So much for separation of Church and State

How is paying for an education "endorsing" a religion? This also doesn't make sense. All they're doing is telling the parents, "Sorry, we don't want to educate your child so here is the value of an education. Send your kid to an accredited school of YOUR choosing." Note, that the government isn't forcing the parents to send kids to a religious school. They're leaving that choice in the hands of the parents.

 

I think you missed a part: "At issue was a state program in Maine that made taxpayer money available to families who live in remote areas without public high schools."

Whats the alternative? They still pay property taxes, still have to abide by truency laws, and have to send their kids to school somewhere... Should the state have built them their own public schools? That would be far more expensive.

 

Your taxes go to à general pot called éducation.
If you want something spécial, pay for it.

 

It is.

Until very recently, the courts tried to maintain a distinct separation of Church and State. But the Roberts court has rules in favor of religion at almost twice the rate of the previous 4 courts.

The Maine case threatens the entire concept, as subsequent rulings will prove. That concept is one of the core parts of what the Founding Fathers were trying to do. The centuries of religious warfare were recent history to them.

But it does demonstrate the idea that Originalism is just a hypocritical pose.

 

That's not how it works in America FYI.

 

Of course not. But under the idea of religious freedom, you cant deny them either.

Or do you believe that Christianity should be given preferential treatment?

 

Not to worried about a community of people creating a satanic school as it would require them to leave their parents basement at some point.

 

Read closer.

"I cant wait to see the first fundamentalist Madras setup with public funds"

 

That's my point.. I am paying for it.

 

Apparently by posts from others it does.

 

Actually you haven't read the 1A closely. This doesn't make a law establishing a religion. The tax dollars actually belong to the citizens, and it is going toward their education. Evolution is taught everywhere, and could be construed as a religion.

 

It's our money toward our education, it ain't nothing special. It's education.

 

Wow, talk about discrimination, you done got it.

 

If religion is desired, it is on those who desire it to pay.

 

Aren't they already paying? Why should tax payers be confined to the school chosen for them based on their address?

 

Good. I get no public money, pvt business gets no public money. Period. Settled.

 

What, is that a response to me?

 

Was it "Roberts court" when Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) was decided? Rhetorical question. Roberts wasn't even a SCOTUS judge then. Same exact type of case as what was decided in Maine, only in Ohio, same ruling also.

Btw, it was Jefferson who coined the term "separation of church and state". Yet as President he signed treaties that sent ministers to Native Americans.

 

Oh boohoo well already subsidize your liberal LGBTQ unscientific bullshit. Welcome to the club

 

Good luck getting it enacted.

 

Sure, most pvt businesses already receive no public money.
Most who get public money, have to show a need.

 

Obviously. You don't want tax payer funds to go to religious based schools or any business if they discriminate right? Well, affirmative action discriminates. Something you didn't consider in your argument so @557 points it out. Wait...that's "different" though huh? Its OK to discriminate against discrimination....right?

 

AA doesn't discriminate.

 

I don't think you know what the word "discriminate" means.

 

Yep. Give it some thought.