HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Supreme Court says Maine ...

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:34 AM

Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction

Source: Washington Post

COURTS & LAW

Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction

By Robert Barnes
June 21, 2022 at 10:45 a.m. EDT

The Supreme Court on Tuesday extended a recent streak of victories for religious interests, striking down a Maine tuition program that does not allow public funds to go to schools that promote religious instruction. ... The vote was 6 to 3, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. writing for the majority and the court's three liberals in dissent. ... The case involves an unusual program in a small state that affects only a few thousand students. But it could have greater implications as the more conservative court relaxes the constitutional line between church and state.

Under the program, jurisdictions in rural areas too sparsely populated to support public schools of their own can arrange to have nearby schools teach their school-age children, or the state will pay tuition to parents to send their kids to private schools. But those schools must be nonsectarian, meaning they cannot promote a faith or belief system or teach "through the lens of this faith," in the words of the state's department of education.

Roberts said that program could not survive the court's scrutiny. ... "There is nothing neutral about Maine's program," he wrote. "The State pays tuition for certain students at private schools -- so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion." ... Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the dissenters, answered: "This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build."

The case, Carson v. Makin, is broadly similar to one from Montana decided by the court last year. In that case, the court ruled that states must allow religious schools to participate in programs that provide scholarships to students attending private schools. ... Roberts, writing for the majority in the case, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, said a provision of Montana's Constitution banning aid to schools run by churches ran afoul of the federal Constitution's protection of the free exercise of religion by discriminating against religious people and schools. (1)

{snip}

By Robert Barnes
Robert Barnes has been a Washington Post reporter and editor since 1987. He joined The Post to cover Maryland politics, and he has served in various editing positions, including metropolitan editor and national political editor. He has covered the Supreme Court since November 2006. Twitter https://twitter.com/scotusreporter

(1) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-1195_g314.pdf

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/21/supreme-court-maine-religious-schools/



Original post:

Scotus rules 6-3 that Maine's tuition assistance program must cover religous schools



-- -- -- -- -- --

See more here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/06/announcement-of-orders-and-opinions-for-tuesday-june-21/

SCOTUSblog:

"Here's the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf "

"Because the benefits hinge on whether a school is religious, the Chief writes, the Maine program "effectively penalizes the free exercise" of religion."

"Breyer from the dissent:
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 "prohib- iting 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."

122 replies, 4706 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 122 replies Author Time Post
Reply Supreme Court says Maine cannot deny public funds to schools that promote religious instruction (Original post)
mahatmakanejeeves Tuesday OP
50 Shades Of Blue Tuesday #1
Chin music Tuesday #2
cilla4progress Tuesday #3
JohnSJ Tuesday #4
Effete Snob Tuesday #41
Eugene Tuesday #75
LymphocyteLover Tuesday #88
Effete Snob Tuesday #102
Cha Tuesday #112
Cha Tuesday #111
Effete Snob Tuesday #114
Cha Tuesday #117
betsuni Tuesday #119
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Tuesday #77
JohnSJ Tuesday #81
SunImp Tuesday #103
IronLionZion Tuesday #5
BumRushDaShow Tuesday #7
sl8 Tuesday #76
BumRushDaShow Tuesday #86
Igel Tuesday #113
BumRushDaShow Tuesday #116
mahatmakanejeeves Tuesday #97
NullTuples Tuesday #66
Igel Tuesday #115
NullTuples Tuesday #118
mahatmakanejeeves Tuesday #6
rurallib Tuesday #16
azureblue Tuesday #30
Effete Snob Tuesday #42
wnylib Tuesday #72
yaesu Tuesday #8
mobeau69 Tuesday #17
madaboutharry Tuesday #9
HUAJIAO Tuesday #31
madaboutharry Tuesday #34
PA Democrat Tuesday #10
Deminpenn Tuesday #45
MarcA Tuesday #92
Anon-C Tuesday #11
C_U_L8R Tuesday #12
DinahMoeHum Tuesday #78
Baitball Blogger Tuesday #13
sinkingfeeling Tuesday #14
867-5309. Tuesday #15
mobeau69 Tuesday #21
867-5309. Tuesday #23
mobeau69 Tuesday #29
Chin music Tuesday #37
House of Roberts Tuesday #18
rurallib Tuesday #27
RoeVWade Tuesday #19
rurallib Tuesday #20
mobeau69 Tuesday #22
Wild blueberry Tuesday #80
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Tuesday #24
ancianita Tuesday #28
in2herbs Tuesday #38
ancianita Tuesday #55
in2herbs Tuesday #59
ancianita Tuesday #67
in2herbs Tuesday #68
ancianita Tuesday #83
Gore1FL Tuesday #73
oldsoftie Tuesday #62
Marthe48 Tuesday #84
thatdemguy Tuesday #52
ancianita Tuesday #25
llashram Tuesday #26
TeamProg Tuesday #32
maxsolomon Tuesday #44
TeamProg Tuesday #48
maxsolomon Tuesday #51
kelly1mm Tuesday #57
Dr. Strange Tuesday #87
AllaN01Bear Tuesday #33
markie Tuesday #35
minstrel76 Tuesday #36
in2herbs Tuesday #46
minstrel76 Tuesday #101
alterfurz Tuesday #39
JohnnyRingo Tuesday #40
mainer Tuesday #43
in2herbs Tuesday #47
Emile Tuesday #49
BComplex Tuesday #50
Raster Tuesday #94
BComplex Tuesday #110
Lonestarblue Tuesday #53
Post removed Tuesday #54
rockfordfile Tuesday #56
mahatmakanejeeves Tuesday #58
AngryOldDem Tuesday #64
Samrob Tuesday #60
AngryOldDem Tuesday #61
Vinca Tuesday #63
in2herbs Tuesday #65
Initech Tuesday #69
LoisB Tuesday #70
walkingman Tuesday #71
twodogsbarking Tuesday #74
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Tuesday #79
Martin68 Tuesday #82
Ghost of Tom Joad Tuesday #85
MarcA Tuesday #90
mahatmakanejeeves Tuesday #96
Retrograde Tuesday #98
Polybius Tuesday #99
Retrograde Tuesday #120
Polybius Wednesday #121
LymphocyteLover Tuesday #89
KPN Tuesday #91
AllyCat Tuesday #93
Retrograde Tuesday #95
keithbvadu2 Tuesday #100
melm00se Tuesday #104
867-5309. Tuesday #105
JustABozoOnThisBus Wednesday #122
bucolic_frolic Tuesday #106
turbinetree Tuesday #107
cstanleytech Tuesday #108
MontanaMama Tuesday #109

Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:35 AM

1. SICKENING.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:36 AM

2. GD it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:37 AM

3. FFS...

Mitch got what he/Putin paid for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:40 AM

4. We owe so much to the Susan Sarandon's, Nina Turner's, Cornel West's, etc etc etc

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:28 AM

41. Someone thinks that group consists of "Democratic public figures"


That person should be set straight by pointing out that not a single one of these people, who have done their level best to kneecap actual Democrats, is presently a candidate for any elected office, and none of them holds any elected office. Nor will they.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #41)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:21 PM

75. In point of fact...

Nina Turner is a progressive Democrat, recent Democratic primary candidate for Congress and a former state senator.

Some here don't like her views on Israel-Palestine and she's not a fan of Joe Biden, but she is a Democratic public figure.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Turner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:11 PM

88. Effete Snob's post is still accurate

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:04 PM

102. She lost her primary


She is not an elected official and she is not a candidate for any office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #102)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 07:31 PM

112. THANK YOU!💙

💙💛

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 07:28 PM

111. Many Here Don't Like NT saying "Voting

for Joe Biden is like eating shit..

Bernie Sanders' Campaign Co-Chair Nina Turner Compares Voting For Biden To Eating 'S**t'

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nina-turner-joe-biden_n_5f200c04c5b638cfec49ecd5


And, she Pushes 3rd Party Voting.. says she wouldn't vote for Hillary.

Nina Turner, a 2020 Bernie campaign chair, refused to support Hillary days before the 2016 election.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/12872234

Don't tell me she's a "Dem".. Please don't try selling us on Nina Turner, Eugene.. It's Not Happening.

💙💛





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #111)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 08:34 PM

114. Bingo

Nina Turner’s contributions have not been constructive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Effete Snob (Reply #114)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 08:57 PM

117. Just the Contrary.. and it's Heartwarming

when People actually pay Attention and can see that.

So Thank You, ES!

💙💛

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eugene (Reply #75)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:07 PM

119. "There is absolutely no evidence that shows Manchin & Sinema aren't doing exactly

what Biden is asking of them": Nina's conspiracy theory of the day. "They're doing his bidding in the Senate because they all have the same donors."

The belief is that all Democrats are corrupt (corporatists) and only think about donor money (which always goes directly into their pockets and never to, like, pay for campaigns and things), have the same economic policies as Republicans but pretend to be liberal ("ignore" the working class blah blah blah), they're secretly happy with Republican policy (neoliberals) and in cahoots with them. Biden (establishment) is plotting with Manchin & Sinema in smokey backrooms enjoying fancy canapés and champagne to ensure he will fail to get his agenda passed because he has to do everything donors want (all donors are right-wing and evil) because corrupt. The end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JohnSJ (Reply #4)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:28 PM

77. Let's not forget Ralph Nader

After putting Al Gore and the Democrats down he showed up to a Cisco Sytems shareholder meeting to complain his dividend wasn't large enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:35 PM

81. Very true

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin (Reply #77)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:22 PM

103. We shouldn't forget to thank GOP politicians, Fox and RW social media for there part in this

Also this is for the 2020 elections, but I'm sure these tweeters have been spreading false claims during the 2016 cycle too.

?s=20&t=b_Iu47CIkGnpKcCnLDL6tg

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:40 AM

5. Redistributing the wealth from taxpayers to religious entities.

I feel like we have invaded other countries who engaged in this sort of theocracy.

In case anyone forgot the very first amendment to our constitution

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


This sounds deliciously close to establishment of state religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:45 AM

7. That might be the idiotic "technicality"

Congress shall make no law...


and in this case, we're talking the "state" (of Maine).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #7)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:26 PM

76. No, the First Amendment is fully incorporated.

Last edited Tue Jun 21, 2022, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

Here's Wikipedia's blurb about incorporation of the Establishment Clause:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause



[...]

Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. Subsequently, under the Incorporation doctrine, the Bill of Rights has been broadly applied to limit state and local government as well. The process of incorporating the two Religion Clauses in the First Amendment was twofold. The first step was the Supreme Court's conclusion in 1940 that the Free Exercise Clause was made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.[10] Conceptually, this raised few difficulties: the Due Process Clause protects those rights in the Bill of Rights "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,"[11] and free exercise of religion is a quintessential individual right (and had been recognized as such at the state level from the beginning).[12]

Incorporation of the Establishment Clause in 1947[13] proved to be problematic in several ways and subject to critique.[12][14][15][16][17] The controversy surrounding Establishment Clause incorporation primarily stems from the fact that one of the intentions of the Establishment Clause was to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments of religion that existed at the time of the founding (at least six states had established religions at the founding)[18] – a fact conceded by even those members of the Court who believe the Establishment Clause was made applicable to the states through incorporation.[19] Critics, such as Clarence Thomas, have also argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is understood to incorporate only individual rights found in the Bill of Rights; the Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause (which critics readily concede protects individual rights),[18][20] does not purport to protect individual rights.[18]

[...]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:51 PM

86. Well as we know

there are a bunch of "literalists" on the Court who want to go back to "original intent".

I know the issue of "school vouchers" has been raging for years and years and this is their way of having their cake and eat it to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #86)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 08:32 PM

113. It's the original intent of the law.

SCOTUS isn't going to get rid of one amendment because it amended previous text. I mean, that's rather the purpose of the process of amending, to update the written text to newer views and circumstances.

The newer intents are what would be "original" with the text of the amendment.

It's like asking what the Federalists and anti-Federalists thought about the 14th amendment. Passed in 1868, 79 years after the Constitution was ratified. Any Federalist or anti-Federalist whose views would be considered would have been well over 100--and probably over 120--making it rather late to ask them to gauge their opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #113)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 08:42 PM

116. "The newer intents are what would be "original" with the text of the amendment."

