SCOTUS further destroys separation of church and state

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,591
6,135
136
Public funds may now be used for private religious education in the form of vouchers. Who needs the 1A?

And we all know, if someone tries this with an Islamic school, conservatives will lose their shit.

I wonder how this will play out at the political level but also at the educational - will public schools suffer (and how much) because vouchers are now using state funds for even more institutions?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lezunto and rza_757

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,471
31,823
136
Public funds may now be used for private religious education in the form of vouchers. Who needs the 1A?

And we all know, if someone tries this with an Islamic school, conservatives will lose their shit.

I wonder how this will play out at the political level but also at the educational - will public schools suffer (and how much) because vouchers are now using state funds for even more institutions?
To be clear this is much more radical than that. It is not MAY be used for private religious education - it is MUST be used for private religious education if the state decides to fund non-religious schools.

From what I've read it would stand to reason that because the state funds public schools they could also be forced to fund religious ones. So now not only can we not tax churches, we have to give them our tax dollars.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
31,240
4,748
126
Damn, sounds like we need to open a school for the spaghetti monster. You know, with a nice little administrative bonus.
 

rza_757

Junior Member
May 16, 2022
18
17
36
Public funds may now be used for private religious education in the form of vouchers. Who needs the 1A?

And we all know, if someone tries this with an Islamic school, conservatives will lose their shit.

I wonder how this will play out at the political level but also at the educational - will public schools suffer (and how much) because vouchers are now using state funds for even more institutions?
Would you happen to know the citation for the case if someone wanted to look for it on lexus/nexus? Thanks
 

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,713
2,105
136
Roberts said because the state funded private non-religious schools but didn't fund private religious schools it was discrimination against religion. However, my understanding of the constitution is that the government cannot discriminate against a specific religion with certain limits. Governments have however forever routinely discriminated against all religions and its been seen as fine as long as it blanket and not targeting any particular group. I find this ruling quite odd and very troubling in deed.

I think the main argument was something about the free exercise of religion being violated. However, the government isn't stopping anyone from sending their kids to religious schools nor is interfering with how these schools are being run. Its just deciding not to fund private religious activity, whilst funding private non religious activity as its always done since the start of the conception of the country. Its a nonsensical ruling and hopefully it gets overturned when these rightwingers finally start dying off.

The voucher system as a whole needs to go and if it doesn’t then there should at least be strict standards in place.
Hundred percent agree. I'd rather see states collect revenues for schools and distribute evenly to all schools rather than allowing public wealth to accumulate with a few schools whilst leaving others begging for scraps.
 

rza_757

Junior Member
May 16, 2022
18
17
36
Roberts said because the state funded private non-religious schools but didn't fund private religious schools it was discrimination against religion. However, my understanding of the constitution is that the government cannot discriminate against a specific religion with certain limits. Governments have however forever routinely discriminated against all religions and its been seen as fine as long as it blanket and not targeting any particular group. I find this ruling quite odd and very troubling in deed.

I think the main argument was something about the free exercise of religion being violated. However, the government isn't stopping anyone from sending their kids to religious schools nor is interfering with how these schools are being run. Its just deciding not to fund private religious activity, whilst funding private non religious activity as its always done since the start of the conception of the country. Its a nonsensical ruling and hopefully it gets overturned when these rightwingers finally start dying off.



Hundred percent agree. I'd rather see states collect revenues for schools and distribute evenly to all schools rather than allowing public wealth to accumulate with a few schools whilst leaving others begging for scraps.
Another slick way to disenfranchise and perpetuate the school to prison pipleline...
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,734
11,906
136
Another slick way to disenfranchise and perpetuate the school to prison pipleline...

It’s self segregation, which leads to less experiences with “others”, which creates people who are unable to empathize with “others”, which leads to the fear of “others”, which leads to hate.

It’s just another small step towards the downward fall of American exceptionalism.
 
Last edited:

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,127
2,686
126
Roberts said because the state funded private non-religious schools but didn't fund private religious schools it was discrimination against religion. However, my understanding of the constitution is that the government cannot discriminate against a specific religion with certain limits. Governments have however forever routinely discriminated against all religions and its been seen as fine as long as it blanket and not targeting any particular group. I find this ruling quite odd and very troubling in deed.

