Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination

[Ringtone]

Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination​

Opinion by Timothy P. Carney - Tuesday

The Left often tries to make you believe that discrimination is the only sin. Any law or policy or custom or fact of nature that might result in different people being treated differently is supposedly intolerable.

Most Democrats believe “singlism” — discrimination against the unmarried — is a real problem, according to a recent poll. Any joking about your own COVID case is “ablelism.” And the charge of “transphobia” gets thrown around for almost anything.

But don't be fooled. Leftists hold one form discrimination very dear. In fact, it is almost a first principle of their ideology.

The liberal minority on the Supreme Court showed on Tuesday its dedication to anti-religious discrimination. In an angry dissent in the case Carson v. Makin, the three liberal justices chastised the majority for striking down a law that explicitly discriminated against religious institutions.

The liberal justices called their principle “separation of church and state,” and claimed it was rooted in the First Amendment. But the legal or moral principle they champion — and on which the Maine law just struck down was based — is simply that government ought to discriminate against religious institutions.

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.

This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion. Liberal counties and cities aren’t even pretending to be value-neutral anymore. They are explicitly using public schools to advance their religion, which is characterized in part by its absolutist moralism on transgenderism and the primacy of racial identify.

But back to Maine: parents could even send their kids to school in Canada or Switzerland under this tuition program. They could use these tax dollars to send their kids to all-girls’ schools, or to French-language schools. The schools eligible under this program could also be boarding schools. Schools receiving this money could have no set curriculum at all, like Bluehill Harbor School, or they could be explicit culture-warrior schools, such as Walnut Hill School for the Arts.

They just can’t be “sectarian,” which means the institutions cannot profess a system of belief that involves God.

This is obviously illegal discrimination, rooted in a history of unsavory anti-Catholic ideology. Yet in their angry dissent, the liberal justices claimed they were simply upholding “separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Of course, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “separation of church of state.” It only forbids the establishment of a state religion, and prevents any restriction on religious practice.

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not entail that if you do not discriminate against all religions, you are somehow implementing a theocracy.

You would have to be insane to believe that opening up private-school scholarship funding to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian schools was “establishing” a state religion. You would need to be an idiot to believe that letting some parents send their state scholarships to a religious school — any religion — is theocracy.

Instead of insanity or idiocy, I believe the smarter commentators and the liberal justices are motivated by a secular understanding of purity. They believe that government money is somehow defiled if any religious institution gets its hands on it.

This is perhaps bigotry. The rabid secularists really do seem to believe religious people have cooties. You can see the bigotry most clearly when folks on the Left falsely assume that Christian conservatives hate Jews and Muslims as much as the anti-Christian Left hates us.

It’s an ugly bigotry against religious institutions that infects too many on the Left. They can call it “separation of church and state” but what they really mean is “religious institutions are gross and should be relegated to second-class status.”

MSN

______________________________________________

The article is a brilliantly reasoned and scathing rebuke of the Court's remaining Marxist justices vis-a-vis the left's false and ideologically tyrannical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The decision is a long overdue adjustment against the trend set over 50 years ago by the liberal Warren Court and a huge step forward toward universal school choice.

 

[struth]

The majority was a good opinion. If the Govt were to say, we will allow Christian based schools, and not Muslim based schools to partake, then it's a violation of the 1st Amendment...but if it opens it to all...then it's not.

 

[mamooth]

When you've been getting special treatment for centuries, as Christians have, then the removal of that special treatment feels like oppression.

 

[Ringtone]

When you've been getting special treatment for centuries, as Christians have, then the removal of that special treatment feels like oppression.

You're ridiculous. The whole point of the decision is that the mobocratic leftist assholes who control a blue state were taxing everybody and unconstitutionally discriminating against persons of religious ideology, subjecting them to special treatment as second-class citizens. That's precisely why the leftist's understanding of the doctrine of separation is stupid and unjust. You leftist morons don't even grasp the fact that your doctrine is that of the former Soviet Union.

The imperatives of natural and constitutional law demand universal school choice, wherein parents tax dollars follow their children to the school of their choice, whether the school be secular or religious. You leftist thugs of the Marxist doctrine merely want to wholly control the socialization of our nation's children per your ideology, and you stupidly think that common sense and decency doesn't see right through you.

 

[Ringtone]

The majority was a good opinion. If the Govt were to say, we will allow Christian based schools, and not Muslim based schools to partake, then it's a violation of the 1st Amendment...but if it opens it to all...then it's not.

