4/5 wrote:I haven't gotten to read anything yet, but just based off what you've posted it seems reasonable. Like Ellis said I'd prefer states not to fund private schools at all, but I think a reasonable argument can be made that allowing state money to go any school as long as it isn't religious could be seen as inhibiting religious groups. It sounds similar to the logic that students can start clubs on campus for just about any hobby or interest they want, so to deny students the right to start a religious club would be infringing on their rights as opposed to the school actively promoting religion by allowing the club.
I thought publicly funding religious schools was ended in 2012 after the GOP got Jindal'd?
Rep. Valarie Hodges, a Republican who represents East Baton Rouge and Livingston, now says she wishes she hadn’t voted for the Jindal voucher bill.
“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” Hodges told the Livingston Parish News.
“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges added.
The newspaper reported that she “mistakenly assumed that ‘religious’ meant ‘Christian.’"
“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges told the News. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”
Yeah, I'm sure that as you start to see funds go to causes that are non-Christian or are Christian institutions that are not majoritarian in nature, you'll see more attempts in trying weasel in the idea that they really mean religious protections for the privileged.
In that vein, it's also important to note that in the mid 20th century, religious liberty was seen as a big time left wing cause. Most of the major Religion Clause cases featured minority groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists as the plaintiffs. When the Court decided the major Employment Division v. Smith case (one that I think was dead on correct), it was seen at the time as a right wing decision, with the lefties like Brennan and Marshall dissenting. There was a brief moment in the early 90s after that case when there was a united cause for more "religious freedom"--of which led to the bad RFRA being passed--but then, as majoritarian Christian groups wanted to flex their muscle more, the ideological priors completely flipped.
Green Habit wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that as you start to see funds go to causes that are non-Christian or are Christian institutions that are not majoritarian in nature, you'll see more attempts in trying weasel in the idea that they really mean religious protections for the privileged.
In that vein, it's also important to note that in the mid 20th century, religious liberty was seen as a big time left wing cause. Most of the major Religion Clause cases featured minority groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists as the plaintiffs. When the Court decided the major Employment Division v. Smith case (one that I think was dead on correct), it was seen at the time as a right wing decision, with the lefties like Brennan and Marshall dissenting. There was a brief moment in the early 90s after that case when there was a united cause for more "religious freedom"--of which led to the bad RFRA being passed--but then, as majoritarian Christian groups wanted to flex their muscle more, the ideological priors completely flipped.
Thanks for that, and it makes sense. I'm just of the mind that if it's private then keep it private. If you need a subsidy to attend a school, then that school's community should fund your scholarship.
Green Habit wrote:Yeah, I'm sure that as you start to see funds go to causes that are non-Christian or are Christian institutions that are not majoritarian in nature, you'll see more attempts in trying weasel in the idea that they really mean religious protections for the privileged.
In that vein, it's also important to note that in the mid 20th century, religious liberty was seen as a big time left wing cause. Most of the major Religion Clause cases featured minority groups like Jehovah's Witnesses or Seventh Day Adventists as the plaintiffs. When the Court decided the major Employment Division v. Smith case (one that I think was dead on correct), it was seen at the time as a right wing decision, with the lefties like Brennan and Marshall dissenting. There was a brief moment in the early 90s after that case when there was a united cause for more "religious freedom"--of which led to the bad RFRA being passed--but then, as majoritarian Christian groups wanted to flex their muscle more, the ideological priors completely flipped.
Thanks for that, and it makes sense. I'm just of the mind that if it's private then keep it private. If you need a subsidy to attend a school, then that school's community should fund your scholarship.
As a matter of policy I generally agree with you, I should have said that earlier.
I also want to add that while I think the ruling might be a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, it's pretty easy to imagine this being abused by state legislators as they find creative ways to support private religious schools with supposedly religiously-neutral wording even while the intent and likely outcomes are obvious to everybody.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
4/5 wrote:I also want to add that while I think the ruling might be a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution, it's pretty easy to imagine this being abused by state legislators as they find creative ways to support private religious schools with supposedly religiously-neutral wording even while the intent and likely outcomes are obvious to everybody.
if they start to use it for the Jews or Muslims you just wait and see the Heritage Foundation will throw $1B at an appeal
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
I can't wait for the unspoken cynicism of strategic retirement to be exposed when Alito/Thomas has to rescind their retirement after Trump fails to get a replacement appointed before Biden takes over
All posts by this account, even those referencing real things, are entirely fictional and are for entertainment purposes only; i.e. very low-quality entertainment. These may contain coarse language and due to their content should not be viewed by anyone
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
They should all have to play Russian roulette every new term.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Is there any chance Roberts just chickens out, makes no ruling and punts this down to the lower courts who'll be left to fight with Barr et al. for the next 5 months (assuming Biden wins).