Wish that would have been the case for the 15th Amendment but alas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sl8 (Reply #76)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:43 PM

97. Thanks. I wish we could recommend individual posts. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IronLionZion (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:02 PM

66. And unlike all other NPO's, churches don't have to report money-in, money-out to the IRS

So those taxpayer funds can end up being funneled pretty much anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NullTuples (Reply #66)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 08:36 PM

115. Maybe not now.

I filed the IRS and INS forms for the church I belonged to/worked for in the mid-late 1980s. Lots of numbers on them there forms.

I also prepared the reports for the CPA/auditor for approval by the church's board. Now, the board was in the pastor's pocket, but the CPA? Things weren't according to Hoyle, he'd let the board, the pastor, and me have with with both barrels. With the full and explicit statement that he would not sign off on anything amiss, and if called to testify would have no problem naming names and citing dates.

His wife was in the church; he, emphatically, hadn't been ... for 30 years of marriage.

Now, that was 35 years ago. Maybe things have changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Igel (Reply #115)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:33 PM

118. Through a variety of mechanisms, Republicans have prevented even one IRS church audit since 2007

And that's just concerning things like the Johnson amendment.

Honestly, I'm glad your church had internal controls but what happens inside a church - between the pastor, the board, the auditor, etc. - is completely outside of my concern. It's valid only inside that self referencing world.

Did you know there are now financial investment products designed specifically to legally move "church" money into "pastor" money? They make creative use of the pastor's retirement fund and often involve offshore accounts. There are so many ways a dishonest church can funnel money, which is why it should be crucial for them to have to account for all money coming in and all money going out, to a truly independent public third party such as the IRS.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:44 AM

6. Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

Supreme Court says Maine cannot exclude religious schools from tuition assistance programs

By Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter

Updated 10:35 AM ET, Tue June 21, 2022

(CNN) -- The Supreme Court said Tuesday that Maine cannot exclude religious schools from a tuition assistance program that allows parents to use vouchers to send their children to public or private schools.

This is a breaking story and will be updated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:56 AM

16. "latest move by the conservative court to expand religious liberty rights"

Or, as I see it, impose support of religions on us non-religious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:07 AM

30. this will be great!

that statement is a two edged sword - now some kid can stand up in some school that teaches religion and say that his religion does not believe what they are teaching but they can't toss him out because of religious freedom. Like some Jewish kid, or a Catholic in a Baptist school. If they pray then they have to, using the same ruling say prayers from any other religion of kids in the school too. And let me tell you, one "Hail Mary" will piss off a Baptist real quick..

The Sc makes these stupid rulings never stop to think of blowback. But here it comes..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to azureblue (Reply #30)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:30 AM

42. This ruling does not, in any way shape or form, require religious schools to tolerate non-believers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #16)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:15 PM

72. I am a church member and I oppose this ruling, too.

It is not the responsibility or business of government to financially support religion in any way, shape, or form.

The people who support this idea will get a rude awakening when a government that invests money in their religion decides to regulate their investment. They will cry "freedom of religion" again, from a different perspective.

Europe and the US went through this cycle centuries ago and learned a lesson from it. Today's zealots are rejecting the lesson but will learn from their own experience what they now refuse to learn from past experiences.

When religion and government lock themselves together, they both suffer from the resulting tyranny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:45 AM

8. Further proof that the GOP court is the root of all evil. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yaesu (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:57 AM

17. Talibans on the move. Another mail on the coffin of American democracy.

There are things more important than the almighty dollar.

Pukes hate public education.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:47 AM

9. The SC has gone rogue.

What a group of awful people. They don’t care about The Constitution. They interpret it to mean whatever they want it to mean. They are a political body using The Constitution to advance right-wing theocratic policy and law. The corruption is gross.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madaboutharry (Reply #9)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:08 AM

31. No. The SC has not gone rogue. It is REPUBLICANS on the SC who have gone rogue.

A very crucial difference.

And we need to always state this. Not "the SC--
not "Congress" not the House, etc..


I know what you mean(lol) but I think this distinction is important.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HUAJIAO (Reply #31)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:12 AM

34. Ok.

6 members of the SC have gone rogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:48 AM

10. So will religious schools be allowed to exclude certain categories of students?

For example can "Christian" schools exclude non-Christian students or LGBTQ students? Or what about students with special education needs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PA Democrat (Reply #10)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:32 AM

45. We have a local Reformed Presbytarian college in

my hometown that does exactly that. They will not accept students or employees who are not avowed "Christians". They think because they don't accept direct federal money, they can discriminate as they please, but they take many kinds of public funds ranging from renting their athletic facilities to the local school district to subsidized public goods like water and roads for which they pay no local taxes being they are a college.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Deminpenn (Reply #45)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:26 PM

92. Perhaps those would be employees and parents of those students

should withhold paying any taxes for education and make donations to their public schools. After all money is free speech according to the whackos like Thomas, Alito et al.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:54 AM

12. Let them fund the Pastafarian School of Noodlery

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to C_U_L8R (Reply #12)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:28 PM

78. Or the Wiccans, Satanists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:55 AM

13. Breaking News: Hard-right Theocratic leaning Supreme Court swings hard-right theocratic in its

decision. Garbage in, garbage out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:55 AM

14. So, when do they just 'decide' there is no separation between church and state? Hope

somebody applies for vouchers for an Islamic school and all other religious ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:55 AM

15. Is it a voucher with the full tuition going to their school?

Or some type of additional assistance?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:00 AM

21. A distinction without a difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mobeau69 (Reply #21)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:02 AM

23. I agree that either is wrong

Just wondering the extent of the immediate damage

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Reply #23)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:06 AM

29. Huge. The wall has been breached.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:20 AM

37. Over priced indoctrination. Diverting tax dollars to churches.

Low pay teachers wo Union protection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:59 AM

18. From Amy Howe at the Scotusblog live chat:

This case was a challenge to the constitutionality of a Maine program that pays tuition for some students to attend private schools when their own school district does not operate a public secondary school.


So I understand there is no conflict as long as a district offers a school?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to House of Roberts (Reply #18)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:04 AM

27. A school district with out secondary schools?

Yet I would guess there is probably some tie in with another school district to provide that service.

Feels like Maine has some school structural problems. ETA - seems like tax money should go to redesigning an inadequate system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 10:59 AM

19. Looks like court approves to give government money to private schools who ban people they don't like

Heh. What is that, meritocracy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:00 AM

20. IMHO, therefore churches should be taxed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:01 AM

22. Yep.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rurallib (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:31 PM

80. Yes!

Have thought so for years. Lose their tax-exempt status. So should Dark Money "charities".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:03 AM

24. Does that include madrasa?

The term madrasa refers to Islamic religious schools at the primary and secondary levels. As an institution of learning, the madrasa is centuries old.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:05 AM

28. It should but likely won't unless Muslims in Maine take a case to the state and appellate.

Wait 'til Satanic Temple sets up a school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:20 AM

38. Let's all pray that they do! And let's all pray that belief systems other than Xian

get on the $$ bandwagon to finance their own education system.

This ruling will detrimentally exacerbate the efforts by AZ citizens working hard to save our public school system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:46 AM

55. Whuh??

Sorry, you are being ironic, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #55)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:53 AM

59. Not really. If the Xians get govt funding to spread their gospel they need to understand

that other belief systems are similarly entitled, as well.

As to the AZ reference, the legislature is debating expanding the voucher system to apply to those parents who want to send their children to an out of state private school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #59)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:03 PM

67. So you're okay with all this in general, am I right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:06 PM

68. Absolutely NOT and I don't understand how you have interpreted it that way. What I am

saying is that if we are forced to accept this ruling we must shove the alternatives to this ruling down their throats!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #68)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:41 PM

83. Ah, I see. Thanks for unconfusing me.

I was born in Maine, still have family there. I could be wrong, but from all my 20 or so family vacations there, and from what I've seen of Mainers, they tend not to put up long term fights, especially after a SCOTUS ruling. But they'd get a big kick out of the Satanic Temple's fights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #38)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:16 PM

73. I look forward to see what the Satanic Temple does with this. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ancianita (Reply #28)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:59 AM

62. But why not? The decision doesnt specify a particular religion.

And as you say, if some Satanic group does it then they'd have to be given the same treatment right? Or Scientology?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oldsoftie (Reply #62)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:42 PM

84. a**holes on the court would say

'that's not what we meant.' And rule whatever it takes to cut non-Christians out of the ruling. Expand the fricking court before we lose more of the U.S. Constitution. gdi. I hate this.

And tax the churches. I know people who tithe every week. Get some of that going into government coffers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LastLiberal in PalmSprings (Reply #24)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:39 AM

52. The way I read it yes.

It does not matter the religion that is taught at the school. It just says religious schools have to be able to get the money, not only catholic, or baptist or Jewish.

But lets be honest, how many Jewish or Islamic schools are there in rural Maine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:03 AM

25. Godammit. This christo-fascist SCOTUS.

Now begins their war of attrition in tearing down the wall between church and state.

The six robed bag men of corporate policy begin their owners' war of attrition against democratic institutions.

The ruling IS also against public education, which is just one of a number of fronts.

Their fascist war rulings are class (Citizens United), race (Voting Rights Act), and gender based (Roe and all precedents).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:03 AM

26. we are slowly

(picking up speed) moving toward a fascist state with religion as its cornerstone. With this Court America and its liberal-progressive citizens are in for the fight of our lives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:12 AM

32. That's BULLSHIT! PUBLIC schools should simply educate, not indoctrinate. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:32 AM

44. conservatives are making this same argument against public education

teaching children "CRT" (the truth about our nation's history) or "Grooming" (acceptance of gender and sexuality differences).

it's not actually the same thing, but they're making the argument and winning - laws are being passed, curriculums are being censored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to maxsolomon (Reply #44)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:36 AM

48. Not the same at all, but I suppose it's an angle / wedge tht Cons will use. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:38 AM

51. Their religious indoctrination is just fine

Your liberal values are not - even though they are more reflective of Jesus' actual words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:48 AM

57. This ruling is about funding for PRIVATE schools (aka vouchers). If a state does not want to fund

private religious based schools they cannot fund other private non-religious based schools. Easy-peasy fix is to not have vouchers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TeamProg (Reply #32)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:53 PM

87. Then we need to build public schools to provide public education.

If we're not going to build schools in these rural areas and churches are, then maybe that's on us? If we care about public education, then let's build those schools!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:12 AM

33. ye scoutus today ignores that document and ruleing by precident. or reverse of ye of.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:15 AM

35. so wrong

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:18 AM

36. Apparently, we need a constitutional amendment that specifies separation of church and state.

Even though this is something that has already been part of our American tradition and promoted by actual Founding Fathers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to minstrel76 (Reply #36)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:34 AM

46. I think that what we need are some Dems in Congress who have the spine to

publicly say they disagree with SCOTUS because of the separation of Church and State, and who are willing to back that up by proposing laws that cripples this decision. It will be decades before it will be overturned unless Biden expands the court.

Since this expands the school system without a funding source, a law could be based on reasoning to tax the system that is causing the expansion (churches). Don't just try to pass it once, bring it to the floor every week!

As a side, because we all know how ridiculously ignorant the Aliot decision will be, I would like the justices to be laughed at by hearing the blast of endless laughter streaming over microphones, megaphones, etc., every day they are in session.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to in2herbs (Reply #46)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 03:09 PM

101. I agree.

I think it's long past time to start taxing churches. Especially since it's the Evangelical megachurches who are working to do away with the separation of church and state and who contributed bigly to the GOP rigging the SCOTUS in the first place. In the meantime, we must resist these Christo-Fascists, their political machinations, and their attempts to force their religious viewpoints on everyone else. As they sow, so shall they also reap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:20 AM

39. Justice Winnfield dissents...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:23 AM

40. There's an easy cure for this.

An instructor or someone on the school board should introduce Islam or Buddhism to the students. Imagine the furor if a teacher issued prayer rugs or marked a wall in the direction of Mecca. Call it a geography lesson. Let's introduce the children to Eastern meditation.

What if a school board member insisted on every child receiving an issue of The Watchtower each month. The Jehovah Witnesses would jump at the opportunity to supply them, but would parents want religious instruction to continue? What?... they're Christians too.

I can't imagine the response when these children bring home their school issued Torah. "The teacher says to talk to you about conversion."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:31 AM

43. oh for god's sake

time to introduce the flying spaghetti monster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mainer (Reply #43)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:35 AM

47. I'd prefer that as a religion over the one's Xians push. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:37 AM

49. What about the tax payers who don't want their money

going to religious schools? Will this allow tax dollars to pay for abortions now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:38 AM

50. Most corrupt supreme court in the history of our country.

THIS is what the Heritage Foundation has done. Creating an antidemocratic nation in favor of fascism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BComplex (Reply #50)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:38 PM

94. Let's not forget #TheFederalistSociety that handpicked the judges they deemed necessary to...

...continue to gut the "separation of church and state."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raster (Reply #94)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 05:43 PM

110. I think all the members are the same people. You're right. The Federalist Society

is also the group behind thinking States should have the right to ignore Federal laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:44 AM

53. The problem with this specific school that was just ignored is that they are anti-LGBTQ.

Most Christian schools are. They refuse to admit any students who are LGBTQ. Nor will they accept the straight kids of same-sex couples. They of course would not hire a gay teacher. The ecclesiastical SC just gave religious schools everywhere the right to exclude certain kids because of their gender preferences and even because of their parents’ gender choices. So how are the kids who can’t go to school there to be educated? I would think their parents would have a case for discrimination in an area where other options do not exist.

Basically, the SC just gave the green light to any religious group to totally ignore federal anti-discrimination laws. So Congress passes laws (or at least they used to), and this Court just says, no, we’re making the laws and we’re giving right-wing Christians whatever they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:48 AM

56. I don't agree with that shit. that's un-American as hell. My tax dollars shouldn't pay for bigotry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:51 AM

58. From Mark Joseph Stern:

Hat tip, themaguffin

ConstitutionalMischiefHat Retweeted

And here's Sotomayor spelling out the implications of today's ruling: A state's effort to preserve the constitutional separation of church and state now qualifies as a violation of free exercise. The majority is repealing the establishment clause. https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1088_dbfi.pdf


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Reply #58)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:00 PM

64. "Dismantle secular education".

Breyer nails it. Just as charter schools are dismantling public schools.

Education is under attack here.

I wonder why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:54 AM

60. Just wait until an Islamic school applies for funds.

Is it time for a new Constitution Convention??? Well maybe after the Democrats and progressives gain more power with 37 states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:55 AM

61. This is bullshit.

I resent my taxes being used to pay for something that was set up as an alternative to the public system.

I have no problem with people wanting that option for their kids. I do have a problem helping them pay for it.

Tax the churches, already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:59 AM

63. So much for separation of church and state. I imagine this is just the beginning of the end

of this Supreme Court session's reign of terror. Roe will be gone before the end of the week and the roots in that decision are based on religious beliefs only held by a portion of the population.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:01 PM

65. Another comment/questions: why can't the feds announce that no govt money will go for

school funding when it cannot be shown that schools/districts adhere to the division between church and state? And, before funding, why won't the fed govt demand that these religious schools have a proportionate enrollment for special needs children? Can the feds refuse to fund transportation to these schools????


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:06 PM

69. BOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Fuck the Christian Taliban!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:08 PM

70. Disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:09 PM

71. I don't want my tax dollars being spent on promoting religion....period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:31 PM

79. Sotomayor accuses conservatives of 'dismantling' church-state separation

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court’s most outspoken liberal, accused the court’s six-member conservative majority of eroding the barrier between church and state on Tuesday by striking down a Maine policy that barred religious schools from receiving taxpayer-funded tuition aid.

“This Court continues to dismantle the wall of separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build,” Sotomayor wrote, dissenting from the 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines.

n just a few years, the Court has upended constitutional doctrine,” she added, “shifting from a rule that permits States to decline to fund religious organizations to one that requires States in many circumstances to subsidize religious indoctrination with taxpayer dollars.”

-snip-

Sotomayor also joined in part a separate dissent written by fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, whose opinion was joined in full by Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal member.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/sotomayor-accuses-conservatives-of-dismantling-church-state-separation/ar-AAYI1ro

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:37 PM

82. That's total bullshit. The government should not be offering financial support to religious

institutions. They can register as a non-profit and try to raise funds from sympathetic donors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 12:45 PM

85. I'm just curious

what happens if Maine ignores the Supreme Court?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost of Tom Joad (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:19 PM

90. That is really a good point. Executives enforce the laws

not courts. Just as Legislatures make laws and not the courts. Of course, it all comes down to what an Executive decides to do and what Voters decide to do about Executives. My main concern is that the Oligarchs want to dismantle government and the Peoples' trust in it so as to end Democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MarcA (Reply #90)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:40 PM

96. Biden is not Trump. NT

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ghost of Tom Joad (Reply #85)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:44 PM

98. "Mr. Roberts has made his law

now let him enforce it". Shades of Andrew Jackson - but there is precedent for ignoring Supreme Court judgements.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #98)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:52 PM

99. "but there is precedent for ignoring Supreme Court judgements"

Besides Jackson and possibly Lincoln, who else ignored the SC?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Polybius (Reply #99)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 11:12 PM

120. Don't know

Do birthers count? Or people who try to claim that children of immigrants aren't entitled to birthright citizenship? I can't think of any other presidents who blatantly ignored SC decisions, but I'm not a legal expert

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Retrograde (Reply #120)

Wed Jun 22, 2022, 12:44 AM

121. No

They've got to directly defy a new SC order to qualify, like Jackson did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:13 PM

89. Giving exclusive attention to one clause of a constituional amendment while ignoring another clause

is exactly how they treat the 2nd amendment and ignore "well-regulated militia"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:21 PM

91. So would the reverse also be true? That is, if a State withheld public funding from a public school

that would or did not promote and provide religious instruction? I wonder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:34 PM

93. Goddammit!! I'm sick of my tax money paying for this lunacy!

This Court is a sham. Separation of Church and State my arse!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 01:39 PM

95. I went to a Catholic high school in the 60s

We sort of got aid from the local school districts: they supplied textbooks for Regents-approved courses. So we got math, science, history, language, and English texts, but had to pay for textbooks for religious instruction and bible studies. Plus, we paid tuition - no help from the state there. And we had to take the state-wide Regents tests at the end of the year.

Somehow, I think this ruling gives religious schools a lot more leeway in what they can teach and how they teach it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 02:48 PM

100. Then the religious schools must accept all students who apply to the same degree that public schools

Then the religious schools must accept all students who apply to the same degree that public schools must accept them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:29 PM

104. This is another situation

where the state started a program and then discriminated against a religious entity.

The program was set up:

"if an SAU (School Administrative Unit) neither operates its own public secondary school nor contracts with a particular public or private school for the education of its school-age children, the SAU must “pay the tuition . . at the public school or the approved private school of the
parent’s choice at which the student is accepted.”

If the State refuses to "approve" a private school who meets all the State's requirements save religious affiliation and is denied funding, that is, quite simply, discrimination.

Ask yourself what if the State denied approval due to the school's racial, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry (or any other protected class) affiliation and ask yourself how you would come down on that situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:33 PM

105. So a charter school in Michigan, for example, could be a religious school?

If I understand this correctly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 867-5309. (Reply #105)

Wed Jun 22, 2022, 11:00 AM

122. Or, a religious school in Michigan could be a charter school.

Public school money could be funneled to pay for parochial schools, or Muslim schools. Seems like an obvious decision, with seven Catholics on the Supreme Court (1 dissenting).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:54 PM

106. So will they lose tax exempt status, and can Atheists and Druids attend these Christian schools?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 04:58 PM

107. Betsy Devos and others of her ilk must be happy as shit about this ruling.....

reminds me of citizens united and the voting rights act....piece here, a piece there and then one day.......poof..... we don't need any stinking laws, we are the court we rule this land who needs a Constitution and Congress......

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 05:01 PM

108. Public money for schools should be restricted to public schools with the only private

school spending should be in the form of loans for people to attend college for 4 things which are to become a medical doctor, nurse, pharmacist or a public school teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mahatmakanejeeves (Original post)

Tue Jun 21, 2022, 05:06 PM

109. If religious schools are given tax money

then the churches they are linked to must be taxed. Horrible ruling by a court that's out of control.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread