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

[PoliticalChic]

What?! What's that supposed to mean?

It means they are reduced to lies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm in the very same boat. There's something seriously wrong with the minds of persons like Coyote. They seem to be utterly incapable of sociopolitical empathy. They seem to be soulless, mindless, and impenetrably stupid.

I'm in the very same boat. There's something seriously wrong with the minds of persons like Coyote. They seem to be utterly incapable of sociopolitical empathy. They seem to be soulless, mindless, and impenetrably stupid.

People like that have given up the right to think or question.

The die was cast some time back:

" In October 1919, Lenin paid a secret visit to the laboratory of the great physiologist I. P. Pavlov, a Russian physiologist known chiefly for the concept of the conditioned reflex. In his classic experiment, he found that a hungry dog can be trained to associate the sound of a bell with food and will salivate at the sound even in the absence of food.

Lenin wanted to find out if his work on the conditional reflexes of the brain might help the Bolsheviks control European behaviour.

“I want the masses of Russia to follow a Communistic pattern of thinking and reacting,” Lenin explained. Pavlov was astounded. It seemed that Lenin wanted him to do for humans what he had already done for dogs.

“Do you mean that you would like to standardise the population of Russia? Make them all behave in the same way?” he asked. “Exactly” replied Lenin. “Man can be corrected. Man can be made what we want him to be.”…
Orlando Figes, "A People's Tragedy," p.732-733

 

[PoliticalChic]

You must have gone to a red state school.

Point of Clarification:

Red always stood for communism and anarchism.


Peripheral to your point, but may I vent on this point.....the 'color of states' thing is like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

We are blue, they are red.



Red is traditionally associated with socialism and communism. The oldest symbol of socialism (and, by extension, communism) is the Red Flag, which dates back to the revolutions of 1848. The colour red was chosen to represent the blood of the workers who died in the struggle against capitalism. All major socialist and communist alliances and organisations – including the First, Second, and Third Internationals – used red as their official colour. The association between the colour red and communism is particularly strong. Communists use red much more often and more extensively than other ideologies use their respective traditional colours.







In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media have associated red with the Republican Party, despite the fact that the Republican Party is a conservative-leaning party. Since at least 2010, the party has adopted an all red logo.

Political colour - Wikipedia





"The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. Red states and blue states - Wikipedia







The Democrats should be Gray….reminiscent of the outfits they wore when they were the Confederacy, and we’re Blue….the color we wore when we pried their slaves away from them.

Justice will not be on the upswing until the true color scheme is put back in place.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Per the 'disagree' emoticon'......what is there to disagree with.....all of this is factual.

Just the emoticon????
Another one I've left speechless.

 

[Ringtone]

Why should taxpayers pay for private schools?

You have asked that same question several times in form or another as you disregard the imperatives of natural and constitutional law, and implicitly appeal to the former Soviet Union's doctrine of separation between church and state. Your question has been answered. Stop trolling the thread and address the substance of those answers,

For example:

Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that psychologically abuse boys, especially, as they demonize masculinity, for example? Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that lie to parents and violate parental authority? Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that impose CRT, transsexualism, homosexualism, Marxism, multiculturalism, humanism, intersectionality, philosophical relativism, rabid feminism, and other leftist religious dogma?​

​

​

 

[Tommy Tainant]

But here we are

They havent thought this through have they ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Point of Clarification:

Red always stood for communism and anarchism.


Peripheral to your point, but may I vent on this point.....the 'color of states' thing is like fingernails on a blackboard to me.

We are blue, they are red.



Red is traditionally associated with socialism and communism. The oldest symbol of socialism (and, by extension, communism) is the Red Flag, which dates back to the revolutions of 1848. The colour red was chosen to represent the blood of the workers who died in the struggle against capitalism. All major socialist and communist alliances and organisations – including the First, Second, and Third Internationals – used red as their official colour. The association between the colour red and communism is particularly strong. Communists use red much more often and more extensively than other ideologies use their respective traditional colours.







In the United States, since the year 2000, the mass media have associated red with the Republican Party, despite the fact that the Republican Party is a conservative-leaning party. Since at least 2010, the party has adopted an all red logo.

Political colour - Wikipedia





"The choice of colors in this divide is counter-intuitive to many international observers, as throughout the world, red is commonly the designated color for parties representing labor, socialist, and/or liberal interests [5] [6], which in the United States would be more closely correlated with the Democratic Party. Similarly, blue is used in these countries to depict conservative parties which in the case of the United States would be a color more suitable for the Republicans. For example, in Canada party colors are deeply ingrained and historic and have been unchanged during the Twentieth Century. Red states and blue states - Wikipedia







The Democrats should be Gray….reminiscent of the outfits they wore when they were the Confederacy, and we’re Blue….the color we wore when we pried their slaves away from them.

Justice will not be on the upswing until the true color scheme is put back in place.

To the moron who put the emoticon on: ask yourself what the Left is trying to hide by reversing the red and blue colors.



That's right.....you've been tricked into standing for the same things as the earlier Bolsheviks.

 

[Ringtone]

Never thought I would se a proposal to bring in Sharia Law..

Who proposed that?

 

[Ringtone]

It means they are reduced to lies.

Apparently so.

 

[Meister]

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

Why should those parents who send their children to private schools still have to pay
for public schools?

 

[sartre play]

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

www.msn.com

______________________________________________

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.

The base of our constitution separation of church & state.

 

[sartre play]

Why should those parents who send their children to private schools still have to pay
for public schools?

What kind of country would we be living in if I only paid for what suited me personally?

 

[Meister]

What kind of country would we be living in if I only paid for what suited me personally?

That is a double edged sword. Look at the post I responded to, Sartre.

 

[Care4all]

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.

Is there precedent the justices were relying on, from previous supreme court decisions on like, cases?

 

[Care4all]

I live here, and haven't watched local news or paid attention to it, but from this article if correct, it just seems silly to me, not to include religious schools if they meet all requirements.

It's not like the parents have a local school to send them to, provided by the gvt, and not like they are rejecting that neighborhood public school and want to put their kids in religious schools instead and take tax dollars away from their local schools?

This just seems wrong to me.... there must be more to the story that I need to find out.

 

[Ringtone]

Why should those parents who send their children to private schools still have to pay
for public schools?

Your question gets at the other aspect of my question, but Coyote has refused to responsively address the answers and questions that have been given and asked of her as she basically trolls the thread.

She keeps asking why taxpayers should pay for private schools.

My last post addressed to her:

You have asked that same question several times in one form or another as you disregard the imperatives of natural and constitutional law, and implicitly appeal to the former Soviet Union's doctrine of separation between church and state. Your question has been answered. Stop trolling the thread and address the substance of those answers,​

​

For example:​

​

Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that psychologically abuse boys, especially, as they demonize masculinity, for example? Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that lie to parents and violate parental authority? Why should taxpayers pay for public schools that impose CRT, transsexualism, homosexualism, Marxism, multiculturalism, humanism, intersectionality, philosophical relativism, rabid feminism, and other leftist religious dogma?​

The obvious thrust of my question goes to the fact that the state schools are violating the rights of the people by imposing a collectivist, one-size-fits-all slate of academics per a fallacious doctrine of separation sans the universal school choice that the imperatives of natural and constitutional law demand. The typical statist bootlick's attitude is that if you don't like it, send your kids to a private school . . . and pay twice to educate your children as I steal your tax dollars to pay for my public indoctrination centers of leftist filth.

Leftist are sociopaths.

 

[Ringtone]

The base of our constitution separation of church & state.

What are you talking about?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The base of our constitution separation of church & state.

That's a lie.


There is no such statement in any of our founding documents, dolt.


. Do you know the preamble for all 50 states?
It might surprise some people.


The Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions-
The Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions-Truth!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is there precedent the justices were relying on, from previous supreme court decisions on like, cases?

Nonsense.

The Supreme Court has overruled itself 125 times in its history, usually after much time had passed and public sentiment changed, or because new appointments to the Court caused an ideological shift on the bench itself.⁴



The Court has also been overruled by Congress passing new (and sometimes clarifying) laws 59 times, in areas widely ranging from tax law to immigration to education and crime.⁵

4. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_over-ruled_U-ed_States_Supreme_Court_decisions 5. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia List_of_abro-gat-ed_Ued_States_Supreme_Court_decisions




The Library of Congress tracks the historic list of overruled Supreme Court cases in its report, The Constitution Annotated. As of 2020, the court had overruled its own precedents in an estimated 232 cases since 1810, says the library.May 3, 2022
A short list of overturned Supreme Court landmark decisions
https://constitutioncenter.org › blog › a-short-list-of-overt..





List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › List_of_overruled_Uni...
As of 2018, the Supreme Court had overruled more than 300 of its own cases. ... The longest period between the original decision and the overruling decision is ...
‎Constitutional · ‎Article One · ‎Statutory · ‎Habeas




You wouldn't embarrass yourself so if you had a real education.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I live here, and haven't watched local news or paid attention to it, but from this article if correct, it just seems silly to me, not to include religious schools if they meet all requirements.

It's not like the parents have a local school to send them to, provided by the gvt, and not like they are rejecting that neighborhood public school and want to put their kids in religious schools instead and take tax dollars away from their local schools?

This just seems wrong to me.... there must be more to the story that I need to find out.

How about simply endorsing freedom, and allowing parents to choose where they send their children.