That's the whole point of the decision! Of course, parents should be able to send their children to whatever qualifying secular or religious school they choose under the program.

 

[Ringtone]

Hey, surada, make up your mind. Why did you down vote my post and up vote struth's.

Also, you inexplicably gave mamooth's an up vote when the whole point of the decision is to stop the government from favoring any ideology, secular or religious. You dummies. That was the universal practice from the founding of this nation until the leftist Warren Court muddled the doctrine of separation.

The fact that America has always been a Christian-majority nation does not suddenly justify treating persons of religious faith like second-class citizens. How does that incoherency follow? especially when mamooth's stupidity would make Jews and Muslims second-class citizens too vis-a-vis the program.

Did you even read the article?

 

[Coyote]

Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination​

Opinion by Timothy P. Carney - Tuesday

The Left often tries to make you believe that discrimination is the only sin. Any law or policy or custom or fact of nature that might result in different people being treated differently is supposedly intolerable.

Most Democrats believe “singlism” — discrimination against the unmarried — is a real problem, according to a recent poll. Any joking about your own COVID case is “ablelism.” And the charge of “transphobia” gets thrown around for almost anything.

But don't be fooled. Leftists hold one form discrimination very dear. In fact, it is almost a first principle of their ideology.

The liberal minority on the Supreme Court showed on Tuesday its dedication to anti-religious discrimination. In an angry dissent in the case Carson v. Makin, the three liberal justices chastised the majority for striking down a law that explicitly discriminated against religious institutions.

The liberal justices called their principle “separation of church and state,” and claimed it was rooted in the First Amendment. But the legal or moral principle they champion — and on which the Maine law just struck down was based — is simply that government ought to discriminate against religious institutions.

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.

This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion. Liberal counties and cities aren’t even pretending to be value-neutral anymore. They are explicitly using public schools to advance their religion, which is characterized in part by its absolutist moralism on transgenderism and the primacy of racial identify.

But back to Maine: parents could even send their kids to school in Canada or Switzerland under this tuition program. They could use these tax dollars to send their kids to all-girls’ schools, or to French-language schools. The schools eligible under this program could also be boarding schools. Schools receiving this money could have no set curriculum at all, like Bluehill Harbor School, or they could be explicit culture-warrior schools, such as Walnut Hill School for the Arts.

They just can’t be “sectarian,” which means the institutions cannot profess a system of belief that involves God.

This is obviously illegal discrimination, rooted in a history of unsavory anti-Catholic ideology. Yet in their angry dissent, the liberal justices claimed they were simply upholding “separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Of course, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “separation of church of state.” It only forbids the establishment of a state religion, and prevents any restriction on religious practice.

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not entail that if you do not discriminate against all religions, you are somehow implementing a theocracy.

You would have to be insane to believe that opening up private-school scholarship funding to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian schools was “establishing” a state religion. You would need to be an idiot to believe that letting some parents send their state scholarships to a religious school — any religion — is theocracy.

Instead of insanity or idiocy, I believe the smarter commentators and the liberal justices are motivated by a secular understanding of purity. They believe that government money is somehow defiled if any religious institution gets its hands on it.

This is perhaps bigotry. The rabid secularists really do seem to believe religious people have cooties. You can see the bigotry most clearly when folks on the Left falsely assume that Christian conservatives hate Jews and Muslims as much as the anti-Christian Left hates us.

It’s an ugly bigotry against religious institutions that infects too many on the Left. They can call it “separation of church and state” but what they really mean is “religious institutions are gross and should be relegated to second-class status.”

MSN

______________________________________________

The article is a brilliantly reasoned and scathing rebuke of the Court's remaining Marxist justices vis-a-vis the left's false and ideologically tyrannical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The decision is a long overdue adjustment against the trend set over 50 years ago by the liberal Warren Court and a huge step forward toward universal school choice.

Why should taxpayers pay for any private school, much less a religious one?

 

[Missourian]

Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination​

Opinion by Timothy P. Carney - Tuesday

The Left often tries to make you believe that discrimination is the only sin. Any law or policy or custom or fact of nature that might result in different people being treated differently is supposedly intolerable.

Most Democrats believe “singlism” — discrimination against the unmarried — is a real problem, according to a recent poll. Any joking about your own COVID case is “ablelism.” And the charge of “transphobia” gets thrown around for almost anything.

But don't be fooled. Leftists hold one form discrimination very dear. In fact, it is almost a first principle of their ideology.

The liberal minority on the Supreme Court showed on Tuesday its dedication to anti-religious discrimination. In an angry dissent in the case Carson v. Makin, the three liberal justices chastised the majority for striking down a law that explicitly discriminated against religious institutions.

The liberal justices called their principle “separation of church and state,” and claimed it was rooted in the First Amendment. But the legal or moral principle they champion — and on which the Maine law just struck down was based — is simply that government ought to discriminate against religious institutions.

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.

This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion. Liberal counties and cities aren’t even pretending to be value-neutral anymore. They are explicitly using public schools to advance their religion, which is characterized in part by its absolutist moralism on transgenderism and the primacy of racial identify.

But back to Maine: parents could even send their kids to school in Canada or Switzerland under this tuition program. They could use these tax dollars to send their kids to all-girls’ schools, or to French-language schools. The schools eligible under this program could also be boarding schools. Schools receiving this money could have no set curriculum at all, like Bluehill Harbor School, or they could be explicit culture-warrior schools, such as Walnut Hill School for the Arts.

They just can’t be “sectarian,” which means the institutions cannot profess a system of belief that involves God.

This is obviously illegal discrimination, rooted in a history of unsavory anti-Catholic ideology. Yet in their angry dissent, the liberal justices claimed they were simply upholding “separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Of course, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “separation of church of state.” It only forbids the establishment of a state religion, and prevents any restriction on religious practice.

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not entail that if you do not discriminate against all religions, you are somehow implementing a theocracy.

You would have to be insane to believe that opening up private-school scholarship funding to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian schools was “establishing” a state religion. You would need to be an idiot to believe that letting some parents send their state scholarships to a religious school — any religion — is theocracy.

Instead of insanity or idiocy, I believe the smarter commentators and the liberal justices are motivated by a secular understanding of purity. They believe that government money is somehow defiled if any religious institution gets its hands on it.

This is perhaps bigotry. The rabid secularists really do seem to believe religious people have cooties. You can see the bigotry most clearly when folks on the Left falsely assume that Christian conservatives hate Jews and Muslims as much as the anti-Christian Left hates us.

It’s an ugly bigotry against religious institutions that infects too many on the Left. They can call it “separation of church and state” but what they really mean is “religious institutions are gross and should be relegated to second-class status.”

MSN

______________________________________________

The article is a brilliantly reasoned and scathing rebuke of the Court's remaining Marxist justices vis-a-vis the left's false and ideologically tyrannical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The decision is a long overdue adjustment against the trend set over 50 years ago by the liberal Warren Court and a huge step forward toward universal school choice.

Good article.

100% agree many Leftist are anti-Christian and anti-Jewish bigots.

And if Muslims get any political power in America... They'll be anti-Islamic as well.

 

[Missourian]

Why should taxpayers pay for any private school, much less a religious one?

Take that up with Maine's legislature...but as long as they do...all accredited schools should be eligible... Correct?

 

[Coyote]

Take that up with Maine's legislature...but as long as they do...all accredited schools should be eligible... Correct?

IMO, if they pay any private schools, then religious schools, as long as they meet the academic criteria, should not be excluded.

I don’t think taxpayers should fund any private schools unless it is for a special need that public schools cannot meet.

 

[Ringtone]

Why should taxpayers pay for any private school, much less a religious one?

See edited post #6. Please respond to that post. Yeah. I'd like very such to expose the left's phony doctrine of separation.

 

[whitehall]

The modern version of "separation church/state" wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was the opposite of the 1st Amendment. The majority opinion that created "Church/State" was authored by a former KKK member who also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR from responsibility for the notorious Ex O 9066.

 

[Ringtone]

Take that up with Maine's legislature...but as long as they do...all accredited schools should be eligible... Correct?

Actually, Missourian, even the states should not be permitted to block universal school choice. See edited post #6. It is extraconstitutional horseshit that public funds can't or shouldn't go to private schools in the first place. The Bill of Rights protects we the people, not legislative bodies. The right to determine the educational ideology for children in a free society belongs to parents, not the state.

I think you're unintentionally implying that it's okay for the state to tax all of us to support a publicly funded education system and then impose a strictly secular curriculum on all of us.

And precisely what does it mean to have a strictly secular curriculum anyway?

Actually, that's a rhetorical question, as no institution exists in an ideological vacuum.

The leftist's fallacious doctrine of separation means that he gets to impose a strictly secular curriculum on everyone, a secular curriculum that is increasingly humanistic, paganistic in terms of sexual philosophy, collectivistic, anti-American, racist, divisive, destructive. . . .

Supposedly, the leftist's religion is not a religion because it hates God.

Look, the First Amendment does not and never did prohibit public funds being used to fund religious instruction. It prohibits the establishment of a state religion.

 

[Ringtone]

The modern version of "separation church/state" wasn't based on Constitutional law. It was the opposite of the 1st Amendment. The majority opinion that created "Church/State" was authored by a former KKK member who also wrote the majority opinion that exonerated FDR from responsibility for the notorious Ex O 9066.

I don't know about the KKK stuff but the leftist doctrine of separation is definitely fallacious. You're alluding, of course, to Everson v. The Board of Education (1947), on which I wrote an article. Actually, Everson got the first part of the decision right but then mangled the doctrine of separation with Black's incoherent la-la about a “high and impregnable wall between church and state.”

Ironically, the leftist dodos on the current Court don't even seem to know that their dissent is actually contrary to the Court's principle finding in Everson. It's their dissent that would constitute an overthrow of the prevailing stare decisis.

They are friggin' morons unfit to be on the Court in the first place.

 

[Ringtone]

IMO, if they pay any private schools, then religious schools, as long as they meet the academic criteria, should not be excluded.

I don’t think taxpayers should fund any private schools unless it is for a special need that public schools cannot meet.

I already know what your fallacious doctrine of separation is. What does your inherently tyrannical notion have to do with the imperatives of natural and constitutional law?

See the reality of your notion in post #13.

 

[Ringtone]

IMO, if they pay any private schools, then religious schools, as long as they meet the academic criteria, should not be excluded.

I don’t think taxpayers should fund any private schools unless it is for a special need that public schools cannot meet.

So you at least agree that the Court made the right decision in this case pre common sense and the operative judicial imperative of Everson v. The Board of Education (1947)? So you agree that the dissenting leftist jurists on the prevailing Court are full of shit and are actually arguing against stare decisis?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Their 'separation of church and state' is just ugly anti-religion discrimination​

Opinion by Timothy P. Carney - Tuesday

The Left often tries to make you believe that discrimination is the only sin. Any law or policy or custom or fact of nature that might result in different people being treated differently is supposedly intolerable.

Most Democrats believe “singlism” — discrimination against the unmarried — is a real problem, according to a recent poll. Any joking about your own COVID case is “ablelism.” And the charge of “transphobia” gets thrown around for almost anything.

But don't be fooled. Leftists hold one form discrimination very dear. In fact, it is almost a first principle of their ideology.

The liberal minority on the Supreme Court showed on Tuesday its dedication to anti-religious discrimination. In an angry dissent in the case Carson v. Makin, the three liberal justices chastised the majority for striking down a law that explicitly discriminated against religious institutions.

The liberal justices called their principle “separation of church and state,” and claimed it was rooted in the First Amendment. But the legal or moral principle they champion — and on which the Maine law just struck down was based — is simply that government ought to discriminate against religious institutions.

Maine has many small and shrinking towns, some of which are pretty isolated. Rather than try to stand up or prop up unsustainable public schools where there are few students, Maine pays part of the tuition of parents in these rural towns to send their children to their private schools. But the law has two limitations: parents must choose a school that is accredited by the regional accreditation body, and the schools cannot be religious.

So the state will pay tuition for any accredited private school, teaching any ideology or worldview, backed by any organization — unless that accredited school is something people recognize to be religious.

This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion. Liberal counties and cities aren’t even pretending to be value-neutral anymore. They are explicitly using public schools to advance their religion, which is characterized in part by its absolutist moralism on transgenderism and the primacy of racial identify.

But back to Maine: parents could even send their kids to school in Canada or Switzerland under this tuition program. They could use these tax dollars to send their kids to all-girls’ schools, or to French-language schools. The schools eligible under this program could also be boarding schools. Schools receiving this money could have no set curriculum at all, like Bluehill Harbor School, or they could be explicit culture-warrior schools, such as Walnut Hill School for the Arts.

They just can’t be “sectarian,” which means the institutions cannot profess a system of belief that involves God.

This is obviously illegal discrimination, rooted in a history of unsavory anti-Catholic ideology. Yet in their angry dissent, the liberal justices claimed they were simply upholding “separation between church and state that the Framers fought to build.” Of course, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “separation of church of state.” It only forbids the establishment of a state religion, and prevents any restriction on religious practice.

The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not entail that if you do not discriminate against all religions, you are somehow implementing a theocracy.

You would have to be insane to believe that opening up private-school scholarship funding to Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, Catholic, Orthodox, Buddhist, and Zoroastrian schools was “establishing” a state religion. You would need to be an idiot to believe that letting some parents send their state scholarships to a religious school — any religion — is theocracy.

