I thought this was a no brainer for the Court. As long as the schools meet standards and accreditations of secular schools there is no reason to exclude them based solely on faith based education.

Nice!

It's going to be very important for an America First candidate (Trump) to win 2024 followed by another America First candidate (DeSantis) to win 2028 and 2032 so we can keep the SCOTUS as well as other federal courts stocked with conservative justices.

(06-21-2022 09:46 AM)bobdizole Wrote:  I thought this was a no brainer for the Court. As long as the schools meet standards and accreditations of secular schools there is no reason to exclude them based solely on faith based education.

Agreed. Shows you how back assward Maine is that this case even made it to the SC. It's akin to saying Medicaid and Medicare can't be accepted at Religious/Faith Based hospitals.

The Left Is Really Losing It After Supreme Court Sides With Religious Schools

Quote:In a victory for religious liberty, equal opportunity, and (to a somewhat lesser extent) school choice, the Supreme Court ruled against a Maine tuition program that blocked district-funded tuition from being used at religious schools. As is usually the case where religious freedom is concerned, though, the left is having an absolute meltdown over it.

In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the nation’s highest court held in Carson v. Makin that a Maine program that allowed districts with no secondary schools to give tuition for private schools violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by barring those tuition funds from being used at religious schools.

Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Regardless of how the benefit and restriction are described, the program operates to identify and exclude otherwise eligible schools on the basis of their religious exercise.

Justice Breyer wrote a heated (and pretty pouty) dissent to this ruling, hinting at his belief in the non-existent “separation of church and state” the left likes to claim exists.

The First Amendment begins by forbidding the government from “mak[ing] [any] law respecting an establishment of religion.” It next forbids them to make any law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Court today pays almost no attention to the words in the first Clause while giving almost exclusive attention to the words in the second.

Breyer’s dissent misses the point of the majority’s opinion, though. Roberts clearly spelled it out when he wrote 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.” In other words, you are not forcing the state to endorse a particular religion when you allow people to choose any school, public or private, to attend.

Justice Sotomayor went above and beyond Breyer, losing her mind over the ruling.

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.” Trinity Lutheran, 582 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 27). 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.

Breyer and Sotomayor are joined by plenty of pundits on the left who feel the Court is now out there forcing everyone to be Christian or something. Take CNN’s legal analysts, for example.

“[T]his court is elevating the religious aspects of the First Amendment above others” is a complaint that makes little sense. Speech, press, assembly, and petition weren’t up for discussion here, and there is no indication in this ruling that the Court favors forcing states to give money to Christian schools over someone’s right to free speech. It’s an absurd take.

The Court arguing that you can’t exclude an institution from a tuition program on the basis of its religious bent seems like the bigger issue here. Forcing a state to make all options available to parents, even if those options include religious schools, seems like a no-brainer when you look at the plain text of the First Amendment. Very clearly, the First Amendment explains that the government cannot establish a single, government-mandated religion in the country, nor can it tell you what you can and can’t practice. The former isn’t being violated by today’s ruling, but the latter was upheld.

CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin, who still somehow has a job, tweeted this thought out as though it was a bad thing.

“‘Separation of church and state’ is a vanishing concept at the Supreme Court” is a good thing. Why? Because it never existed in the first place. It was a made-up inference that does not stand up to the intention of the Founders at any point. And the left, which goes out of its way to target Christianity in the public square, is apoplectic that this made-up legal platitude might be slipping away.

The Supreme Court made the right ruling in Carson v. Makin, and it’s driving progressives nuts.

I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

Twitter is full of idiots. Everybody screaming about churches and private schools not paying taxes while ignoring that no schools pay taxes.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

(06-21-2022 12:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

What a small, frightened life you must lead.

(06-21-2022 12:21 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

What a small, frightened life you must lead.

thats a prog filth line that is often used when they have no intelligent response, it is old and tired and requires no effort.

freedom won, sorry for your loss.

(06-21-2022 12:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:21 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

What a small, frightened life you must lead.

thats a prog filth line that is often used when they have no intelligent response, it is old and tired and requires no effort.

freedom won, sorry for your loss.

I stated I agreed with the court’s opinion. I only disagreed with people trying to argue there was never an intended separation of church and state. And we see your response, How Intelligent of you!!! You added so much to the conversation! You don’t understand freedom. You get freedom for YOU, but not freedom for all.

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

I think we should all be OK with enforcing the Constitution according to how the Founders wrote it along with approved amendments.

I think we also should OK with removing incorrect assesments of prior court decisions which were based on personal ideology. The "living document" perspective should be forever abandoned and "original intent" should rule the day.

Based on this, the false and manipulated implementation of "separation of church and state" philosophy would be stricken from the lexicon. We would return to the original intent where the federal government understands it has no authority to mandate a state church and it has not authority to infringe on religious liberties of individuals OR of the various states.

And just in case people don't understand the original intent of the Founders it's very simple to discover. Simply review the minutes they actually documented as they were discussing the various possible wordings of this amendment. Their comments are quite telling.

And the actual context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explains that the Baptists had no reason to worry about the elected state leaders in Connecticut choosing one denomination as the state's official denomination.


For additional understanding, see this article.

(06-21-2022 12:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:21 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

What a small, frightened life you must lead.

thats a prog filth line that is often used when they have no intelligent response, it is old and tired and requires no effort.

freedom won, sorry for your loss.

I stated I agreed with the court’s opinion. I only disagreed with people trying to argue there was never an intended separation of church and state. And we see your response, How Intelligent of you!!! You added so much to the conversation! You don’t understand freedom. You get freedom for YOU, but not freedom for all.

No one is telling people what religion to practice, if any. But if someone wants to take their tax money provided school voucher to a religious school because there is no other choice, they can. Pretty simple. Again when you get on Medicare don't go to a religious or Faith based hospital for treatment. Go to the inner city hospital.

(06-21-2022 12:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

I think we should all be OK with enforcing the Constitution according to how the Founders wrote it along with approved amendments.

I think we also should OK with removing incorrect assesments of prior court decisions which were based on personal ideology. The "living document" perspective should be forever abandoned and "original intent" should rule the day.

Based on this, the false and manipulated implementation of "separation of church and state" philosophy would be stricken from the lexicon. We would return to the original intent where the federal government understands it has no authority to mandate a state church and it has not authority to infringe on religious liberties of individuals OR of the various states.

And just in case people don't understand the original intent of the Founders it's very simple to discover. Simply review the minutes they actually documented as they were discussing the various possible wordings of this amendment. Their comments are quite telling.

And the actual context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explains that the Baptists had no reason to worry about the elected state leaders in Connecticut choosing one denomination as the state's official denomination.


For additional understanding, see this article.

“Original intent” is just a nice way of making the argument that my way is the right/only way to read/interpret/translate the document. No two people would every agree 100 percent and thus wrong.

(06-21-2022 12:44 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

I think we should all be OK with enforcing the Constitution according to how the Founders wrote it along with approved amendments.

I think we also should OK with removing incorrect assesments of prior court decisions which were based on personal ideology. The "living document" perspective should be forever abandoned and "original intent" should rule the day.

Based on this, the false and manipulated implementation of "separation of church and state" philosophy would be stricken from the lexicon. We would return to the original intent where the federal government understands it has no authority to mandate a state church and it has not authority to infringe on religious liberties of individuals OR of the various states.

And just in case people don't understand the original intent of the Founders it's very simple to discover. Simply review the minutes they actually documented as they were discussing the various possible wordings of this amendment. Their comments are quite telling.

And the actual context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explains that the Baptists had no reason to worry about the elected state leaders in Connecticut choosing one denomination as the state's official denomination.


For additional understanding, see this article.

“Original intent” is just a nice way of making the argument that my way is the right/only way to read/interpret/translate the document. No two people would every agree 100 percent and thus wrong.

Please find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any other founding document.

(06-21-2022 12:42 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:34 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:23 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:21 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:16 PM)shere khan Wrote:  nobody is gonna prevent you from sending your kids to marxist amoral lgbtq training public school.

What a small, frightened life you must lead.

thats a prog filth line that is often used when they have no intelligent response, it is old and tired and requires no effort.

freedom won, sorry for your loss.

I stated I agreed with the court’s opinion. I only disagreed with people trying to argue there was never an intended separation of church and state. And we see your response, How Intelligent of you!!! You added so much to the conversation! You don’t understand freedom. You get freedom for YOU, but not freedom for all.

