable for those who believe in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 22, 2022 14:05:41 GMT -8
Correct - that's known as the establishment clause. Maine is not establishing any religion if they provide equal funding to Christian private schools, Jewish private schools, Islamic private schools, and non-sectarian private schools. The second clause of the first amendment states that no law shall be made that prohibits the free exercise of a religion. By funding non-sectarian private schools but not funding religious private schools, that prohibits the free exercise of a religion because it's forcing parents to enroll their students in non-religious private schools (or pay more in private school tuition). Effectually, it locks out a lot of students from attending the private school of their religious choice in Maine. I understand your take, but don't agree with it. The court is heading further and further to the right and the results will be less than favorable for those who believe in the Constitution. I don't see this judicial ruling as conservative. I see the opposite. It's very liberal in nature. lib·er·al·ism 1. willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. It's liberal to say "You know what, I don't agree with the teaching of religion in schools, but I believe in people's freedom of choice enough to let them choose - and to give equal state funding to all private schools." The whole notion of liberalism being an idea or policy of Democrats at this point is laughable. Either side will invoke the philosophies that suits their constituents the best. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 23, 2022 9:48:17 GMT -8
I understand your take, but don't agree with it. The court is heading further and further to the right and the results will be less than favorable for those who believe in the Constitution. I don't see this judicial ruling as conservative. I see the opposite. It's very liberal in nature. lib·er·al·ism 1. willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. It's liberal to say "You know what, I don't agree with the teaching of religion in schools, but I believe in people's freedom of choice enough to let them choose - and to give equal state funding to all private schools." The whole notion of liberalism being an idea or policy of Democrats at this point is laughable. Either side will invoke the philosophies that suits their constituents the best. Definitely not a liberal ruling....at all. It's a pseduo destruction of church/state separation and infiltrating religion into schools. Today, the Supreme Court guts the Miranda rights process by ruling that police officers may not be sued for civil damages if they fail to disclose Miranda rights to suspects. Who needs due process? If you're keeping score at home - Abortion rights? Nope. Unregulated guns? (Another decision handed down today) - Yep. Due process? Nope. Religion in schools? Yep. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 24, 2022 7:46:46 GMT -8
In the course of three days, society and precedent has been completely overhauled by a kangaroo court.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 24, 2022 15:53:49 GMT -8
"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me."
|
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 24, 2022 17:20:15 GMT -8
I don't see this judicial ruling as conservative. I see the opposite. It's very liberal in nature. lib·er·al·ism 1. willingness to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; openness to new ideas. 2. a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise. It's liberal to say "You know what, I don't agree with the teaching of religion in schools, but I believe in people's freedom of choice enough to let them choose - and to give equal state funding to all private schools." The whole notion of liberalism being an idea or policy of Democrats at this point is laughable. Either side will invoke the philosophies that suits their constituents the best. Definitely not a liberal ruling....at all. It's a pseduo destruction of church/state separation and infiltrating religion into schools. Today, the Supreme Court guts the Miranda rights process by ruling that police officers may not be sued for civil damages if they fail to disclose Miranda rights to suspects. Who needs due process? If you're keeping score at home - Abortion rights? Nope. Unregulated guns? (Another decision handed down today) - Yep. Due process? Nope. Religion in schools? Yep. What church/state separation is being destroyed? Parents can choose what private school they want to take their kid to, they can choose if the private school is sectarian or not, they can choose if it's a Christian, Jewish or Muslim private school, and they can also choose to send their child to a public school instead of a private school. There are parents who want their kids to go to a religious private school. Nothing is being forced on anybody. Unless you are going to make the jump that the parents are forcing it on the children.. but again doesn't that fall out of the state's purview, decisions that parents make for their children? And comparing this to Roe v Wade is ridiculous and a false equivalency. My point was that allowing freedom of choice in schooling is a liberal idea philosophically. Obviously it's "conservative justices" that are supporting it (ie. Republicans). |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 24, 2022 19:50:57 GMT -8
Definitely not a liberal ruling....at all. It's a pseduo destruction of church/state separation and infiltrating religion into schools. Today, the Supreme Court guts the Miranda rights process by ruling that police officers may not be sued for civil damages if they fail to disclose Miranda rights to suspects. Who needs due process? If you're keeping score at home - Abortion rights? Nope. Unregulated guns? (Another decision handed down today) - Yep. Due process? Nope. Religion in schools? Yep. What church/state separation is being destroyed? Parents can choose what private school they want to take their kid to, they can choose if the private school is sectarian or not, they can choose if it's a Christian, Jewish or Muslim private school, and they can also choose to send their child to a public school instead of a private school. There are parents who want their kids to go to a religious private school. Nothing is being forced on anybody. Unless you are going to make the jump that the parents are forcing it on the children.. but again doesn't that fall out of the state's purview, decisions that parents make for their children? And comparing this to Roe v Wade is ridiculous and a false equivalency. My point was that allowing freedom of choice in schooling is a liberal idea philosophically. Obviously it's "conservative justices" that are supporting it (ie. Republicans). Not comparing it *to* Roe v. Wade, it's an extension of the new kangaroo court's ideological shift. Taxpayer dollars should not go to funding religious education. It's now unconstitutional NOT to do that. We have decades (or centuries?) of historical precedent. This is just another decision that the court will render in a series of them that will restructure virtually everything. They'll roll back same-sex rights soon enough. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Jun 24, 2022 20:17:07 GMT -8
Gun rights expanded.
Women's rights contracted.
So, make sure those kids are born, but once they're born they're on their own - and if they become target practice for some nutjob with a gun, well, Thoughts and Prayers.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 24, 2022 20:21:13 GMT -8
Gun rights expanded. Women's rights contracted. So, make sure those kids are born, but once they're born they're on their own - and if they become target practice for some nutjob with a gun, well, Thoughts and Prayers. It's much worse than that, unfortunately. Just the tip of the iceberg. Amy Coney Barrett was installed for one reason, and you're seeing it now. |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 24, 2022 23:05:59 GMT -8
What church/state separation is being destroyed? Parents can choose what private school they want to take their kid to, they can choose if the private school is sectarian or not, they can choose if it's a Christian, Jewish or Muslim private school, and they can also choose to send their child to a public school instead of a private school. There are parents who want their kids to go to a religious private school. Nothing is being forced on anybody. Unless you are going to make the jump that the parents are forcing it on the children.. but again doesn't that fall out of the state's purview, decisions that parents make for their children? And comparing this to Roe v Wade is ridiculous and a false equivalency. My point was that allowing freedom of choice in schooling is a liberal idea philosophically. Obviously it's "conservative justices" that are supporting it (ie. Republicans). Not comparing it *to* Roe v. Wade, it's an extension of the new kangaroo court's ideological shift. Taxpayer dollars should not go to funding religious education. It's now unconstitutional NOT to do that. We have decades (or centuries?) of historical precedent. This is just another decision that the court will render in a series of them that will restructure virtually everything. They'll roll back same-sex rights soon enough. Yeah except the religious component of private schools is what, 10% of the curriculum... at most? At least 90% is the same education that you would find at any other school. So the idea that taxpayer dollars are funding religion isn't grounded in reality, especially when you consider that most religious private schools cost more then the state tuition stipend per student. What about when people go to college at USD, or Saint Mary's, or basically any of the WCC basketball schools? So you're saying the federal government shouldn't give students grant money that attend those schools, and they shouldn't be able to get federal loans either?? |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Jun 24, 2022 23:18:37 GMT -8
What church/state separation is being destroyed? Parents can choose what private school they want to take their kid to, they can choose if the private school is sectarian or not, they can choose if it's a Christian, Jewish or Muslim private school, and they can also choose to send their child to a public school instead of a private school. There are parents who want their kids to go to a religious private school. Nothing is being forced on anybody. Unless you are going to make the jump that the parents are forcing it on the children.. but again doesn't that fall out of the state's purview, decisions that parents make for their children? And comparing this to Roe v Wade is ridiculous and a false equivalency. My point was that allowing freedom of choice in schooling is a liberal idea philosophically. Obviously it's "conservative justices" that are supporting it (ie. Republicans). Not comparing it *to* Roe v. Wade, it's an extension of the new kangaroo court's ideological shift. Taxpayer dollars should not go to funding religious education. It's now unconstitutional NOT to do that. We have decades (or centuries?) of historical precedent. This is just another decision that the court will render in a series of them that will restructure virtually everything. They'll roll back same-sex rights soon enough. Perhaps they will do that to same-sex rights. It will likely be short-lived, as will the rollback of Roe v. Wade. I would bet that the process by which Supreme Court justices are elected, as well as the number of Supreme Court justices on the bench, will change within the next year. Remember, Democrats are completely in control of both so long as every Democrat + Harris sign off on it. Democrats can change the Senate rules to get rid of the filibuster. Biden can change the number of Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them. Neither is a part of the Constitution. I mean, you really don't think that Democrats will stand by idly when they control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and that much Supreme Court case law has been overturned by a court that was rigged by a Republican Senate who wouldn't approve Obama's nomination? If Democrats don't at least try to take those steps, they will end up looking rather pathetic... |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Jun 25, 2022 0:10:01 GMT -8
This has major implications and continues to illustrate an ideological hijacking by the right. If it is ok with a Gov benefit given to someone (like the GI Bill for education, for example), the individual gets funds from the Gov and they then pay either a secular state run school or a religious and/or a private school for tuition. No one is harmed. No Government coercion. Everyone happy. Note that private non religious schools have their own admission policies and they discriminate all day long with racial quotas, racial based scholarships, merit determination (~grades, application narratives, financial need, etc.). Indian Tribes limit membership by calculating blood fractions (that is as racist as it gets), and they receive Gov funding without issue. Gov funding private institutions that give benefit to its citizens is a no brainer. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 25, 2022 8:04:38 GMT -8
Not comparing it *to* Roe v. Wade, it's an extension of the new kangaroo court's ideological shift. Taxpayer dollars should not go to funding religious education. It's now unconstitutional NOT to do that. We have decades (or centuries?) of historical precedent. This is just another decision that the court will render in a series of them that will restructure virtually everything. They'll roll back same-sex rights soon enough. Perhaps they will do that to same-sex rights. It will likely be short-lived, as will the rollback of Roe v. Wade. I would bet that the process by which Supreme Court justices are elected, as well as the number of Supreme Court justices on the bench, will change within the next year. Remember, Democrats are completely in control of both so long as every Democrat + Harris sign off on it. Democrats can change the Senate rules to get rid of the filibuster. Biden can change the number of Supreme Court justices, and the Senate confirms them. Neither is a part of the Constitution. I mean, you really don't think that Democrats will stand by idly when they control the House, the Senate, and the White House, and that much Supreme Court case law has been overturned by a court that was rigged by a Republican Senate who wouldn't approve Obama's nomination? If Democrats don't at least try to take those steps, they will end up looking rather pathetic... Little late for that one... |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Jun 25, 2022 8:15:03 GMT -8
This has major implications and continues to illustrate an ideological hijacking by the right. If it is ok with a Gov benefit given to someone (like the GI Bill for education, for example), the individual gets funds from the Gov and they then pay either a secular state run school or a religious and/or a private school for tuition. No one is harmed. No Government coercion. Everyone happy. Note that private non religious schools have their own admission policies and they discriminate all day long with racial quotas, racial based scholarships, merit determination (~grades, application narratives, financial need, etc.). Indian Tribes limit membership by calculating blood fractions (that is as racist as it gets), and they receive Gov funding without issue. Gov funding private institutions that give benefit to its citizens is a no brainer. No idea what this babbling nonsense is, but we don't need a nationwide theocracy. We don't need judicial activism to destroy public education. This is FAR more serious than just overturning 200+ years of precedent. It opens the door to a very, very slippery slope and it represents just the beginning. |
|
