Supreme Court rules that voucher-like program cannot discriminate against religious schools

[martybegan]

And people talk about slippery slopes!

What slope?

The law was unconstitutional based on the fact it denied funding simply because the school was religious, while allowing secular private schools to be funded.

 

[there4eyeM]

It is exactly because it is religious that the Constitution intends to exclude it from public funding. Obviously, the intent of others supersedes the Constitution. Public money for public schools, private money for religious schools. If there is some conflict, then all the private should should be excluded, not reverse of the Constitutional intent.

 

[BS Filter]

Were dealing with people who have an agenda that has nothing to do with fairness or freedom for any religion other than evangelical Christianity.

So what's your religion?

 

[there4eyeM]

To what end are people supporting the infringement on the first amendment?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The money is going for education, to an institution that provides secondary education in an area in which the government has failed to do so. The money is not meant for a specific religion.

Barring all religion-based schools from receiving the money would be in effect establishing atheism as the official religion of the state of Maine.

Bullshit! You need to examine the applicable SCOTUS rulings regarding this issue.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Public schools were established because there were people in charge who understood the necessity for a democracy to have educated citizens. It was and is an investment in the government of the Republic, not well fare or "free stuff". As with the common effort made for defense, a common effort is made for the education of citizens, which is at least as important.
Assuring that such a school system maintain proper standards relies upon valid oversight.

"well fare" - Is that what you pay when you get water from someone's well?

However, your point is dead on!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The choice of sending a child to a religious school is not denied simply because the state doesn't pay for it. That would be like saying the second amendment is being "infringed" because the purchase is not subsidized.
The first amendment's prohibition of supporting religions is being undermined in this issue.

You need to read Everson v. Board of Education.

Everson v. Board of Education, U.S. Supreme Court, 1947 – Founding.com

founding.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

Bullshit! You need to examine the applicable SCOTUS rulings regarding this issue.

Literally the dumbest post I've seen on this forum.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Literally the dumbest post I've seen on this forum.

Why? Because you cannot read?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why? Because you cannot read?

No, because it's a silly example of the classically moronic "google the internet and you'll see that I'm right!" non-argument.

Oh, and also combined with the moronic "I make your words big and red, so now they look wrong," non-argument.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No, because it's a silly example of the classically moronic "google the internet and you'll see that I'm right!" non-argument.

Oh, and also combined with the moronic "I make your words big and red, so now they look wrong," non-argument.

Hey dipshit! You can't read the links I posted i response to other people's ignorance of the Constitutional law and rulings?

This was in post #47, right before you clutched up and got your panties in a knot!

You need to read Everson v. Board of Education.

Everson v. Board of Education, U.S. Supreme Court, 1947 – Founding.com​

founding.com

 

[Seymour Flops]

Hey dipshit! You can't read the links I posted i response to other people's ignorance of the Constitutional law and rulings?

I choose not to read any link that you post Admiral. If you had any confidence in the point they supposedly make, you would not resort to name-calling and childishness.

This was in post #47, right before you clutched up and got your panties in a knot!

You need to read Everson v. Board of Education.

Everson v. Board of Education, U.S. Supreme Court, 1947 – Founding.com​

founding.com

I have literally forgotten what you were even talking about, and I have no desire to waste my time reminding myself. If you want to have a grown-up debate, I suggest that you grow up.

 

[Seymour Flops]

There is a very simple solution to that issue! **** you and get off the message board you juvenile penis-breathed ignoramus!

Nah.

I'll stay, debate with the grownups, and just skip past your childishness.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Nah.

I'll stay, debate with the grownups, and just skip past your childishness.

You calling me childish is the ultimate in hypocrisy, junior! I doubt anyone else will tolerate your impudent attitude and juvenile debating skills. Dumbass!

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Were dealing with people who have an agenda that has nothing to do with fairness or freedom for any religion other than evangelical Christianity.

The ruling applies to Muslim schools and Jewish schools, does it not?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One more little chip struck from the establishment clause. It's going to be interesting to see Christian types still try to keep money away from schools ran by other faiths.

All the Establishment Clause has ever stated was that the government can't declare a state religion. Nothing more, nothing less. It's activist courts over the years that kept extrapolating that statement to mean zero involvement of any kind regarding religion. It was never meant to mean any of the things you guys have turned it into.

And I say this as someone who is agnostic.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You calling me childish is the ultimate in hypocrisy, junior! I doubt anyone else will tolerate your impudent attitude and juvenile debating skills. Dumbass!

Actually, Admiral, I've had plenty of very productive and enjoyable adult type debates with people on here of all political stripes.

Maybe you just started out wrong by going to name-calling immediately. I may have jumped into an exchange between you and another poster and maybe you were wound up and didn't pause to think that I was a different person.

I'll give you another chance. If your next post is intelligent and mature, all previous will be forgotten.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Actually, Admiral, I've had plenty of very productive and enjoyable adult type debates with people on here of all political stripes.

Maybe you just started out wrong by going to name-calling immediately. I may have jumped into an exchange between you and another poster and maybe you were wound up and didn't pause to think that I was a different person.

I'll give you another chance. If your next post is intelligent and mature, all previous will be forgotten.

I call names when they are deserved. Hopefully, it makes an impression on you and you can see how you look to others with your ignorance on full display.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I call names when they are deserved. Hopefully, it makes an impression on you and you can see how you look to others with your ignorance on full display.

That makes no sense, because you are the only turd in the punchbowl for my posts.

Not to mention that by the very act of name calling, you eliminate yourself as a person whose opinions might have value.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That makes no sense, because you are the only turd in the punchbowl for my posts.

Not to mention that by the very act of name calling, you eliminate yourself as a person whose opinions might have value.

How many times have I taken your ignorant statements and shoved them up your ass? Have you lost count because there have been so many?

BTW, how is your career as an erectile dysfunction doctor working out? You obviously "see more flops".

Do you prescribe that new ED drug, called "Mycoxafailin"?