(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.

And you are right about this... I do know the original intent.

That's why from the moment of the ratification of the Constitution to the SCOTUS decision in the 1960s public life including elected offices as well as schools included Christian religious activities.

It wasn't until 1947 in Everson v. Board of Education that the SCOTUS even brought up the phrase "separation of church and state".

Go ahead and find documentation from the Founders that say we should not allow religious beliefs to influence public institutions.

I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

(06-21-2022 09:04 PM)banker Wrote:  I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

yup, this isn't even about a "separation of church and state".

(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.

That trap worked well.

(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.

Nice false equivalency there bud! Stop deflecting. Now, go do as suggested and find that phrase anywhere in any of our founding documents. Hint: You can't.

So, admit you were wrong and move on, be a man.

(06-21-2022 09:04 PM)banker Wrote:  I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

So you would agree with the court ruling under the exact same fact pattern that state funding should go to send kids to a private school affiliated with the church of Satan or an Islamic school? Do you believe those 6 justices would have voted the exact same way? I have suspicions regarding how those votes would go.

(06-22-2022 06:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 09:04 PM)banker Wrote:  I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

So you would agree with the court ruling under the exact same fact pattern that state funding should go to send kids to a private school affiliated with the church of Satan or an Islamic school? Do you believe those 6 justices would have voted the exact same way? I have suspicions regarding how those votes would go.

I would. The ruling is correct.

(06-22-2022 06:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 09:04 PM)banker Wrote:  I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

So you would agree with the court ruling under the exact same fact pattern that state funding should go to send kids to a private school affiliated with the church of Satan or an Islamic school? Do you believe those 6 justices would have voted the exact same way? I have suspicions regarding how those votes would go.

Does a satanic school even exist? I seriously doubt that the justices could care less if a school has a Christian, Muslim or Jewish affiliation.

(06-22-2022 08:01 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-22-2022 06:49 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote:  

(06-21-2022 09:04 PM)banker Wrote:  I don’t know how any SC Justice could justify a dissenting opinion on the topic. If a state can offer a parent money and allow them to chose a school, to eliminate a choice based on religion is a discriminatory act, pure and simple. Religion is a protected class under civil rights law. If the Maine law said parents can send their kids to any school, except those that are specifically designed for students of color, would they still dissent? What if it prohibited all male or all female schools, would they still dissent?

So you would agree with the court ruling under the exact same fact pattern that state funding should go to send kids to a private school affiliated with the church of Satan or an Islamic school? Do you believe those 6 justices would have voted the exact same way? I have suspicions regarding how those votes would go.

I would. The ruling is correct.

Exactly.

Even Iran allows government funding for Christian schools. The USA should be more tolerant of opposing viewpoints than Iran.