Menu
Scotus says program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools.
Replies to: Scotus says program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools.
Thread Level: 2
I guess the seperation of Church and State is dead.
If so, I'll leave.
Thread Level: 3
Nonsense. You just misunderstand what that phrase means.
This decision basically changes nothing. It just stops a state from discriminating against religions.
If you are getting hung up on the words "separation of Church and State," please note that those words are not in the Constitution. That phrase (a version of which was penned by Jefferson in private correspondence) is just used to summarize the First Amendment's religion provisions, which are actually as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
Separation means the State cannot show favoritism for, or discriminate against, religion. In this case, it was showing discriminating against religion by providing a benefit only to secular school students and denying that benefit to religious school students.
And, where would you go, by the way? Many countries have no seperation of church and state.
Thread Level: 4
Nonsense - they just redefined the separation closing the a gap by allowing
tax dollars to supplement a religious endeavor. This will mean all religions will now be able to use tax dollars, dollars in the system they don't pay into to further
a belief. There was no discrimination. This decision was purely politics confusing religion and Statehood.
Thread Level: 5
Incorrect.
(no message)
Thread Level: 2
Finally, i'm looking forward to some of my taxes going to schools my kids attend
(no message)
Thread Level: 3
This is a real kick in the nuts to the pro abortion crowd. Wonder what BLM thinks?Are private
schools safe from their violence?
Thread Level: 4
BLM founders are self proclaimed trained Marxists,they will not stop until they are stopped
(no message)
Thread Level: 2
What do you think about that?
(no message)
Thread Level: 3
Fully support Mr. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion.
(no message)
This message has been edited 1 time(s).
Thread Level: 4
I haven't read Mr. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion yet.
But, the concept of government benefits being denied to a school based on it being affiliated with religion seems like an obvious violation of the FIrst Amendment as interpreted by SCOTUS in the past...I thought that was already settled law.
Does it make you nervous supporting a "conservative" decision?
I take it you like Roberts now. Did you like him when he was appointed?
This message has been edited 2 time(s).
Thread Level: 5
No, and yes.
(no message)