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

[surada]

Is it the one that flies airplanes into buildings?

OBL hated the Saudis for revoking his citizenship in 1992.

 

[DudleySmith]

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?

The establishment clause didn't affect the individual states, who could and did favor specific sects over others. Jefferson and other govt. officals attended Sunday church services in the Congressional building and Treasury building as VP and President, and also funded religious missionaries with Federal funds. Banning Christian synbols and services from govt. property is a violation of the establishment clause, actually. They had no need to specify Christianity then because they all knew which religion they were protecting, so listing them wasn't necessary, it was already implicit. The clause merely denies the Federl govt. from favoring a national sect, a real concern at the time as the Anglcians were conducting a major campaign in several states to make itself the 'Church of the United States' as well as of New York, and of course the other states objected.



There wasn't then and there isn't now any reason to pander to faggots and pagans and their insipid sniveling, same with any other religion and cult.

 

[surada]

The establishment clause didn't affect the individual states, who could and did favor specific sects over others. Jefferson and other govt. officals attended Sunday church services in the Congressional building and Treasury building as VP and President, and also funded religious missionaries with Federal funds. Banning Christian synbols and services from govt. property is a violation of the establishment clause, actually. They had no need to specify Christianity then because they all knew which religion they were protecting, so lisitn them wasn't necessary,it was already implicit.

What do you want exactly?

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)

Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

www.mtsu.edu

 

[DudleySmith]

What do you want exactly?

Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)

Though not explicitly stated in the First Amendment, the establishment clause is often interpreted to mean that the Constitution requires the separation of church and state.

www.mtsu.edu

What do you mean?

 

[surada]

What do you mean?

I mean what do you want?

 

[JustAGuy1]

OBL hated the Saudis for revoking his citizenship in 1992.

Which, as usual has nothing to do with what he said.

 

[Billiejeens]

OBL hated the Saudis for revoking his citizenship in 1992.

and?

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

When you start your post pointing your finger at leftists and calling someone "ridiculous", you'd best remember you have four more fingers pointing back at yourself. No matter how many big-ass words you use to say it.

There are no "imperatives of natural or constitutional law" which require the state to pay for your religious school tuition fees, nor should there be. The purpose of a public school education is to provide students with the skills they'll need for gainful employment and solid citizenry in the American economy. Your child's religious education is up to his parents and his congregation, not the federal government.

Unless you are living in a restricted area, where you are not dealing with all kinds of people from all walks of life, on a daily basis, it is essential that your offspring learn to live with and work with all kinds of people. Even those your religion persecutes.

"Religious freedom" means that other people are free from religious persecution, which means that gays, and others, cannot be treated badly just because YOUR religion wants them to be shunned.

 

[surada]

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.”

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

______________________________________________

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.

Trump successfully weaponized religion.

Paula White is an example of religious leaders weaponizing faith for politics | Editorial

Religious leaders like Paula White are turning their faith into a weapon to serve Donald Trump.

www.orlandosentinel.com

 

[surada]

Which, as usual has nothing to do with what he said.

OBL hated the Saudis and wanted to punish them. He wanted the US to declare war on them. It is relevant.

 

[dudmuck]

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.”

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

______________________________________________

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.

Federal courts consistently have interpreted the First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion to forbid state sponsorship of prayer and most other religious activities in public schools.

so, if the state sponsors private schools for rural people, then the same rules apply about the state sponsorship of prayer.

How would TIm Carney like tax payer dollars used to send the kids to a madrasa school?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Which religion do you think should have special rights?

On which religion is the Constution based?

 

[surada]

On which religion is the Constution based?

The Quakers, Anabaptists, Huguenots etc didn't get along so the founding fathers made us a secular government.

 

[dudmuck]

The Quakers, Anabaptists, Huguenots etc didn't get along so the founding fathers made us a secular government.

Today there are other reasons to keep it secular.

 

[surada]

Today there are other reasons to keep it secular.

Your map is much later. We're talking about the 13 colonies.

 

[pknopp]

Today there are other reasons to keep it secular.

Doesn't that apply to much of every big city everywhere also?

 

[dudmuck]

Doesn't that apply to much of every big city everywhere also?

just a quick look on gay porn.
Would be interesting the other items.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Quakers, Anabaptists, Huguenots etc didn't get along so the founding fathers made us a secular government.

Of course they didn't, you dunce.

 

[Blues Man]

Does any other state give money to parents so they can send their kids to parochial schools?

If the kid was going to public school there would be no religion involved and the parents would have to pay the tuition for any parochial school

 

[surada]

Of course they didn't, you dunce.

Yes. You see the last thing they wanted was a state religion or a theocracy.