SC to vote on public funding for religious schools

[tweaker2]

Slippery slope kicking in it seems. Once this disbursing of public monies to finance religiously influenced private schools is established as precedent, it will be used as a reason to finance any non-religious private school in the nation.

Betsy DeVos' dream will come true.

Our public schools are already strapped for funding. Where will those taxpayer's monies come from if not from those funds earmarked for education? How will our politicians who want to cut a slice out of our public schools funding and give it to private schools justify it to those folks who send their kids to public schools?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Then you disagree with the facts in the article. Separation of church and state, so sorry.

Ok, cheesy. SCOTUS’ call, not yours. So sorry.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Ok, cheesy

You're welcome to read the article. I only quoted a portion. Theocracy, here we come eh? Guess the holy war is about to get some jet fuel. Oh, and your boy kavanaugh just ignored what MT pointed out

 

[Starbuck1975]

You're welcome to read the article. I only quoted a portion. Theocracy, here we come eh?

I read the article and disagreed with your assessment. If you only want to converse with people who I agree with you, I suggest you stop responding to my posts.

SCOTUS deemed it appropriate to consider the case.

 

[ch33zw1z]

I read the article and disagreed with your assessment. If you only want to converse with people who I agree with you, I suggest you stop responding to my posts.

SCOTUS deemed it appropriate to consider the case.

It's not my assessment, it's literally the words in the article.

Here's my assessment: Christian's want special treatment, many want theocracy, many want to see this country owned by and for Christians only.

They had enough of that for a long time in the USA, and when they started to lose their stranglehold they fight back. It's been going on for decades.

The SCOTUS is majority composed of Catholic school attendees, it's not shocking they're sympathathetic to the cause.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It’s Christians wanting equal treatment. The reason behind Montana’s action is an underlying religious exclusion that is arguably discriminatory in nature. It is appropriate for SCOTUS to weigh in.

Then making them tax exempt is also arguably discriminatory in nature.
Christians, and other religions are not treated equal. They have special exemptions. That comes with special restrictions.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It's not my assessment, it's literally the words in the article.

Here's my assessment: Christian's want special treatment, many want theocracy, many want to see this country owned by and for Christians only.

They had enough of that for a long time in the USA, and when they started to lose their stranglehold they fight back. It's been going on for decades.

The SCOTUS is majority composed of Catholic school attendees, it's not shocking they're sympathathetic to the cause.

An alternative read is that America is going through a transition, and its not unreasonable for people to want to preserve their values and traditions. People will reject change if it infringes on them.

A few SCOTUS members were beneficiaries of such schools, so of course they will be sympathetic to a system they see as a positive force.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Then making them tax exempt is also arguably discriminatory in nature.
Christians, and other religions are not treated equal. They have special exemptions. That comes with special restrictions.

They receive tax exemptions for being charitable organizations. I have no problem removing tax exemptions for megachurch profit centers. I reject removing tax exemptions for the humble inner city churches that do a lot of good for their communities, education being one of their services.

 

[ch33zw1z]

An alternative read is that America is going through a transition, and its not unreasonable for people to want to preserve their values and traditions. People will reject change if it infringes on them.

A few SCOTUS members were beneficiaries of such schools, so of course they will be sympathetic to a system they see as a positive force.

So 5 is a few now? Add that to your dictionary.

You can add whatever spin you want to rationalize it away. I'm a product of both Evangelicals and christian school. I know what they want. They reject anything that doesnt fit their agenda, which is a "christian nation" aka live it be persecuted.

 

[SMOGZINN]

They receive tax exemptions for being charitable organizations. I have no problem removing tax exemptions for megachurch profit centers. I reject removing tax exemptions for the humble inner city churches that do a lot of good for their communities, education being one of their services.

No, they get tax exemptions for being a religious organization. There is no requirement for doing any charitable work to get the tax exemption. They get tax exemption because we found our nation on the idea that the church and state should have a wall between them, and it would be unfair to tax them but deny them the ability to participate in the government.

 

[Starbuck1975]

No, they get tax exemptions for being a religious organization. There is no requirement for doing any charitable work to get the tax exemption. They get tax exemption because we found our nation on the idea that the church and state should have a wall between them, and it would be unfair to tax them but deny them the ability to participate in the government.

Churches fall under tax code Section 501(c)(3). They are classified as charitable organizations.

 

[Starbuck1975]

So 5 is a few now? Add that to your dictionary.

Pettifoggery

You can add whatever spin you want to rationalize it away. I'm a product of both Evangelicals and christian school. I know what they want. They reject anything that doesnt fit their agenda, which is a "christian nation" aka live it be persecuted.

That’s largely anecdotal. I see two components of the religion conversation. There are the evangelical mega church cultish organizations, which I despise. Then there are the charitable churches that are valuable pillars of their communities. You find a lot of these churches in Catholic and Orthodox immigrant enclaves.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Pettifoggery

That’s largely anecdotal. I see two components of the religion conversation. There are the evangelical mega church cultish organizations, which I despise. Then there are the charitable churches that are valuable pillars of their communities. You find a lot of these churches in Catholic and Orthodox immigrant enclaves.

Sure, there's differences, the groups largely voted differently.

My anecdotal 15 years of indoctrination, some minds aren't made to not question or ignore reason. Take it for what it's worth.

No religious organizations should get public funds for private schools. Non religious private schools shouldn't either.

Some more anecdotal information:

How the faithful voted: A preliminary 2016 analysis

The 2016 presidential exit polling reveals little change in the political alignments of U.S. religious groups.

www.pewresearch.org

 

[ShookKnight]

We have Christian Extremists in the US... sad and shameful, since they are on the side that constantly demonizes Islam as religious extremists.

 

[UNCjigga]

It’s Christians wanting equal treatment. The reason behind Montana’s action is an underlying religious exclusion that is arguably discriminatory in nature. It is appropriate for SCOTUS to weigh in.

How is it discriminatory if they eliminated subsidies for both religious and non-religious private schools?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Churches fall under tax code Section 501(c)(3). They are classified as charitable organizations.

While churches do fall under 501(c)(3) they mostly get their tax exempt status from 508(c)(1)(A), which specifically states that while they are 501(c) tax exempt they are also exempt from all restrictions that is made by 501(c).

 

[ch33zw1z]

How is it discriminatory if they eliminated subsidies for both religious and non-religious private schools?

which is exactly how this should never even made it to the SCOTUS to begin with.

 

[Starbuck1975]

How is it discriminatory if they eliminated subsidies for both religious and non-religious private schools?

The chain of events that let the elimination of subsidies was motivated by religion. Just because the government said, “fvck it this is too hard we’ll just get rid of all the subsidies” doesn’t change the discriminatory origin.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The chain of events that let the elimination of subsidies was motivated by religion. Just because the government said, “fvck it this is too hard we’ll just get rid of all the subsidies” doesn’t change the discriminatory origin.

Montana Supreme Court strikes down tax credit that helps religious schools

The court said the $150 income-tax credit is clearly meant to aid private schools in Montana

www.kxlh.com

And of course, that's NOT what the MT SC said. Separation of Church and State is part of MT's constitution. It's part of our country as well.

Reading that article, you have to wonder why they are so reliant on a $150 tax credit in general. Seems like something those good Samaritans would be jumping all over.

Nor did the MT SC end the the tax credit for ONLY religious schools, which happen to make up most of the schools that benefited from the program (estimated 90%)

Plenty of articles out there to choose from, maybe you can find one with your preferred spin. I just chose the top one from DuckDuckGo that seemed to stick with facts, and statements from both defendants and plaintiffs.

another just because: https://missoulian.com/news/state-a...cle_78b4a246-12ce-55ed-9b58-7d62d12ed422.html

I mean, they had enough money and time to appeal this to the SCOTUS, not because they care about that $150 tax credit, but because they don't want a separate church and state. Not exactly rocket science here.

 

[pcgeek11]

Private schools should be funded with private money period.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Slippery slope kicking in it seems. Once this disbursing of public monies to finance religiously influenced private schools is established as precedent, it will be used as a reason to finance any non-religious private school in the nation.

Betsy DeVos' dream will come true.

Our public schools are already strapped for funding. Where will those taxpayer's monies come from if not from those funds earmarked for education? How will our politicians who want to cut a slice out of our public schools funding and give it to private schools justify it to those folks who send their kids to public schools?

This is another good point, IMO. The religious issue aside, this seems like a terrible precedent to start operating under.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Private schools should be funded with private money period.

I completely agree. That is what makes them private.
When you accept money from someone, anyone including the government, you have to know that there are strings attached. Don't want the strings, don't take the money.
As I say to my 17 year old son. My money, my rules. Make your own and spend it how you want.

 

[JEDIYoda]

What would that matter?

It would matter because if there are no such schools then what he claimed has no bearingb on the subject....
In fact it could be considered a strawman argument...notice i said could be...

 

[JEDIYoda]

I completely agree. That is what makes them private.
When you accept money from someone, anyone including the government, you have to know that there are strings attached. Don't want the strings, don't take the money.
As I say to my 17 year old son. My money, my rules. Make your own and spend it how you want.

I also agree! IMO as long as they are funded privately they can do as they damn well please!

 

[JEDIYoda]

I read the article and disagreed with your assessment. If you only want to converse with people who I agree with you, I suggest you stop responding to my posts.

SCOTUS deemed it appropriate to consider the case.

I think this the first time I agree with you on anything!!
ch33sy is one of those to jump and holler and cry and stammer what about the separation of church and state?
In this case this will eventually be decided by the courts and if the courts decide to allow this then...well I am soory -- thta the way the cookie crumbles!!