Instead of insanity or idiocy, I believe the smarter commentators and the liberal justices are motivated by a secular understanding of purity. They believe that government money is somehow defiled if any religious institution gets its hands on it.

This is perhaps bigotry. The rabid secularists really do seem to believe religious people have cooties. You can see the bigotry most clearly when folks on the Left falsely assume that Christian conservatives hate Jews and Muslims as much as the anti-Christian Left hates us.

It’s an ugly bigotry against religious institutions that infects too many on the Left. They can call it “separation of church and state” but what they really mean is “religious institutions are gross and should be relegated to second-class status.”

MSN

______________________________________________

The article is a brilliantly reasoned and scathing rebuke of the Court's remaining Marxist justices vis-a-vis the left's false and ideologically tyrannical doctrine of the separation of church and state. The decision is a long overdue adjustment against the trend set over 50 years ago by the liberal Warren Court and a huge step forward toward universal school choice.

Thanks you so much for posting this article, and for calling out the bigots and Marxists who support the hatred of the faith that made America the shining city on the hill.


My fav line is this:
"This is laughable in an era when progressivism has effectively taken the status of a religion."


They have been trained to bend neck and knee to their religion, Militant Secularism.....

1. Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) on Tuesday called for liberal activists to believe in climate change as if it were a "religion." Dem Senator Hirono: Believe in Climate Change Like a Religion


2. And the equally brilliant Ben Shapiro runs with "its sacraments (abortion)"....
"When Abortion Becomes a Sacrament
...alleged comedian Michelle Wolf paid tribute to the most important facet of American life: abortion. On her Netflix show on Sunday, Wolf dressed up in red, white and blue, and shrieked into the camera, "God bless abortions, and God bless America!" She explained: "Women, if you need an abortion, get one! If you want an abortion, get one! ...

...abortion isn't just another decision. It's a giant middle finger to the moral establishment. And those who would fight abortion are desacralizing the mysterious holiness of a ritual that reinforces women's control. No wonder Wolf thinks God blesses abortion; abortion is her god."
When Abortion Becomes A Sacrament

3. “It [Communism] is not new. It is, in fact, man's second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: "Ye shall be as gods." It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man's relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.
It is the vision of man's mind displacing God as the creative intelligence of the world.” Whittaker Chambers, Witness



4. “Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ - Non Perele - News Online



5. "Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.”
The Branding of a Heretic



6. “The secularists [that The New York Times, Katherine] Stewart represents just refuse to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are in fact religious beliefs, and of a far creepier and deadlier kind than Christians’.
….the belief that it is possible to fix the world by applying government pressure? That is not a belief that can be wholly validated by research or experience. In fact, research and experience both indicate that central planning usually makes life even more nasty, brutish, and short.

So what is this unfounded, undocumented, unprovable faith in government power to correct human psyches and behavior if not a religious (metaphysical) belief? It is also an unprovable and metaphysical belief about what a human is — a thing that can be “corrected” by politics and whose “error” is not intrinsic to itself. Again, these are all metaphysical, religious beliefs with no empirical basis or possibility of being fully empirically proven.


The secular, pagan, atheist types are the ones who claim religious assumptions are evil. They do so because they erroneously believe they are free from such assumptions. But in truth, no one is.””
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'



7. NY Democrat Governor “Hochul defends calling NYC churchgoers ‘my apostles’” … speech at a Brooklyn mega-church where she urged worshippers to act as “my apostles” and proselytize on behalf of COVID-19 vaccinations. Critics of the remarks included Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who mocked Hochul as “one of the high priestesses” of “the cult of coronavirus” and “the leader of the New York diocese of the corona cult.” “Around her neck, she wore not a cross — that’s yesterday’s symbol — but instead a vaccination necklace,” Hochul defends calling NYC churchgoers ‘my apostles’

Second only to lies, hypocrisy is their most often empoyed method.

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you've been getting special treatment for centuries, as Christians have, then the removal of that special treatment feels like oppression.

Possibly, were you an American, you'd know that our Founders were religious, and used the Bible as the basis for our founding docments.



"The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died."
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7

 

[mamooth]

Possibly, were you an American, you'd know that our Founders were religious, and used the Bible as the basis for our founding docments.

So how many rubles did you get for that nonsense?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why should taxpayers pay for any private school, much less a religious one?

The government school system is a religious institution based on the teaching of earlier Democrats, as seen here:



"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physical sins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

It is the cornerstone of Leftist doctrine.