I think the main argument was something about the free exercise of religion being violated. However, the government isn't stopping anyone from sending their kids to religious schools nor is interfering with how these schools are being run. Its just deciding not to fund private religious activity, whilst funding private non religious activity as its always done since the start of the conception of the country. Its a nonsensical ruling and hopefully it gets overturned when these rightwingers finally start dying off.
Yeah, the holes in their "logic" you could drive an aircraft carrier through. It sucks we're going to be saddled with these intellectual lightweights for decades.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
23,903
7,019
136
My initial understanding was that this ruling would be fairly narrow in scope. The district in Maine at issue here did not have a public high school. So in lieu of building a public high school, this district decided to subsidize private education and/or bussing to other districts.

What I thought was at issue for conservative justices was that the state provided funds for private schools that were sectarian, but not those that were non-sectarian. Any state could easily get around this by denying all funds to private schools, perhaps even ending the “charter school” debate once and for all. In Maine’s case, however, this would result in bussing kids long distances and over-stuffing public schools in other districts.

Net result—State tried to give parents a choice, and got dicked over by conservatives who felt their feels were being fucked. Now everyone will be worse off.
 

Dave_5k

Senior member
May 23, 2017
798
1,405
136
Would you happen to know the citation for the case if someone wanted to look for it on lexus/nexus? Thanks
Don't have lexus/nexus, but it is Carson v. Makin, here's scotusblog link to the docket number (20-1088), plus direct supreme court website link to the various court filings.

And Scotusblog summary of this final Supreme Court ruling:
 
  • Like
Reactions: rza_757

Sunburn74

Diamond Member
Oct 5, 2009
4,713
2,105
136
My initial understanding was that this ruling would be fairly narrow in scope. The district in Maine at issue here did not have a public high school. So in lieu of building a public high school, this district decided to subsidize private education and/or bussing to other districts.

What I thought was at issue for conservative justices was that the state provided funds for private schools that were sectarian, but not those that were non-sectarian.

Net result—State tried to give parents a choice, and got dicked over by conservatives who felt their feels were being fucked. Now everyone will be worse off.
Well that was robert's dissent which is ridiculous. Roberts basically argued that if they discriminated based on curriculum its fine but you can't use religion as a surrogate for curriculum or something like that even though it is. Basically if they had written you have to teach everything our public schools teach, thats fine per roberts, even though no religious school would teach everything public schools teach. I mean its basically throwing out the baby with the bathwater and its stupid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pohemi420

tweaker2

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
13,179
4,918
136
If (big if) Trump wins in '24 and Betsy DeVos gets a repeat posting, in such a scenario I can see another victory for the conservative elite whereby much more of the nation's wealth is going to be directed away from our public school system in favor of those exclusive private schools, especially those religiously affiliated ones whereby a much wider economic gap will occur between the privileged and peasant classes, all endorsed by our present SCOTUS conservative majority.

Of course, this will all transpire with the approval of the Repub working class folks of whom are devoid of any sense that they will suffer along with the majority of the nation of whom these conservatives have this strange compunction to punish and eradicate out of their lives.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,212
1,030
126
Public funds may now be used for private religious education in the form of vouchers. Who needs the 1A?

And we all know, if someone tries this with an Islamic school, conservatives will lose their shit.

I wonder how this will play out at the political level but also at the educational - will public schools suffer (and how much) because vouchers are now using state funds for even more institutions?
So you support purposeful discrimination based on nothing else other than religion? What other discrimination are you in favor of?
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
14,904
11,989
136
So you support purposeful discrimination based on nothing else other than religion? What other discrimination are you in favor of?
Here comes the crazy man. Public funds should never endorse religious indoctrination from any religion of any kind from anywhere on the earth.

It's pretty fucking reasonable, except to right wing theocratic fascist
 

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
29,591
6,135
136
So you support purposeful discrimination based on nothing else other than religion? What other discrimination are you in favor of?
if the state supports one religious institution, it must support ALL religious institutions, and to the same degree. i'm sure you would fully support school vouchers for islamic, pagan, and satanic schools, right?

or you see the mess such a ruling creates, and therefore the state cannot support ANY religious institution because it creates enormous conflict between the state and ALL religious institutions. thus, the separation of church and state.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY