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

[Ringtone]

I am perfectly fine with them choosing private schools, they just shouldn't expect the rest of us to subsidize it.

Stop spouting slogans and trolling the thread. Where are your arguments from constitutional and case law?

 

[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.

At what point, in your opinion, should parents take up arms and burn down the public schools that steal their tax dollars and impose the filth of leftist religious dogma on their children?
Folks who are not mindless zombies, statist bootlicks, stupid sheep, or petty tyrants would like to know. Also, cite the constitutional and case law that established your opinion. Oh, wait! You can't do that because it doesn't exist.

 

[Ringtone]

Many schools can't (and shouldn't have to) provide an education for special needs students who might learn better in a different environment or structure.

I don't consider religious or rightists "special needs" to be funded by the rest of us. Pay for your own damn schools.

Nope.

Conservatives and libertarians shouldn't have to provide an education for the special needs students of twits who exclusively demand a curriculum of leftist religious dogma in the state schools as they steal the formers' taxes, impose their filth, and resist school choice per the imperatives of natural and constitutional law. In fact, since the only thing that said twits will ever understand about the rights of others it seems is the business end of a loaded gun pointed at their stupid heads, I think the former should be considering the option of taking up arms and burning the states schools to the ground.

Of course, the best solution per the imperatives of natural and constitutional law is universal school choice, wherein funding follows students to the school of their parents' choice, whether it be parochial or secular.

 

[BS Filter]

The left isn't anti-religion. They anti-Bible-believing Christians.

 

[pknopp]

So why do you oppose universal school choice?

I'm not sure where I ever did and I don't believe that is even an issue as you can send your kid anywhere you want.

 

[PoliticalChic]

While you're right to point out that stare decisis is not unassailable—after all, Roe v. Wade was just overturned by Dobbs v Jackson—the Court didn't overrule stare decisis in this case. There has never been a precisely identical question addressed by the Court; however, Everson v. The Board of Education (1947) serves as the operative stare decisis.

In Everson, the plaintive argued that a New Jersey statute which reimbursed parents for the cost of busing their children to private schools, secular and parochial, violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

In its decidendi the Court held that (1) the statute did not violate the Establishment Clause and that (2) the Establishment Clause applied, not just to the federal government, but also to state and local governments via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the first time the Court applied the Establishment Clause to the governments of the several states.

That part of the ruling was absolutely correct!

The political left, for example, has assailed the right to keep and bear arms at the state level for decades. It’s a good thing when the federal courts require the several states to uphold the Bill of Rights as well, and there was absolutely nothing unconstitutional about New Jersey allocating funds for transporting students to parochial schools, just like it allocated funds to transport students to other private schools and public schools. The plaintive was trying to persuade the Court to exclude students of religious faith from public services provided for all students.

The Court’s expressly stated ratio decidendi on the question of the case was given in two parts.

The Court held that because the Establishment Clause does not override the Free Exercise Clause “New Jersey cannot . . . exclude individual . . . because of their faith, or lack of it, from receiving the benefits of public welfare legislation.” In this instance, Justice Black, writing for the majority, meant the general government services associated with things like public sewage, parks, highways, education, transportation; fire and police protection, and so on. The First Amendment “requires the state to be neutral in its relations with groups of religious believers and non-believers.” In other words, the New Jersey statute didn’t provide any special benefits to religious students to which they weren’t entitled as citizens.

Should I have mentioned Dred Scott????

 

[Ringtone]

Should I have mentioned Dred Scott????

Sorry, I don't follow you.

 

[pknopp]

That's the problem. You don't seem to fully understand what the issue is, just like you don't grasp what the imperatives of natural and constitutional law require.

You seem to be operating under the statist delusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment empowers the government to collectively impose, via the oligarchies of school boards, whatever ideology it damn well pleases in the state schools against the religious/ideological worldview of the people, as if the Bill of Rights do not protect the individual inherent rights of the people.

You seem to live in the fantasy world in which the Establishment Clause does not prohibit that very thing and in which the Free Exercise Clause does not exist for those who passionately reject the imposition of secular humanism in the state schools, for example.

You don't seem to live in the real world, but a fantasy world where institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

You seem to spout mindless slogans about nonexistent constitutional and case-law principles as the government steals our tax dollars and imposes leftist religious dogma in the state schools. Then you suggest that if I don't like it I can always pay TWICE FOR EDUCATON. Your notion of separation between church and state does not exist in this country. Your silly doctrine of separation is that of the former Soviet Union.

How about this? Lefty can shove his shit up his ass. He's free to pay to shove his shit down his children's throats at home or send his children to the shit-show school of his choice.

In short, I keep my money. I pay once for education. I send my children to the school of my choice.

Keep being obtuse. In the meantime, we're going to win the fight for universal school choice funding, wherein the money follows the students to the school their parents choose, secular or parochial.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and this decision are just the beginning.

MSN

Odd, I supported the ruling but don't let that stop you.

 

[Ringtone]

I'm discussing the issue presented here by this courts ruling. You are mindlessly ranting.

You're ranting, dumbass.

I invited folks to discuss Carson v. Makin and share their views on universal school choice vis-a-vis Carson v. Makin in the OP, dumbass.

You're also making statements that seem to imply that universal school choice funding is prohibited by constitutional law, dumbass.

I'm asking questions of clarification within the boundaries of the OP, dumbass.

Stop trolling the thread, dumbass, or are you just too stupid to grasp the implications of your observations, dumbass.

 

[pknopp]

You're ranting, dumbass.

I invited folks to discuss Carson v. Makin and share their views on universal school choice vis-a-vis Carson v. Makin in the OP, dumbass.

You're also making statements that seem to imply that universal school choice funding is prohibited by constitutional law, dumbass.

Obviously the school systems have failed us with you. I say I supported the decision and you accuse me of being against choice. Reading comprehension must not have been taught wherever it was you were taught.

 

[Ringtone]

Odd, I supported the ruling but don't let that stop you.

But wait! I was trying to edit my post when you responded. I deleted that post. I reposted the edited version here: #112. See if you can respond to this without being rude out of nowhere this time and address it in accordance with the full parameters outlined in the OP, Einstein. Or is that beyond your slogan-spouting thought processes?

 

[Ringtone]

I'm not sure where I ever did and I don't believe that is even an issue as you can send your kid anywhere you want.

That's the problem. You don't seem to fully understand what the issue is, just like you don't grasp what the imperatives of natural and constitutional law require.

You seem to be operating under the statist delusion that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment empowers the government to collectively impose, via the oligarchies of school boards, whatever ideology it damn well pleases in the state schools against the religious/ideological worldview of the people, as if the Bill of Rights do not protect the individual inherent rights of the people.

You seem to live in the fantasy world in which the Establishment Clause does not prohibit that very thing and in which the Free Exercise Clause does not exist for those who passionately reject the imposition of secular humanism in the state schools, for example.

You don't seem to live in the real world, but a fantasy world where institutions exist in ideological vacuums.

You seem to spout mindless slogans about nonexistent constitutional and case-law principles as the government steals our tax dollars and imposes leftist religious dogma in the state schools. Then you suggest that if I don't like it I can always pay TWICE FOR EDUCATON. Your notion of separation between church and state does not exist in this country. Your silly doctrine of separation is that of the former Soviet Union.

How about this? Lefty can shove his shit up his ass. He's free to pay to shove his shit down his children's throats at home or send his children to the shit-show school of his choice.

In short, I keep my money. I pay once for education. I send my children to the school of my choice.

Keep being obtuse. In the meantime, we're going to win the fight for universal school choice funding, wherein the money follows the students to the school their parents choose, secular or parochial.

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin are just the beginning.

MSN

 

[pknopp]

But wait! I was trying to edit my post when you responded. I deleted that post. I reposted the edited version here: . See if you can respond to this without being rude

You call me names and call me rude? Yeah, nevermind.

 

[Ringtone]

Odd, I supported the ruling but don't let that stop you.

I know you support it. I saw that post. I also saw the post in which you seemed to be suggesting that constitutional law prohibits universal school choice funding, which is precisely what I invited folks to talk about as well and precisely what the author of the article of the OP is ultimately getting at.

I was asking for clarification from you. I was wondering if your understanding of things extends to universal school choice funding, I don't read minds, and I wasn't being rude to you.

Your response:

You are mindlessly ranting.​

You call me names and call me rude? Yeah, nevermind.

You were rude for absolutely no reason first, implying that I'm some kind idiot for asking a question, when it is you who doesn't seem to grasp the implications of your very own statements, fails to note the parameters of the OP, fails to understand the thrust of the article about the decision vis-a-vis wider school choice funding, as discussed by the author of the article.

Now instead of acknowledging your error, apologizing to me so that we might get back to a discussion on a civil footing . . . you run off.

You don't seem to grasp the wider implications of anything.

 

[Ringtone]

Obviously the school systems have failed us with you. I say I supported the decision and you accuse me of being against choice. Reading comprehension must not have been taught wherever it was you were taught.

Lying-ass punk. See posts #109, #111, 112, and #114 again. You don't fly anywhere near the altitude of my intellect. Go gaslight somebody else, asshole.

 

[Ringtone]

Obviously the school systems have failed us with you. I say I supported the decision and you accuse me of being against choice. Reading comprehension must not have been taught wherever it was you were taught.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The obtuse in strong in this one.

 

[pknopp]

I know you support it. I saw that post. I also saw the post in which you seemed to be suggesting that constitutional law prohibits universal school choice funding,

No you didn't.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, I don't follow you.

If stare decisis were carved in stone blacks would still be as pieces of furniture.

Even Democrats no longer cleave to the Dred Scott decision.

 

[Ringtone]

No you didn't.

Damn it, man! Yes, I did. You were talking to Coyote in post #40.

You wrote this:

To note, I read the hyperbole in response to your question and I want to first state I am in no way aligned with those view points.​

To wit I wrote, obviously fully aware that both she and you, in this instance, agreed with the decision.

It's not hyperbole! It's the reality.​

​

Moreover, Coyote has already indicated that she accepts the operative ratio decidendi of Carson v. Makin. See post #16. We just can't seem to get a straight answer from her on that score, anymore than we can get a straight answer from her as to why taxpayers should pay for public schools that violate their natural and constitutional rights.​

​

To which you responded:

I will then argue I should not have to pay for a military that offends me in what it does. Others can decide to not fund this or not fund that. Yippee.​

Huh? What's he saying now? Does this guy support school choice or not? I didn't say anything in the above about not letting the likes of Coyote use public funds to send her children to shit-show schools. Unlike her, I support universal school choice funding. You apparently misunderstood the thrust of my complaint.

And you wrote this:

The problem becomes the government deciding which families are qualified for aid or not. I do not believe the government is capable. If one can, all must. It is the same argument I've made in many areas. Equal protection.​

​

Now more to your question..........since it is the taxpayers kids going to these schools, I don't understand why you are unable to understand that they want some of that sent to private schools, especially since the public schools seem to not be able to meet the needs in this case.​

So he does support universal school choice?


And you wrote this:

You pay your taxes, if you want to send your kid to a private school that school can get funding. I fail to see your problem.​

My response: Are you claiming that we have universal school choice in this country? Since when, especially in blue states? What are you talking about?​

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You never answered that post.
_________________________________________

So I asked a simple question of clarification, only to get a rude response about me supposedly raving.

Sorry to have bothered you, princess, with a question of clarification. Mea culpa.

 

[pknopp]

Damn it, man! Yes, I did. You were talking to Coyote in post #40.

You wrote this:

To note, I read the hyperbole in response to your question and I want to first state I am in no way aligned with those view points.​

That's right, hyperbole such as you have been posting. Just because I don't follow people over the cliff doesn't mean I don't support this ruling.