Utopia Talk - Politics - USSC sides with Religious schools

Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Apr 25 22:47:31 2024

Utopia Talk / Politics / USSC sides with Religious schools

patom
Member Wed Jun 22 05:37:19
http://www...ion-role-in-public-joam40zk0w/

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 06:12:25
Yeah, just meand religious schools cant be excluded from voucher programs just for beinf religious.

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 14:53:43
I Breyer's dissent worthy of note (I wish they'd have plaintext in addition to PDF on SCOTUS website):

"
We have previously found, as the majority points out,
that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow
to religious organizations through the independent choices
of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” Ante, at 10 (citing Zelman, 536 U. S., at 652–
653). We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent
with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious
schools through a general public funding program if the
“government aid . . . reach[es] religious institutions only by
way of the deliberate choices of . . . individual [aid] recipients.” Id., at 652.

But the key word is “may.” We have never previously
held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must
(not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as
part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision
of free statewide public school education.

What happens once “may” becomes “must”? Does that
transformation mean that a school district that pays for
public schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who
wish to send their children to religious schools? Does it
mean that school districts that give vouchers for use at
charter schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who
wish to give their children a religious education? What
other social benefits are there the State’s provision of which
means—under the majority’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause—that the State must pay parents for the religious equivalent of the secular benefit provided? The concept of “play in the joints” means that courts need not, and
should not, answer with “must” these questions that can
more appropriately be answered with “may.”
"

The "play in the joints" (they talk about this "play in the joints" a shit ton, the majority and all dissenting opinions) is surrounding:

"Congress (interpreted to apply to state legislators as well post US Civil War) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (ie, can't create a state religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (also can't go banning religions)" and how that at times (like now) would appear a contradiction.

Here's Sotomayor's dissent, a snip:

"
What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that
the Court was “lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation
of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.” [...] Today, the Court leads
us to a place where separation of church and state becomes
a constitutional violation. If a State cannot offer subsidies
to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the
support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for
where this Court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.
"

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 14:56:13
I will say, consistently, on both sides of any given issue, the justices themselves present better arguments, more cogently, etc, etc, than anything I'll read or hear, anywhere else, on whatever the subject in question is.

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 14:57:54
Though I'm sure it helps that just prior to penning those opinions and dissents, generally speaking they just had the arguments spoon fed to them from some of the best lawyers in the country.

patom
Member Wed Jun 22 15:15:37
I can hear the uproar as soon as Muslims start demanding funding for their religious schools.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 15:22:54
Patom, A Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case.

This is a false narrative that many on themleft have been pushing online.

"Just wait until Muslims and Jews want secular schools, the right will have a fit"

When, that's not really the case.

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 15:35:25
"
Patom, A Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case.
"

Did Fox News tell you that?

Bangor Christian School, via Bangor Baptist Church

and

Temple Academy, via Centerpoint Community Church

Per the majority ruling.

Which one of these is "Muslim," as defined by you and/or Fox News?

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 15:36:01
Please be very specific in your definition of "Muslim."

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 15:39:30
I see alot of the left claiming this is a states rights issue and the right/ libertarians are going against their normal support of SRs.

But it ultimately puts more power in parents. Some have called this a federal handout, but it's our tax money.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 15:43:10
Ep, I heard it here.

http://youtu.be/wt6SwI84iQs

I'll check into the specifics, but even Brihanna Joy Gray seemed to acknowledge an Islamic school was also listed.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 15:47:09
Garnett signed an amicus brief in the Maine case submitted by the Religious Liberty Initiative of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of elementary and secondary schools from three faith traditions -- Catholic (Partnership for Inner-City Education), Islamic (Council of Islamic Schools in North America) and Jewish (National Council of Young Israel).

So not an individual school but a group, Jewish as well.

http://www...us-schools-can-get-tuition-aid

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 16:05:29
So when you say "a Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case," what you *actually* mean is "no one directly involved in the case had any Islamic affiliation at all." Got it.

"even Brihanna Joy Gray seemed to acknowledge an Islamic school was also listed."

I have no idea who that is, nor do I know what you mean by "listed," the actual court opinion and dissents are quite easy to find, and the justices refer only to a pair of explicitly Christian schools (one of the pair seems to have scrubbed Christian references from their website, presumably while waiting for this very ruling, they can un-scrub at this point).

You were upset about patom and his alleged "false narrative on the left," made specific claims in an attempt to disprove said "false narrative," and those claims are categorically and unequivocally false according to all 9 supreme court justices.

Any supreme court case is going to attract a shit ton of amicus briefs, that's just the peanut gallery. The Oakland As and SF Giants are playing baseball, and a fan in the stands expresses an opinion, that's not the same as that fan being a player on one of the teams playing the actual game, they aren't "involved," they aren't "listed" as a player, they aren't eligible to score home runs even if someone on youtube says otherwise. In other words, the fact that I've wrestled a pair of non-cooperative toddlers into diapers does not ACTUALLY make me an Olympic wrestler, and me claiming to have Olympic gold medals would be a dad joke at best.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 16:10:07
It is interesting that I can't find ANY legacy media mentioning this in stories.

The Hills rising video being an exceotion.

Several stories even mention that Christian Republicans would probably be upset if Jews or Muslims also wanted school choice vouchers.

The rot is deeper than FOX news.

http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/sct_briefs/15/

Here is the brief.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 16:15:32
So why file the brief?

There is zero evidence that at large the Republicans dont welcome Islamic schools and Jewish schools as well.

"On YouTube"

As if because its on YT it is somehow less valid? What major news outlet is NOT on YT?

The Hill is an established media outlet.

MSNBC and CNN are for old white liberals. They are failing for a reason.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 17:00:57
http://cisnausa.org/

I may have over stated their role unintentionally.For which I did then clarify.

But I think the brief is clear notice of intent for them to take use of said vouchers.

And AFAIK they already have Islamic schools in Maine and definitely through out the nation.

They still must be accredited schools to receive vouchers.

Me personally, I dont want my kids in any religous schools.Thats my preference.

My complaint would be many articles of faith that are not "religious" get taught in schools already. The pride movement stuff, CRT derivatives etc. If that's permitted to receive voucher funding why not also the teachings of Islam, Judaisim, Christianity, Buddhism etc.

Again these still must be accredited by the government. This ruling just says they can not be excluded soley for being religious.

earthpig
GTFO HOer Wed Jun 22 17:49:46
Yeah, no, lost me at "believing black humans are humans is an article of faith."

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 18:40:10
CRT and its derivatives is not the same as saying Black humans are humans.

The pushers of said ideology divide people and pit them against one another, not much different from actual white supremacy/segregation.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 19:09:52
NY public schools have spent over $200k on drag queen shows.

If that's kosher, so should allowing vouchers to accredited schools that teach about imaginary magic men innthe clouds.

http://www...g-queen-story-hour-nyc-schools

murder
Member Wed Jun 22 21:08:07

"Yeah, just meand religious schools cant be excluded from voucher programs just for beinf religious."

Yeah, that's right wing bullshit. What they are doing is forcing everyone to finance the indoctrination of children into religious cults.

murder
Member Wed Jun 22 21:13:08

Why would Republicans have a problem with Islamic schools? Islam subjugates women just like they want to.

Habebe
Member Wed Jun 22 22:11:59
"What they are doing is forcing everyone to finance the indoctrination of children"

200k+ on drag queen shows with public school money.

patom
Member Thu Jun 23 04:07:04
Habebe, I've been following this for a couple of years now. At NO time was it ever mentioned or introduced as anything other than these two "Christian" affiliated schools.

Why??

Wait till Muslims in Lewiston, with a fairly large Islamic population goes after some of the tax payers money.
You can bet that the Evangelical Christians will be pissed if any money goes to any other religion.

Habebe
Member Thu Jun 23 04:51:12
Specifically in Maine?

Id Imagine more Islamic schools would be accepting vouchers. The fact that a group representing Islamic schools filed an Amicus brief in support of the law, or rather Notre Dame Catholics in conjunction with them and a Jewish group did.

It shows they clearly intend to do so. Ive personally seen no main stream opposition to Islamic schools from anyone but Sam Adams and Liberals.

show deleted posts

patom Member	Wed Jun 22 05:37:19 http://www...ion-role-in-public-joam40zk0w/
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 06:12:25 Yeah, just meand religious schools cant be excluded from voucher programs just for beinf religious.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 14:53:43 I Breyer's dissent worthy of note (I wish they'd have plaintext in addition to PDF on SCOTUS website): " We have previously found, as the majority points out, that “a neutral benefit program in which public funds flow to religious organizations through the independent choices of private benefit recipients does not offend the Establishment Clause.” Ante, at 10 (citing Zelman, 536 U. S., at 652– 653). We have thus concluded that a State may, consistent with the Establishment Clause, provide funding to religious schools through a general public funding program if the “government aid . . . reach[es] religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of . . . individual [aid] recipients.” Id., at 652. But the key word is “may.” We have never previously held what the Court holds today, namely, that a State must (not may) use state funds to pay for religious education as part of a tuition program designed to ensure the provision of free statewide public school education. What happens once “may” becomes “must”? Does that transformation mean that a school district that pays for public schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to send their children to religious schools? Does it mean that school districts that give vouchers for use at charter schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to give their children a religious education? What other social benefits are there the State’s provision of which means—under the majority’s interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause—that the State must pay parents for the religious equivalent of the secular benefit provided? The concept of “play in the joints” means that courts need not, and should not, answer with “must” these questions that can more appropriately be answered with “may.” " The "play in the joints" (they talk about this "play in the joints" a shit ton, the majority and all dissenting opinions) is surrounding: "Congress (interpreted to apply to state legislators as well post US Civil War) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (ie, can't create a state religion), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof (also can't go banning religions)" and how that at times (like now) would appear a contradiction. Here's Sotomayor's dissent, a snip: " What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the Court was “lead[ing] us . . . to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment.” [...] Today, the Court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. If a State cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any State that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this Court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens. With growing concern for where this Court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent. "
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 14:56:13 I will say, consistently, on both sides of any given issue, the justices themselves present better arguments, more cogently, etc, etc, than anything I'll read or hear, anywhere else, on whatever the subject in question is.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 14:57:54 Though I'm sure it helps that just prior to penning those opinions and dissents, generally speaking they just had the arguments spoon fed to them from some of the best lawyers in the country.
patom Member	Wed Jun 22 15:15:37 I can hear the uproar as soon as Muslims start demanding funding for their religious schools.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 15:22:54 Patom, A Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case. This is a false narrative that many on themleft have been pushing online. "Just wait until Muslims and Jews want secular schools, the right will have a fit" When, that's not really the case.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 15:35:25 " Patom, A Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case. " Did Fox News tell you that? Bangor Christian School, via Bangor Baptist Church and Temple Academy, via Centerpoint Community Church Per the majority ruling. Which one of these is "Muslim," as defined by you and/or Fox News?
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 15:36:01 Please be very specific in your definition of "Muslim."
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 15:39:30 I see alot of the left claiming this is a states rights issue and the right/ libertarians are going against their normal support of SRs. But it ultimately puts more power in parents. Some have called this a federal handout, but it's our tax money.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 15:43:10 Ep, I heard it here. http://youtu.be/wt6SwI84iQs I'll check into the specifics, but even Brihanna Joy Gray seemed to acknowledge an Islamic school was also listed.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 15:47:09 Garnett signed an amicus brief in the Maine case submitted by the Religious Liberty Initiative of Notre Dame Law School on behalf of elementary and secondary schools from three faith traditions -- Catholic (Partnership for Inner-City Education), Islamic (Council of Islamic Schools in North America) and Jewish (National Council of Young Israel). So not an individual school but a group, Jewish as well. http://www...us-schools-can-get-tuition-aid
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 16:05:29 So when you say "a Muslim school was one of the people involved in the case," what you actually mean is "no one directly involved in the case had any Islamic affiliation at all." Got it. "even Brihanna Joy Gray seemed to acknowledge an Islamic school was also listed." I have no idea who that is, nor do I know what you mean by "listed," the actual court opinion and dissents are quite easy to find, and the justices refer only to a pair of explicitly Christian schools (one of the pair seems to have scrubbed Christian references from their website, presumably while waiting for this very ruling, they can un-scrub at this point). You were upset about patom and his alleged "false narrative on the left," made specific claims in an attempt to disprove said "false narrative," and those claims are categorically and unequivocally false according to all 9 supreme court justices. Any supreme court case is going to attract a shit ton of amicus briefs, that's just the peanut gallery. The Oakland As and SF Giants are playing baseball, and a fan in the stands expresses an opinion, that's not the same as that fan being a player on one of the teams playing the actual game, they aren't "involved," they aren't "listed" as a player, they aren't eligible to score home runs even if someone on youtube says otherwise. In other words, the fact that I've wrestled a pair of non-cooperative toddlers into diapers does not ACTUALLY make me an Olympic wrestler, and me claiming to have Olympic gold medals would be a dad joke at best.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 16:10:07 It is interesting that I can't find ANY legacy media mentioning this in stories. The Hills rising video being an exceotion. Several stories even mention that Christian Republicans would probably be upset if Jews or Muslims also wanted school choice vouchers. The rot is deeper than FOX news. http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/sct_briefs/15/ Here is the brief.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 16:15:32 So why file the brief? There is zero evidence that at large the Republicans dont welcome Islamic schools and Jewish schools as well. "On YouTube" As if because its on YT it is somehow less valid? What major news outlet is NOT on YT? The Hill is an established media outlet. MSNBC and CNN are for old white liberals. They are failing for a reason.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 17:00:57 http://cisnausa.org/ I may have over stated their role unintentionally.For which I did then clarify. But I think the brief is clear notice of intent for them to take use of said vouchers. And AFAIK they already have Islamic schools in Maine and definitely through out the nation. They still must be accredited schools to receive vouchers. Me personally, I dont want my kids in any religous schools.Thats my preference. My complaint would be many articles of faith that are not "religious" get taught in schools already. The pride movement stuff, CRT derivatives etc. If that's permitted to receive voucher funding why not also the teachings of Islam, Judaisim, Christianity, Buddhism etc. Again these still must be accredited by the government. This ruling just says they can not be excluded soley for being religious.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Jun 22 17:49:46 Yeah, no, lost me at "believing black humans are humans is an article of faith."
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 18:40:10 CRT and its derivatives is not the same as saying Black humans are humans. The pushers of said ideology divide people and pit them against one another, not much different from actual white supremacy/segregation.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 19:09:52 NY public schools have spent over $200k on drag queen shows. If that's kosher, so should allowing vouchers to accredited schools that teach about imaginary magic men innthe clouds. http://www...g-queen-story-hour-nyc-schools
murder Member	Wed Jun 22 21:08:07 "Yeah, just meand religious schools cant be excluded from voucher programs just for beinf religious." Yeah, that's right wing bullshit. What they are doing is forcing everyone to finance the indoctrination of children into religious cults.
murder Member	Wed Jun 22 21:13:08 Why would Republicans have a problem with Islamic schools? Islam subjugates women just like they want to.
Habebe Member	Wed Jun 22 22:11:59 "What they are doing is forcing everyone to finance the indoctrination of children" 200k+ on drag queen shows with public school money.
patom Member	Thu Jun 23 04:07:04 Habebe, I've been following this for a couple of years now. At NO time was it ever mentioned or introduced as anything other than these two "Christian" affiliated schools. Why?? Wait till Muslims in Lewiston, with a fairly large Islamic population goes after some of the tax payers money. You can bet that the Evangelical Christians will be pissed if any money goes to any other religion.
Habebe Member	Thu Jun 23 04:51:12 Specifically in Maine? Id Imagine more Islamic schools would be accepting vouchers. The fact that a group representing Islamic schools filed an Amicus brief in support of the law, or rather Notre Dame Catholics in conjunction with them and a Jewish group did. It shows they clearly intend to do so. Ive personally seen no main stream opposition to Islamic schools from anyone but Sam Adams and Liberals.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: