I can't wait to start my private but publically funded School for Satanists and Devil Worshippers

[High Plains Drifter 10976]

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/798668729/supreme-court-could-be-headed-to-a-major-unraveling-of-public-school-funding

 

In a case with potentially profound implications, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed ready to invalidate a provision of the Montana state constitution that bars aid to religious schools. A decision like that would work a sea change in constitutional law, significantly removing the longstanding high wall of separation between church and state.

The focal point of Wednesday's argument was a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a tax subsidy for both religious and nonreligious private schools. The Montana court said that the subsidy violated a state constitutional provision barring any state aid to religious schools, whether direct or indirect.

On the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday, Kendra Espinoza, a divorced mother of two, explained why she is challenging that ruling.

"We are a Christian family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

[Brisketexan 104607]

Cool, cool.  So, Just to be clear, right-wingers are a-ok with taxpayer funding of religious schools that place loyalty to their religious values above the US system of laws (I mean, that's what Christianity is -- in the world, not of the world, all that stuff).  So they'll be SUPER-cool with it when this sort of policy funds, say, a muslim madrassa in Dearborn.

[Judge Roybeanbag 11810]

3 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

Kendra Espinoza, a divorced mother of two

Our morals as a society come from the Bible

Well, who can argue with that?

[Continental Op 3934]

I feel like we're not being allowed to force Christianity on nonchristians as much as I'd like!

[NameAlreadyInUse 5106]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.  So, Just to be clear, right-wingers are a-ok with taxpayer funding of religious schools that place loyalty to their religious values above the US system of laws (I mean, that's what Christianity is -- in the world, not of the world, all that stuff).  So they'll be SUPER-cool with it when this sort of policy funds, say, a muslim madrassa in Dearborn.

Um, no, that's not ok.  We're a Christian nation, and we'll just do some mental gymnastics to wave away the rights of other religions.  Haven't you learned anything yet?  Too much scotch on the ledge.

[Mdhorn 5911]

Sure, why not?  We f'd up Citizens United, tried to bring back coal and torture, as well as permanent tax cuts for the rich.  Let's go ahead and erase the line between church and state and maybe overturn Roe vs Wade too.  Are there any other archaic ideas out there that we can bring back into society?  Maybe a modernized Spanish Inquisition?  They're working on it with the shit judges being crammed through.  Why are we insistent on moving backwards and undoing the principles that created this country?  

Edited January 23, 2020 by Mdhorn

[WhatTheBuck 28711]

Our morals as a society come from the Bible.

No they don't you stupid, ignorant dumbfuck bitch. Maybe if you'd bothered to get a decent education then you'd know that. You want to send your kids to a religious school to keep them as ignorant as you? Pay for it your goddamned self. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33843]

6 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

 

 

No they don't you stupid, ignorant dumbfuck bitch. Maybe if you'd bothered to get a decent education then you'd know that. You want to send your kids to a religious school to keep them as ignorant as you? Pay for it your goddamned self. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Where is this Whisky on the Ledge Church, pray tell. 

fight fire with fire - I'll see your fundamentalist Christian/Muslim/Jewish/Mormon . . . school and raise you with a Church of the Human alternative. I bet my church has cuter soccer moms and your fundamentalist boot camp has a bunch of whining "Karens" wanting to speak to the manager. Have fun. 

Edited January 23, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

32 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

 "Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

 

4 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

No they don't you stupid, ignorant dumbfuck bitch. Maybe if you'd bothered to get a decent education then you'd know that. You want to send your kids to a religious school to keep them as ignorant as you? Pay for it your goddamned self. 

Well, she didn't say which Bible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[yoladu 4067]

37 minutes ago, High Plains Drifter said:

https://www.npr.org/2020/01/23/798668729/supreme-court-could-be-headed-to-a-major-unraveling-of-public-school-funding

 

In a case with potentially profound implications, the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority seemed ready to invalidate a provision of the Montana state constitution that bars aid to religious schools. A decision like that would work a sea change in constitutional law, significantly removing the longstanding high wall of separation between church and state.

The focal point of Wednesday's argument was a ruling by the Montana Supreme Court that struck down a tax subsidy for both religious and nonreligious private schools. The Montana court said that the subsidy violated a state constitutional provision barring any state aid to religious schools, whether direct or indirect.

On the steps of the Supreme Court Wednesday, Kendra Espinoza, a divorced mother of two, explained why she is challenging that ruling.

"We are a Christian family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Bible. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

"We are a Muslim family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Quran. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

Imagine the freakout!

[tantric superman 4667]

7 minutes ago, yoladu said:

"We are a Muslim family and I want those values taught at school," she said. "Our morals as a society come from the Quran. I feel we are being excluded simply because we are people of religious background."

Imagine the freakout!

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

32 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

Are there any other archaic ideas out there that we can bring back into society?

Can’t believe you had to ask

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Those of you that live in New York probably have more knowledge of this than I, but I remember sometime ago way before the whole vaccine thing in the yeshivas/Jewish community there was a controversy surrounding education/school boards there. Apparently, there was a group of mostly Orthodox Jewish citizens who became politically active, ran and won places on the public school board and proceeded to cut a lot of programs in the schools. Music education, PE, etc and other things. I don't recall how it ended, but one could see how SCOTUS rules could affect public schools forever. It has been a long term plan by the fundamentalists groups IMO.

[Telegraph_it 3354]

NPR journo has reading comprehension issues. 

This case is taking up the issue where Montana created a program to fund private education and right now it is excluding religious private schools. Argument is the state should not be able to exclude funding to a private religious school because it is religious when other private schools are funded. 

Not sure how this applies or affects public schools...

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

If she wants Christianity taught to her kids, she can send them to a Christian school with her own money or get a scholarship from the school. 
the government isn’t restricting the rights of people to have faith based education. 
 

the government is, rightly IMO, not funding schools that have a religious component and saying that municipal schools cannot have such. 
 

now if educational funding was attached to the student and not the school, maybe that changes things. But that would make schools compete for students and for teachers and we can’t be having that apparently. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

5 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Those of you that live in New York probably have more knowledge of this than I, but I remember sometime ago way before the whole vaccine thing in the yeshivas/Jewish community there was a controversy surrounding education/school boards there. Apparently, there was a group of mostly Orthodox Jewish citizens who became politically active, ran and won places on the public school board and proceeded to cut a lot of programs in the schools. Music education, PE, etc and other things. I don't recall how it ended, but one could see how SCOTUS rules could affect public schools forever. It has been a long term plan by the fundamentalists groups IMO.

I know someone in Astoria dealing with this right now. 

[RPM 26227]

Maybe if the church was paying taxes they would have the right to receive tax money in support of education. The way I see it religion doesn't want to support the country, but would rather the country support their religion. 

[BrickHorn 18191]

Modern conservatives are the fucking worst.  The.  Fucking.  Worst.

[hpslugga 4044]

1 hour ago, High Plains Drifter said:

"Our morals as a society come from the Bible."

No, they don't.

Next.

[Aqua Buddha 14512]

Also, every slapdick church in some strip mall is going to start a school.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Read the article or this post and stop knee-jerking for fucks sake.

40 minutes ago, Telegraph_it said:

NPR journo has reading comprehension issues. 

This case is taking up the issue where Montana created a program to fund private education and right now it is excluding religious private schools. Argument is the state should not be able to exclude funding to a private religious school because it is religious when other private schools are funded. 

Not sure how this applies or affects public schools...

Look like a bunch of epileptics.

Pro-tip:  you have to read articles about the courts and the Supreme Court in particular because the coverage is so uniformly bad.

I usually expect better from NPR.

Also, Kendra Lopez' stupidity notwithstanding, this seems much ado about nothing.  Most states don't have such provisions in their state constitutions and haven't managed to divert all public funds to Christian schools.  Not even Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state.

Edited January 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[elfenix 34171]

29 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

If she wants Christianity taught to her kids, she can send them to a Christian school with her own money or get a scholarship from the school. 
the government isn’t restricting the rights of people to have faith based education. 
 

the government is, rightly IMO, not funding schools that have a religious component and saying that municipal schools cannot have such. 
 

now if educational funding was attached to the student and not the school, maybe that changes things. But that would make schools compete for students and for teachers and we can’t be having that apparently. 

because removing timmy from main street high school, student population 1500, doesn't decrease the costs to run the school by 1/1500th. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

18 minutes ago, RPM said:

Maybe if the church was paying taxes they would have the right to receive tax money in support of education. The way I see it religion doesn't want to support the country, but would rather the country support their religion. 

Because secular private schools are paying taxes?  Or is it public schools? 

Or are you saying that people that send their kids to religiously affiliated private schools aren't paying taxes?

[RPM 26227]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Because secular private schools are paying taxes?  Or is it public schools? 

Or are you saying that people that send their kids to religiously affiliated private schools aren't paying taxes?

The school is run by a church. Does that church pay taxes? Does that church want tax money to run a school? Pretty simple math there.

[atomheartbevo 89429]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Cool, cool.  So, Just to be clear, right-wingers are a-ok with taxpayer funding of religious schools that place loyalty to their religious values above the US system of laws (I mean, that's what Christianity is -- in the world, not of the world, all that stuff).  So they'll be SUPER-cool with it when this sort of policy funds, say, a muslim madrassa in Dearborn.

We are in Texas, where Catholics are the largest group.  Abbott is a Catholic, but I'm sure Dannie Goeb and all the other Republican evangelical types will be cool with dumping a bunch of taxpayer money into Catholic schools.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

We are in Texas, where Catholics are the largest group.  Abbott is a Catholic, but I'm sure Dannie Goeb and all the other Republican evangelical types will be cool with dumping a bunch of taxpayer money into Catholic schools.

That's not how any of this works.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

7 minutes ago, elfenix said:

because removing timmy from main street high school, student population 1500, doesn't decrease the costs to run the school by 1/1500th. 

Tough shit. It should be what’s best for the students, not the schools. Schools would adapt. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

4 minutes ago, RPM said:

The school is run by a church. Does that church pay taxes? Does that church want tax money to run a school? Pretty simple math there.

Inasmuch as no entity that "runs a school" pays taxes, it's a non-sequitur.

If you give money to private schools and refuse to give it to religiously affiliated private schools based on no other fact than religiously affiliated, you have probably violated the Constitution.

The school apparently did not ask for the money, the state granted it to all other private schools, none of which are paying taxes.

[wildcat09 29243]

15 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Read the article or this post and stop knee-jerking for fucks sake.

Look like a bunch of epileptics.

Pro-tip:  you have to read articles about the courts and the Supreme Court in particular because the coverage is so uniformly bad.

I usually expect better from NPR.

Also, Kendra Lopez' stupidity notwithstanding, this seems much ado about nothing.  Most states don't have such provisions in their state constitutions and haven't managed to divert all public funds to Christian schools.  Not even Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state.

Err.... from the article:

Quote

Thirty-seven other states have no-aid state constitutional provisions similar to Montana's, and for decades conservative religious groups and school-choice advocates have sought to get rid of them.

 

[bolverk 29399]

I have a real problem of using my tax paying dollars to go to any private school, secular or otherwise, and that includes gotdam fucking charter schools.

[Telegraph_it 3354]

Yes. The Blaine amendment that failed and was adopted into 38 state’s constitutions. It’s probably unconstitutional. 
 

The amendment originally was intended to discriminate against catholic schools because Protestants didn’t like it. Kind of back fired I guess. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Err.... from the article:

 

Nonetheless.  A better article. https://www.tpr.org/post/supreme-court-considers-religious-schools-case

I was vaguely aware of Blaine amendments, historically.  Didn't realize they had survived to present day.

To recap, in a fit of anti-Catholic fervor, in the 1870s a congressman named Blaine tried to amend the US Constitution similarly.  Some states adopted their own when his failed to pass.

[JBJ 3649]

1 hour ago, Telegraph_it said:

This case is taking up the issue where Montana created a program to fund private education and right now it is excluding religious private schools. Argument is the state should not be able to exclude funding to a private religious school because it is religious when other private schools are funded. 

Yeah people are missing the basic facts:

1) This was a specific fund for wholy private schools (not public or charter).

2) The Montana court struck it down on the basis that some some of the schools are religious and the Montana constitution doesn't allow funding for religious institutions.  They struck down all funding, not just to religious schools.

Edited January 23, 2020 by JBJ

[RPM 26227]

6 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

The school apparently did not ask for the money, the state granted it to all other private schools, none of which are paying taxes.

None of which are teaching fairy tales in lieu of science and history. The children are free to attend those schools and receive public monies.

[elfenix 34171]

25 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Tough shit. It should be what’s best for the students, not the schools. Schools would adapt. 

what's best for the students generally isn't the same as what's best for particular individual students.  timmy and a few of his other cohorts doing what's best for them can fuck over the rest of the students.  but, you know, fygm. 

 

edit: further i reject the notion that this is most often about what's best for timmy as a student, and is far more often about making sure timmy doesn't learn about evolution.

Edited January 23, 2020 by elfenix

[TwiceHorn 31272]

5 minutes ago, RPM said:

None of which are teaching fairy tales in lieu of science and history. The children are free to attend those schools and receive public monies.

That, however, is a different argument, unrelated to the tax exempt status of churches.  By taking federal, or in this case, state funds, most schools would subject themselves to state regulation of their curriculum and admission practices, etc.  Certainly true on the federal level.

Bolverk is right, the first question is why the hell is the government giving money to private schools, any of them, in the first place.  In this particular case tax credits to individuals who fund scholarships for private schools, which is less offensive.

Edited January 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[JBJ 3649]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I was vaguely aware of Blaine amendments, historically.  Didn't realize they had survived to present day

I'm interested to see how Montana's is written and the more exact details of the case because I've never seen a Blaine amendment interpreted this way (Texas is a Blaine state btw). 

Usually, if a program like this is religion-neutral, it passes.  Much like the Establishment clause.

Edited January 23, 2020 by JBJ

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

7 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Yeah people are missing the basic facts:

1) This was a specific fund for wholy private schools (not public or charter).

2) The Minnesota court struck it down on the basis that some some of the schools are religious and the Minnesota constitution doesn't allow funding for religious institutions.  They struck down all funding, not just to religious schools.

Minnesota courts are really overreaching, ruling on a Montana issue. 
Or did we switch topics but I was too busy being snarky to notice?

Edited January 23, 2020 by Pato del Muerto

[JBJ 3649]

They look the same to me.  /katfid

[Francisco 2.0 32333]

34 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Also, every slapdick church in some strip mall is going to start a school.

Psst.  They already have.  Just take a look around.

 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

27 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I'm interested to see how Minnesota's is written and the more exact details of the case because I've never seen a Blaine amendment interpreted this way (Texas is a Blaine state btw). 

Usually, if a program like this is religion-neutral, it passes.  Much like the Establishment clause.

Jeez louise.  It's been a long time since I was aware of Blaine amendments.  I can't even remember the context in which it arose.  My best recollection is that it was assumed to be unconstitutional across the board.  Kind of like the sodomy statute.

Doing some quick research, Texas' Blaine amendments don't prohibit tax credits to individuals like this, just appropriations from the Treasury or the PUF.

Anyway, for those of you freaking out about public support of religious schools, only, that isn't going to happen with or without Blaine amendments.

Imagine the outcry if Austin took our fucking property taxes and started giving them to any private schools.  That's the first thing you have to worry about before you get to the secular/non-secular issue.

Edited January 23, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[tx 3 putt 76372]

Chicks from those schools are going to put out !

[JBJ 3649]

Here's the text of Montana's:

“(1) The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.

(2) This section shall not apply to funds from federal sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.”

Random guess: that Section 2 was seen to inform the intent of Section 1, and that's why MO-SC ruled the State cannot indirectly fund private education if it in any way aids a sectarian school.

Edited January 24, 2020 by JBJ

[Anastasis 23395]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Read the article or this post and stop knee-jerking for fucks sake.

 

Unpossible on any surly thread where religion in any form or fashion is pivotal to the issue. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

10 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Here's the text of Montana's:

“(1) The legislature, counties, cities, towns, school districts, and public corporations shall not make any direct or indirect appropriation or payment from any public fund or monies, or any grant of lands or other property for any sectarian purpose or to aid any church, school, academy, seminary, college, university, or other literary or scientific institution, controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination.

(2) This section shall not apply to funds from federal sources provided to the state for the express purpose of distribution to non-public education.”

Random guess: that Section 2 was seen to inform the intent of Section 1, and that's why MO-SC ruled the State cannot indirectly fund private education if it in any way aids a sectarian school.

Well it does differ from Texas' in the "direct or indirect appropriation."  Texas' just says "appropriation," and, as mentioned, it has been opined that a tax credit scheme is not an appropriation.

[Anastasis 23395]

1 hour ago, RPM said:

None of which are teaching fairy tales in lieu of science and history. The children are free to attend those schools and receive public monies.

LOL. Blanket statements like this are fucking stupid. But I am sure that you are totally tuned in to the scientific curriculum at private schools like St. Andrew's, for example, and can compare and contrast their science curriculum and experiential academic opportunities to AISD broadly as a public school example. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Those of you that live in New York probably have more knowledge of this than I, but I remember sometime ago way before the whole vaccine thing in the yeshivas/Jewish community there was a controversy surrounding education/school boards there. Apparently, there was a group of mostly Orthodox Jewish citizens who became politically active, ran and won places on the public school board and proceeded to cut a lot of programs in the schools. Music education, PE, etc and other things. I don't recall how it ended, but one could see how SCOTUS rules could affect public schools forever. It has been a long term plan by the fundamentalists groups IMO.

I think that was in Kiryas Joel.

[Nivek 16859]

2 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Read the article or this post and stop knee-jerking for fucks sake.

Look like a bunch of epileptics.

Pro-tip:  you have to read articles about the courts and the Supreme Court in particular because the coverage is so uniformly bad.

I usually expect better from NPR.

Also, Kendra Lopez' stupidity notwithstanding, this seems much ado about nothing.  Most states don't have such provisions in their state constitutions and haven't managed to divert all public funds to Christian schools.  Not even Texas, our Texas, all hail the mighty state.

I usually expect better from a lawyer.  Kendra Espinoza. /surly asshole

[TwiceHorn 31272]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. Blanket statements like this are fucking stupid. But I am sure that you are totally tuned in to the scientific curriculum at private schools like St. Andrew's, for example, and can compare and contrast their science curriculum and experiential academic opportunities to AISD broadly as a public school example. 

As a defender of religious liberty with little use for fundagelicals, I am of little doubt that there are some smaller schools of more recent vintage that teach some fucked up, repugnant shit.

But there are also a whole slate of religiously affiliated schools that teach a rigorous scientific curriculum and always have.  Like all the Jesuit schools, for example.