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

[BlackSand]

The prob is that the Demorats have no respect for the Constitution, and went right ahead and pressed their religion, Militant Secularism, on the nation.

.

In response ... Today the Supreme Court just ruled that a High School Coach can practice his faith on the sidelines.
In the opinion I believe they expressed there is no "separation of church and state" as people were trying to apply it, in the Constitution.

.​

 

[Blues Man]

Like this:

In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.​

IDGAF what propaganda you push as long as the government is not doing the pushing

 

[PoliticalChic]

.

In response ... Today the Supreme Court just ruled that a High School Coach can practice his faith on the sidelines.
In the opinion I believe they expressed there is no "separation of church and state" as people were trying to apply it in the Constitution.

.​

I voted for Trump, but must admit that I doubted he would keep those promises about the Supreme Court.

I am amazed, and appreciative.

 

[Ringtone]

IDGAF what propaganda you push as long as the government is not doing the pushing

So I take it you don't agree with the above, which, by the way, is the doctrine of separation between church and state as expressed in Article 13 of the former Soviet Union's constitution.

 

[Blues Man]

So I take it you don't agree with the above, which, by the way, is the doctrine of separation between church and state as expressed in Article 13 of the former Soviet Union's constitution.

As long as the government isn't involved it doesn't matter.

 

[Ringtone]

As long as the government isn't involved it doesn't matter.

The government is going to necessarily be involved in universal school choice funding.

 

[Ringtone]

If it applies to some, it applies to all.

So why didn't you just say that you're a mindless slogan-spouter who doesn't grasp or discuss the wider implications of the OP in the first place, princess, instead of getting all Karen-like?

 

[IM2]

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.

This is retarded.

 

[Ringtone]

This is retarded.

Very informative and engaging post.

 

[pknopp]

So why didn't you just say that you're a mindless slogan-spouter who doesn't grasp or discuss the wider implications of the OP in the first place, princess, instead of getting all Karen-like?

I'm not going to get into a long discussion with someone who starts off with calling people names. It would be a total waste of time.

 

[Blues Man]

The government is going to necessarily be involved in universal school choice funding.

Then it should not fund any schools that teach religion because by doing so government violates the first amendment.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Very informative and engaging post.

Well.....he does work up to his ability.

 

[pknopp]

Then it should not fund any schools that teach religion because by doing so they violate the first amendment.

The first clearly notes that the government can not favor any religion over another.

We use things like how things operated in the past to determine what was acceptable during the times the Constitution was written to help determine things. Clearly the people owned guns. They had to in many cases. Protection was a huge issue for many and many would not eat if not for them.

The same can go for the first amendment. What was one of the first things Congress did when starting off the new government? Institute prayer in Congress at the beginning of each day. If they were clear they were not interested in religion being involved in government in any way, why would they do that?

 

[Blues Man]

The first clearly notes that the government can not favor any religion over another.

We use things like how things operated in the past to determine what was acceptable during the times the Constitution was written to help determine things. Clearly the people owned guns. They had to in many cases. Protection was a huge issue for many and many would not eat if not for them.

The same can go for the first amendment. What was one of the first things Congress did when starting off the new government? Institute prayer in Congress at the beginning of each day. If they were clear they were not interested in religion being involved in government in any way, why would they do that?

Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Funding religious school requires passing a law that respects the establishment of religion.

 

[pknopp]

Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Funding religious school requires passing a law that respects the establishment of religion.

I'm not here to teach a class. You need to do some reading on what the word establishment means and then not refuse to answer questions asked of you and expect people to still respond to you.

 

[Ringtone]

I'm not going to get into a long discussion with someone who starts off with calling people names. It would be a total waste of time.

Don't you mean that you're sorry for inexplicably raving at me for asking you a simple, ordinary question regarding the topic of the OP, Princess Karen?

Your disingenuous weasel act is noted.

 

[Ringtone]

Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion.

Funding religious school requires passing a law that respects the establishment of religion.

Nonsense! That's the gibberish of the statist, former Soviet Union's doctrine of separation.

 

[pknopp]

Don't you mean that you're sorry for inexplicably raving at me for asking you a simple, ordinary question regarding the topic of the OP, Princess Karen?

Your disingenuous weasel act is noted.

I answered your question. You responded with name calling.

 

[surada]

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

Mostly they are opposed to the Scofield heresy.

 

[Blues Man]

I'm not here to teach a class. You need to do some reading on what the word establishment means and then not refuse to answer questions asked of you and expect people to still respond to you.

The existing church of any religion is a religious establishment.

Passing a law to give taxpayer dollars to any religious establishment is a violation of the first amendment.

So you see I did answer your question you just weren't smart enough to realize it.