Supreme Court rules Maine tuition program violates First Amendment for excluding religious schools

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one week ago  •  100 comments

By:   Ronn Blitzer (Fox News)

Supreme Court rules Maine tuition program violates First Amendment for excluding religious schools
The Supreme Court ruled in the case of Carson v. Makin that Maine's tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Tuesday that a Maine tuition assistance program violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause for excluding religious schools from eligibility.

The program provides tuition assistance for students without a local public school to attend private institutions - as long as the funding is not used for religious or "sectarian" teaching.

"Maine's 'nonsectarian' requirement for its otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's opinion in the case of Carson v. Maykin. "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."

Roberts stated that with Maine providing the benefit of tuition assistance, they cannot condition those benefits in a way that "effectively penalizes the free exercise of religion."

Religious schools were allowed under the program before 1981, but then Maine adopted its "non-sectarian" requirement, citing the First Amendment. Roberts noted that this addition was made after Maine's attorney general determined that funding private religious schools would violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that a program where private citizens made the decision as to where the money was going would not violate the clause.

The Supreme Court made that same determination on Tuesday.

"[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," Roberts wrote.

A lower court ruling in Maine's favor had said that the real benefit was not tuition assistance, but the provision of the "rough equivalent of the public school education that Maine may permissible require to be secular."

The Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File)

Roberts rejected that argument, noting that "the statute does not say anything like that."

What the statute does say is that a school administrative unit that does not have its own high school "shall pay the tuition . . . at the public school or the approved private school of the parent's choice at which the student is accepted."

"The benefit is tuition at a public or private school, selected by the parent, with no suggestion that the 'private school' must somehow provide a 'public' education," Roberts wrote.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that the majority is now requiring Maine to fund religious schools, and this runs afoul of the First Amendment. Roberts said in his majority opinion that this was "wrong," because "Maine chose to allow some parents to direct state tuition payments to private schools; that decision was not 'forced upon' it."

Breyer also warned that this could lead to future problems.

"This is a situation ripe for conflict, as it forces Maine into the position of evaluating the adequacy or appropriateness of the schools' religiously inspired curriculum," Breyer wrote, adding that "Maine does not want this role," and that schools do not "want Maine in this role" either.

"By invalidating the nonsectarian requirement, the majority today subjects the State, the schools, and the people of Maine to social conflict of a kind that they, and the Religion Clauses, sought to prevent," Breyer wrote.

In a separate dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor claimed that with this case, the Supreme Court "continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."

Sotomayor pointed to other cases from recent years in which the Supreme Court had ruled that school vouchers or other state funding could go toward religious institutions, expressing "growing concern for where this Court will lead us next"


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one week ago

A real victory for minority families.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one week ago

Sure to ruffle a few feathers on our anti-religion friends here.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one week ago

Sure to ruffle a few feathers on our anti-religion friends here.

I'm about as anti-organized religion as you get, but fully agree with this.  I've always felt that religious schools, and other institutions, should be treated exactly the same as their non-religious counter parts.

The only question I would posit is if religious schools should have access to tax dollars when they are exempt from paying any taxes?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    one week ago
The only question I would posit is if religious schools should have access to tax dollars when they are exempt from paying any taxes?

As non-profit organizations, of course they should have access.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.3  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    one week ago

You do realize most public schools are tax exempt right?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.4  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one week ago

As non-profit organizations, of course they should have access.

There is a difference between non-profit and tax exempt.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Sparty On @1.1.3    one week ago
You do realize most public schools are tax exempt right?

Public schools are funded by tax dollars, are they supposed to tax themselves?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one week ago
Public schools are funded by tax dollars, are they supposed to tax themselves?

Are you asking if schools should tax themselves?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.4    one week ago
There is a difference between non-profit and tax exempt.

And?

Who claimed they were the same thing exactly?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
1.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.1    one week ago
The only question I would posit is if religious schools should have access to tax dollars when they are exempt from paying any taxes?

Not a bad question. Sorry you're taking so much heat for it. 

Not an expert on taxes but the way I see it is that most taxes for schools come from property taxes, bonds and the like. Those are paid by ordinary citizens. The way I see it, it doesn't seem fair to take taxes for schools from people but not allow them the benefit of those taxes simply because of a technicality and, in my opinion, a bad understanding of the Separations clause. 

Worse, it acts as a kind of punishment/discrimination thing promulgated by the government the way it is now. Since they don't get the benefits of school taxes they pay in and also have to pay for their children's education on their own dime, it has the effect of punishing such families for sending their kids to a religious school. 

What I was wondering was, are these reasons similar to why you don't object to religious schools being treated the same, tax wise?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.7    one week ago

Who claimed they were the same thing exactly?

Well, I was asking a question about tax exempt religious schools, and you responded with a statement about non-profits. 

So, while I am not saying you think they are the same thing, you are obviously confused about the 2.  Why else would you bring it up?  Don't you have non-profits and tax exempt businesses where you live?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    one week ago

Do you know of any non-profits that are not tax exempt?

Is My Business Tax Exempt? | Qualifications for Business (patriotsoftware.com)

Tax-exempt organizations do not have to pay federal income taxes when they buy or sell items. For tax-exempt eligibility, the organization’s purpose must not be to generate profit. The owners or founders of a tax-exempt organization cannot receive profits from the organization.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
1.1.11  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.2    one week ago

Your response makes sense but beyond that it strikes me as an an odd question, as in, if a person of faith performs services for the government should they get paid. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Sparty On  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one week ago
Public schools are funded by tax dollars, are they supposed to tax themselves?

Where to start?    

First and foremost, there is no delineation with who pays taxes that fund public schools.    All parent do ..... unless I suppose they are homeless.    

The supposition that it is somehow fair for peoples taxes to pay for someone else kids that choses public schools but not others who chose non public schools seems about as unamerican as one can get.

Second, public schools are not paying taxes.    Citizens are.    The school wouldn’t be taxing itself.    That’s just crazy talk but irrelevant just the same since it isn’t happening and I never suggested it should.

In the end the money should follow the student in all cases.    And to head off the inevitable comments of  “insert religion or belief system” my taxes should go there there for my kid.   Knock yourself out.   As long as the same minimum standards are met that are already established for the existing public and private school systems.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.13  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.10    one week ago
Do you know of any non-profits that are not tax exempt?

So now you are arguing that they are the same.  Please send your argument to this guy .

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.14  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.13    one week ago

You are the one who decided to harp on this. If you are done talking about my choice of non-profit instead of tax-exempt, I believe you have said enough.

Do you even remember in what context I was talking about it?

Or are you just drowning in innuendo?

I do take note you forgot to actually ANSWER the question posed to you.

Surprise, surprise!

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
1.1.15  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    one week ago

That’s the M.O. for many of our friends on the left.     Deflect, redirect, project but never directly and thoughtfully answer questions asked of them.

It’s weak sauce .... really weak sauce.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.16  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.14    one week ago
You are the one who decided to harp on this.

I made a statement, YOU decided to respond.

Do you even remember in what context I was talking about it?

LOL!!!  Your "context" is whatever you decide it will be, and it changes at each stage when you are proven wrong.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.16    one week ago

You are proving you are no longer worth my time.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.17    one week ago
You are proving you are no longer worth my time.

Best news all month!

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2  evilgenius    one week ago

Now it's time for states to close their tuition assistance programs and save the taxpayers some money.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2    one week ago

It may be time to close public schools and replace them with alternative choices.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one week ago

What do you proposd. Children in work houses?

Maybe poor children could mine and pick fruits.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    one week ago

There are alternatives to the failed public school system. We have magnet schools and private schools. People should have a choice.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.3  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @2.1.1    one week ago
pick fruits

Healthy diets include fruit and some grow close to the ground.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one week ago

Magnet schools ARE public schools. I guess you think the poor should stay uneducated

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one week ago
People should have a choice.

