The board's server will undergo upgrade maintenance tonight, Nov 5, 2014, beginning approximately around 10 PM ET. Prepare for some possible down time during this process.
FAQ    Search

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 5061
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
Green Habit wrote:
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.
:thumbsup:

I thought publicly funding religious schools was ended in 2012 after the GOP got Jindal'd?

Quote:
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.”


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar
The Master
 Profile

Joined: Tue September 24, 2013 5:56 pm
Posts: 36757
Location: Different mountains than Strat.
Green Habit wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:
The wording on the part about the Establishment Clause. At first blush, seems like something that could be cited in all manner of future decisions.
That depends on whether that view can get more votes. For now, it's a ways away, only Thomas and Gorsuch expressed that opinion.

Makes sense. Thanks GH.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 4:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu January 10, 2013 2:19 am
Posts: 5061
Location: SOUTH PORTLAND
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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 4:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
elliseamos wrote:
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.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
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



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 9:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448
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.
Agreed.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Tue June 30, 2020 11:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 17307
so long as it’s for Christian schools though

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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed July 01, 2020 4:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Site Admin
 Profile

Joined: Wed December 12, 2012 10:33 pm
Posts: 6448


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed July 01, 2020 5:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Green Habit wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock:

_________________
"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



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed July 01, 2020 5:31 pm 
Online
User avatar
Classic B
 WWW  Profile

Joined: Wed December 19, 2012 9:53 pm
Posts: 13982
Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA
4/5 wrote:
Green Habit wrote:

:shock: :shock: :shock:


Guess it's time to let the people decide which President they want to replace him. That went well for us last time.

_________________
VinylGuy wrote:
Fuck, B was right all along?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed July 01, 2020 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar
Rank This Poster
 Profile

Joined: Thu December 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Posts: 4196
Watching Mitch McConnell push somebody through in the four months before an election in the midst of a pandemic will be a sight to behold.

_________________
"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



Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Wed July 01, 2020 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 1:53 pm
Posts: 15243
Location: I am taking care of some ducks
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

_________________
What the fuck kind of post is that Argo?


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu July 02, 2020 1:52 am 
Offline
User avatar
10Club Complaint Department
 Profile

Joined: Sun September 15, 2013 5:50 am
Posts: 17307
why would Trump fail to get one appointed?

i thought the GOP controlled the senate

_________________
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


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu July 02, 2020 3:43 am 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Posts: 5830
Location: Tristes Tropiques
Yeah Mitch will whip the votes on that one.

_________________
pepperwhiteMFC wrote:
Seems like Mickey has formed 4 decks worth of archetypes out of RMers, and he’s playing them off of each other as if to divine some sort of overall meaning to this place.


Bi_3 wrote:
stop cowering in fear and post


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu July 02, 2020 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
NEVER STOP JAMMING!
 Profile

Joined: Tue January 01, 2013 10:53 pm
Posts: 23727
Location: Illinois
Lifetime appointments are embarrassingly stupid


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: The Supreme Court
PostPosted: Thu July 02, 2020 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar
Misplaced My Sponge
 Profile

Joined: Wed January 02, 2013 6:02 am
Posts: 5830
Location: Tristes Tropiques
They should all have to play Russian roulette every new term.

_________________
pepperwhiteMFC wrote:
Seems like Mickey has formed 4 decks worth of archetypes out of RMers, and he’s playing them off of each other as if to divine some sort of overall meaning to this place.


Bi_3 wrote:
stop cowering in fear and post


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2237 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 108, 109, 110, 111, 112

Board index » Word on the Street » News & Debate


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: McParadigm, oasisfan35 and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
It is currently Sat July 04, 2020 12:53 am