No one is telling people what religion to practice, if any. But if someone wants to take their tax money provided school voucher to a religious school because there is no other choice, they can. Pretty simple. Again when you get on Medicare don't go to a religious or Faith based hospital for treatment. Go to the inner city hospital.

What part of “I agree with the court’s opinion” that religious schools should get the same consideration is not getting through. I know I am not being told what religion to practice. Or that I agree parent can choose where to send their kids to school.

In the dissent it was written that it would violate the separation of church and state. I DISAGREE with that argument. Parents are choosing.

That being side I also disagree with the argument that there never was a separation of church and state or that it should be done away with.

The court got it right. This is money that parents get and then decide where to send their kids. If you're going to argue otherwise you might as well say parents that get tax deductions for their kids can't spend their money on Christian school tuition.

(06-21-2022 12:45 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:44 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

I think we should all be OK with enforcing the Constitution according to how the Founders wrote it along with approved amendments.

I think we also should OK with removing incorrect assesments of prior court decisions which were based on personal ideology. The "living document" perspective should be forever abandoned and "original intent" should rule the day.

Based on this, the false and manipulated implementation of "separation of church and state" philosophy would be stricken from the lexicon. We would return to the original intent where the federal government understands it has no authority to mandate a state church and it has not authority to infringe on religious liberties of individuals OR of the various states.

And just in case people don't understand the original intent of the Founders it's very simple to discover. Simply review the minutes they actually documented as they were discussing the various possible wordings of this amendment. Their comments are quite telling.

And the actual context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explains that the Baptists had no reason to worry about the elected state leaders in Connecticut choosing one denomination as the state's official denomination.


For additional understanding, see this article.

“Original intent” is just a nice way of making the argument that my way is the right/only way to read/interpret/translate the document. No two people would every agree 100 percent and thus wrong.

Please find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any other founding document.

The First Amendment. Not to mention the other writings of the founding fathers. Also the deliberations had when creating the documents. You know the original intent.

And no, it is not a quote. But I don’t see “semi” or “automatic” arms in the Second Amendment either.

(06-21-2022 01:01 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:45 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  Please find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any other founding document.

The First Amendment. Not to mention the other writings of the founding fathers. Also the deliberations had when creating the documents. You know the original intent.

And no, it is not a quote. But I don’t see “semi” or “automatic” arms in the Second Amendment either.

Semi or automatic were not required since "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(06-21-2022 01:01 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:45 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:44 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:38 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 12:05 PM)Mr_XcentricK Wrote:  I agree with the decision but arguing there is no separation of churching and state is dangerous. Jesus has not taken taken the wheel, a bunch of zealots have.

I think we should all be OK with enforcing the Constitution according to how the Founders wrote it along with approved amendments.

I think we also should OK with removing incorrect assesments of prior court decisions which were based on personal ideology. The "living document" perspective should be forever abandoned and "original intent" should rule the day.

Based on this, the false and manipulated implementation of "separation of church and state" philosophy would be stricken from the lexicon. We would return to the original intent where the federal government understands it has no authority to mandate a state church and it has not authority to infringe on religious liberties of individuals OR of the various states.

And just in case people don't understand the original intent of the Founders it's very simple to discover. Simply review the minutes they actually documented as they were discussing the various possible wordings of this amendment. Their comments are quite telling.

And the actual context of Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, explains that the Baptists had no reason to worry about the elected state leaders in Connecticut choosing one denomination as the state's official denomination.


For additional understanding, see this article.

“Original intent” is just a nice way of making the argument that my way is the right/only way to read/interpret/translate the document. No two people would every agree 100 percent and thus wrong.

Please find the phrase "separation of church and state" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution or any other founding document.

The First Amendment. Not to mention the other writings of the founding fathers. Also the deliberations had when creating the documents. You know the original intent.

And no, it is not a quote. But I don’t see “semi” or “automatic” arms in the Second Amendment either.

Wrong!

Pull up the text of the Constitution.

Here, I'll do it for you. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/c...transcript

Click on the link.

Then do Ctrl-f and in the search box enter "separation" and then hit Enter.

Tell me what you find.