That, apparently, only applies to select things.

I have no idea why anyone would oppose school choice, especially if it meant a better education for a child.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.6  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one week ago
It may be time to close public schools...

Those alternative choices are already there. People can send their children to them now. I shouldn't have to subsidize a for profit system that with little to no accountability. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.6    one week ago

Religious schools are non-profits.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.6    one week ago
I shouldn't have to subsidize a for profit system that with little to no accountability. 

You pay for the education of children as I do. That money should follow the student, not a failed school.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.8    one week ago
That money should follow the student, not a failed school.

How do you know if the private schools are better? Especially after, as you want to, dump all the "failed" kids into that system? Then we just have to pay more for the same problem with less accountability. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.10  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one week ago
Religious schools are non-profits.

Religious schools should be a human rights abuse.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.10    one week ago
Religious schools should be a human rights abuse.

That's fucking nuts.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.12  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    one week ago
That's fucking nuts.

That's what I think when I think of using MY tax money to pay someone to go to a religious school. My ex-wife tried to get the court to make me pay more child support (way back when) for my son to go to a religious grade school. I laughed in her face. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.12    one week ago
That's what I think when I think of using MY tax money to pay someone to go to a religious school.

Two totally different things.

Your personal traumas aside, there is nothing wrong with parents wanting better educations for their kids--something many church schools do exceedingly well.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.14  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.9    one week ago

People should have the right to choose.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.15  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.4    one week ago
I guess you think the poor should stay uneducated

I guess you don't care about the poor. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
Professor Principal
2.1.16  Trout Giggles  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.15    one week ago

[deleted]

How are you going to educate the poor? Are you going to pay tuition for them at private schools? Are you willing to have your taxes raised to go towards tuition and scholarships for private schools?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
2.1.17  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one week ago

The public school system has not failed. Equitable funding for all public schools has not happened. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.18  Sean Treacy  replied to  Thomas @2.1.17    one week ago

Does funding equal results?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
2.1.19  Thomas  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.18    one week ago

Gets them closer to parity

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.20  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.18    one week ago

Shit no it doesn't.....................the local school district in which my wife works, spends $9,790.00 per student. And, they asked for and got an extra $30-40Million this year over last. Top heavy as hell. Superintendent makes like $350K a year.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
2.1.21  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.14    one week ago

That is just it. From my understanding, the communities in this case had no organized public schools. So "choice" in this case is a misnomer.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.22  evilgenius  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.13    one week ago
Your personal traumas aside, there is nothing wrong with parents wanting better educations for their kids

I never said it was, or they couldn't. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
2.1.23  evilgenius  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.14    one week ago

They already have the right to choose.

 
 
 
Sunshine
Professor Guide
2.1.24  Sunshine  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.18    one week ago
Does funding equal results?

Nope...

ForTheRecord says : The Detroit Public Schools Community District spends more per student than  all but eight  of the nation’s 100 largest school districts, or $14,259. Even with all that money, the district still generated the nation’s worst reading scores among low-income students. The Miami-Dade district spends $8,725 per student (some $5,500 less than Detroit), and children from low-income households there had the best literacy rates among large cities.

Detroit Schools Spend More, Educate Less Than Other U.S. Urban Districts – Michigan Capitol Confidential

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.1.25  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sunshine @2.1.24    one week ago

School culture matters.  All the funding in the world won’t fix a broken culture.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
2.1.26  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.11    one week ago

That’s for sure I had to turn off those types of comments.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
2.1.27  Drakkonis  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.25    one week ago
School culture matters.  All the funding in the world won’t fix a broken culture.

A good portion of the problem is exactly that. Too hard to fire bad teachers and all that. But it isn't the whole problem. There's also public schools being used for activism, single parent homes, two parent homes who don't involve themselves with the education of their own children, actively moving away from any meaningful accountability for bad behavior in school or out of it, deteriorating social values, disastrous role models, social media and probably an endless list of other things. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Lucifer Morningstar @2.1.26    one week ago
That’s for sure I had to turn off those types of comments.

I guess I should let some of the more insane comments alone and stop encouraging the crazies to make more of them.

 
 
 
Lucifer Morningstar
Professor Guide
2.1.29  Lucifer Morningstar  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    one week ago

It would be interesting to see a study to analyze how the educational system might transition to one with a higher degree of charter schools. 

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.30  CB   replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.16    one week ago

They're not. This is the same old shit from the past. I have said it for 'a thousand years': Some conservatives are no damn good (and I won't take it back) unless and until they let go of the bullshit pass. Freedom ain't freedom for all in this country, and some conservatives intend that it never be.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.1.30    one week ago
I have said it for 'a thousand years':

Huh?

Some conservatives are no damn good (and I won't take it back)

Of course you won't, you’re  no longer in grade school.

Freedom ain't freedom for all in this country,

Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose
Nothin', don't mean nothin' if it ain't free, no-no

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
2.1.32  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.31    one week ago

More tripe from the bellies of some conservatives

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.33  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @2.1.32    one week ago
More tripe from the bellies of some

Not just any tripe, go for the Menudo from 

Taqueria Vista Hermosa in South Central LA.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.34  Sparty On  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.5    one week ago

Because it may cut into the teacher unions nut.

No other reason if everyone is being honest about it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.20    one week ago
Superintendent makes like $350K a year.

Ridiculous

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
2.1.36  arkpdx  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.10    one week ago

Why?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilgenius @2    one week ago

It wouldn't  save any money.   

The same amount gets spent either way.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.2    one week ago

What the Court is beginning to say is the money follows the student wherever he/she goes.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
2.2.2  Ender  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.2.1    one week ago

So what is the plan? To just give every parent a check every year and let them decide what to do with it?

That will work out well...s/

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
2.2.3  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @2.2.2    one week ago

Ridiculous.    

Did we get a check when we sent our kids to public schools?    

No we did not.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
3  Sparty On    one week ago

Those of you with kids in public school, pay attention to the indoctrination they will be getting from teachers after this.

Watch for it .... the NEA disinformation campaign is coming, if not already started.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4  Ender    one week ago

The never ending quest to do away with public schools.

Sorry but no. Just because a religious school does not get public funding does not mean its free speech was trampled on.

What a moronic thought and decision.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4    one week ago
Just because a religious school does not get public funding does not mean its free speech was trampled on.

Just because someone makes a statement (see above) doesn't make the statement true. How about an argument supporting the statement? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.1  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1    one week ago

How in the world is their speech silenced with no government funding?

Instead of saying what I say isn't true, prove it false....

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1.2  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4.1.1    one week ago
Instead of saying what I say isn't true, prove it false....

I didn't say it wasn't true. I was saying it's just a statement without an argument. There's no reason to believe your statement is true. You may as well have typed something about soda cans and sprinkler heads being sentient. What I want to know is why you think your statement is true. You made it, you defend it. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.3  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.2    one week ago

So in other words you do not have a counter to what I said so want me to write a thesis about it...

Again, how is their free speech impeded because they did not receive government funding?

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1.4  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4.1.3    one week ago
Again, how is their free speech impeded because they did not receive government funding?

Okay, let's try it this way. In response to your question, I give the following:

Religious schools not getting public funding is a trampling of their free speech rights. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.5  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.4    one week ago

How so? What rights are trampled because they did not get public funding?

Were they not allowed to teach what they wanted? Were all their bible studies canceled? Did someone stop them from doing or saying anything?

It is idiotic to give religious schools the rights of a person. Even a person is not stripped of free speech because they did not get a government contract.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1.6  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4.1.5    one week ago
How so? What rights are trampled because they did not get public funding?

Were they not allowed to teach what they wanted? Were all their bible studies canceled? Did someone stop them from doing or saying anything?

It is idiotic to give religious schools the rights of a person. Even a person is not stripped of free speech because they did not get a government contract.

Um, why do I have to answer your questions? Isn't my statement good enough? 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.7  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.6    one week ago

You have done nothing but put your fingers in ears and say nuh uh.

You cannot answer my questions because it would go against the conservative narrative.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1.8  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4.1.7    one week ago

Actually, I've done nothing other than try to get you to understand you aren't holding yourself to your own standards. Worse, you don't seem to understand I'm not talking about the free speech issue at all. It seems to be going completely over your head that when you make an unsupported claim like:

Just because a religious school does not get public funding does not mean its free speech was trampled on.

you bear no burden of actually explaining why you believe this statement is true. But, when I make the same sort of claim without supporting arguments for it:

Religious schools not getting public funding is a trampling of their free speech rights. 

I somehow have a burden you don't feel you yourself have. What I'm wondering is how you do that? I mean, I'm completely on board with the idea that I can't make the example statement I made to illustrate the point and expect the statement to be taken seriously. After all, that was the point I was trying to make to you in my first response to you. 

So, again, how can you complain about me simply making such a statement but not giving a supporting argument for it when you yourself don't give one for yours? 

You see, my feeling is that this really isn't a free speech issue but a Separations clause issue, but because I don't know why you made the statement you did I can't really say it's not. After all, you might have a valid argument if you bothered to actually give one. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.1.9  Ender  replied to  Drakkonis @4.1.8    one week ago

The whole of my commentary, questions and all, support my position.

You are trying to just dismiss it outright as you cannot counter it.

Religious schools not getting public funding is a trampling of their free speech rights. 

You made a statement and I see zero backup to support it.

Yet earlier you said,

I didn't say it wasn't true.

So you finally just said, no, it isn't trued. Like that is some kind of grand statement that rings with truth.

I gave a valid argument that you only dismiss while trying to discredit. Sad tactics there.

Yet I have not heard once why it would not be true.

 
 
 
Drakkonis
PhD Guide
4.1.10  Drakkonis  replied to  Ender @4.1.9    one week ago

You know what? Forget I said anything. Have a good one. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4    one week ago
moronic thought and decision.

Before calling something "moronic" you should have some idea what you are talking about to avoid making a moronic statements. 

This isn't a "free speech" case and no school claimed it's "free speech was trampled on"

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.1  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2    one week ago
I didn't say it wasn't true.

What is the first amendment then?

The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.

Where in the world does it say funding is to be given to a religious organization?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
4.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @4.2.1    one week ago
hat is the first amendment then?

You should read it.  There's a clause about the free exercise of religion. 

This case has nothing to do with anyone claiming their   "free speech was trampled on" like you originally claimed

.'ld does it say funding is to be given to a religious organization?

Lol. Now you are the strictest of constructionists?  Or just when it suits you?

You should read the case and grasp the point that because of the free exercise clause  the government can't discriminate against religious organizations when giving away a generally available benefit. It can't penalize a person or organization for being religious. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.3  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.2.2    one week ago

It is not the same as a government contractor or being discriminated against.

It is a religious organization saying they should get money from a set government entity.

giving away a generally available benefit

Thus the problem Imo. This is not a generally available benefit. It is money set aside for a specific purpose.

It was decided on some basis of the first amendment.

Again, how does them not getting funding that was already set aside for public schools in any way take away their first amendment?

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
4.3  Nowhere Man  replied to  Ender @4    one week ago
The never ending quest to do away with public schools.

Nope, the quest to do away with federally controlled democrat union run public schools... Let the locals decide what their kids are going to learn or not learn, they are the ones paying for it... It worked very well in the past.... Created the most literate society the world had ever seen, until they created the department of education and they have been on a downhill path to illiteracy ever since...

That's what typically happens when government thinks they know better than anyone else...

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.3.1  Ender  replied to  Nowhere Man @4.3    one week ago
Let the locals decide what their kids are going to learn or not learn

Yeah, have a different curriculum for every child....Have some kids not learn history, have some kids only learn religious doctrine...

There are standards set. If you think early Americans were the most literate in the world....

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5  CB     one week ago
"This is a situation ripe for conflict, as it forces Maine into the position of evaluating the adequacy or appropriateness of the schools' religiously inspired curriculum," Breyer wrote, adding that "Maine does not want this role," and that schools do not "want Maine in this role" either.

I can see this 'about' to begin happening (all over again). Once again proof that conservatives don't let go of the past, but are always laboring to return to the 'good old days' of domination.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
5.1  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  CB @5    one week ago
but are always laboring to return to the 'good old days' of domination.

Domination, this case?

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  CB   replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    one week ago

No comment, comment.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @5.1    one week ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
6  charger 383    one week ago

A  major contributing factor to school problems is people having kids that did not want them, do not have ability, time, willingness or resources to properly raise their children.  Until that is addressed schools will have problems.    

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @6    one week ago

While I agree with you in concept, you are treading dangerously close to the treacherous waters of Lake Eugenics.

Not sure you can cure the problem of “human nature” without resorting to crazy, tyrannical tactics like that.

And I know you think abortion will cure much of this issue.    It won’t.    Not as long as people have kids simply to get more government assistance.  

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
6.1.1  charger 383  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    one week ago

The practice of giving more government assistance for more kids should stop. 

I would always prefer effective birth control to abortion 

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
6.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.1    one week ago
I would always prefer effective birth control to abortion 

Agreed but the folks who use birth control effectively generally aren’t the problem.   That human nature thing again .....

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
7  Right Down the Center    one week ago

Everyone ready for the Supreme Court decisions to be handed down Friday? Dust off those pussy hats and take to the street. Listen to the pundits say why this will stem the red wave in nov because this is the biggest thing on everyone's mind, other than Dec 6th of course. Listen to the cries of pack the courts from the dems that can't win the game without changing the rules. Watch the dem politicians crowding in front of the supreme court fighting for the best sound bite, hopefully without another 'release the krakan' speech. I will have a double pop corn and a double makers mark. Let the good times roll!

 
 
 
Nowhere Man
Junior Expert
7.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Right Down the Center @7    one week ago

Yep, the political theatre is warming up time to get some real good laughs, until they start burning down schools as a first amendment free speech issue cause they didn't get their way that is...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
7.1.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Nowhere Man @7.1    one week ago

Maybe kamala can be put in charge of the bail committee. She doesn't seem to be doing anything else. .....assuming they arrest anyone that is.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8  seeder  Vic Eldred    6 days ago

Happy Birthday to the most senior member on the United States Supreme Court.

FV7vYbNXgAITRY3?format=jpg&name=small

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    6 days ago

Happy BD judge Thomas.    

I’m sure you will get many, many, well wishes here on NTers.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @8.1    6 days ago

BTW, he wrote a great opinion today on the NY gun ruling. Evidently 2nd Amendment rights are just like all the other rights in the Constitution.

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.2  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.1    6 days ago

He sure did.    

A constitutional birthday present to all law abiding citizens.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.2    6 days ago

I believe he signed off with "Semper Fidelis."

 
 
 
Sparty On
Professor Principal
8.1.4  Sparty On  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.3    6 days ago

Awesome ..... gotta keep the faith in this current environment.

Oorah!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
8.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Sparty On @8.1.4    6 days ago

And in memory of Gen Patton, he slapped Elena Kagan and told the Chief Justice to get this coward away from my men!

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
9  magicschoolbusdropout    6 days ago

The program provides tuition assistance for students without a local public school to attend private institutions ......... Except for the Private Institution we say it we won't.

"School" is "School" no matter the denomination !

de·nom·i·na·tion
[dəˌnäməˈnāSH(ə)n

a name or designation, especially one serving to classify a set of things.

Would that be rightly "Labeled" (just for Liberals who love labeling) smile ...... Discrimination ?

 
 

Who is online