Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Supreme Court Considers Religious Schools Case


jbluhm86

Recommended Posts

 

I'm a big believer in "what is understood does not need to be said".

When this thread was started, EVERYBODY knew what the responses and supporting arguments were going to be.  Nothing new, nothing insightful.  Why Any of you guys still bother is beyond me.     Must be a lot of masochists here.  

Maybe when something that is rather new comes up, sure... I could see possible discussion.     You are, the sort of you, each others secret best friends. You just don't know it.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Here's my take. It is absolutely essential to provide funds to private Christian schools. People against it act like Christian parents don't pay taxes, so why should they get aid to THEIR schools? - This argument is also valid in reverse; people who practice other religions besides Christianity or no religion at all also play taxes, so why should they have to pay taxes for Christian schools?

*************************************

True - but it's more complicated than that. Let Jewish parents get tax cred etc for their CHOICE of school, obviously? the Jewish private school. Muslim - same thing. For parents who pay taxes and don't have children - good point. But in the end, the American people want their next generation to have good educations, good schools. Tax levies have fallen when some school board goes off the deep end on what they teach. That is how it should be. MAGA.

**************************************

   The the point about government interference is not a bad point - it just isn't valid to prevent our gov also getting some funds to private Christian schools. The government is not allowed to establish an official accepted religion, and it cannot act to prevent a Christian school from existing. Those Christian parents PAY TAXES TOO. - Again, it's not the job of the government to fund any religious institution; that's why the concept of separation of Church and State exists. It not only prevents religious encroachment onto the greater body politic, but - more importantly - protects religious institutions from government involvement.

*******************************************

Agreed, except, it is the job of the government to support education of the next generation. The problem is, so many public schools are failing in either safety...or quality of education/equipment... that a school is a Christian school is immaterial - it is still a school. Home schools are still schools. Because, parents, in their PURSUIT of HAPPINESS - insist on school choice. The government can NOT demand a religion-free school as the only choice to the public. That would violate the separation of church and state clause.

statement:"the concept of separation of Church and State exists. It not only prevents religious encroachment onto the greater body politic, but - more importantly - protects religious institutions from government involvement. " is not true.

" Separation of church and state " is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 

    What this means...is that the government cannot establish a particular religion as a state religion...nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion".

Meaning, of course, that Christian schools, etc, are ALLOWED and shall not be prohibited from existing. Granted, governmental education standards are fine across the board. It's cultural/religious interference that the left wants to perpetrate. That again, violates the Establishment clause. Why do liberals demand "Freedom of Choice" to be able to murder children, but they insist no freedom of choice in sending their children to public or private schools? Sorry, had to toss that in there....

******************************************************

   So, we have a bit of a quandary there. A simple solution is tax credits for the money paid in tuition to schools. Why should a poor Christian family not be able to pursure their hopes/dreams/Christian beliefs because they are too poor? - That could possibly be a solution, as long as the tax credit/tuition voucher is attached to the individual student, not to an educational institution, religious or otherwise. But, you'd still run into the same problem: federal tax dollars would be the one funding the tax credit/tuition voucher, so that could potentially open the door to the government dictating what can and cannot be taught in a religious-based school.

************************************************************

     True - except the separation of church and state means they cannot interfere with the Christian teaching in a church, but that across the board, certain legitimate standards on basic math/reading/science must be met. Teaching evolution theory is fine, as long as teaching Creationism is not forbidden. A Muslim madrassa teaching blowing up people is hardly a legitimate school. Terrorism is illegal.

************************************************************

   What about THEIR "Life, Liberty, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ?" Why demand that Christian parents go to public schools, only to have those kids educated to not accept Christian teachings? - "PURSUIT" of happiness, not a "GUARANTEE" of happiness. The ideals behind the phrase mean that any government should provide an environment in which individuals are free to pursue their own happiness, not directly fund it. And the fact that there are Christian and other religious schools to begin with dissuades the notion that Christians are being demanded to or forced into going to public schools.

*********************************************

True, never implied? "guarantee". And yes, no one is forced to send their kids to public schools. But, if they can't home school them, per law or careers/etc... and they can't afford it - our schools MUST give ALL students opportunity to get a great education. But in the end, it is the parents whose choice it is, to educate their children without interference in their teachings or risking their children's safety (inner city schools, etc). Right now, kids aren't allowed to pray in public schools in a lot of systems. The government can NOT condone the exclusion of prayer in schools, because then they violate the "free excercise thereof". They just can't order prayer in schools. They can't establish prayer as an official practice. but the hatemongering denial of students praying on their own ...dramaticallly violates the free exercise part of the separation of church and state clause.

************************************************

   So many public schools are sold out to liberalism. Part of the reason is - the lawsuits against property taxes being the funding for our schools. Know why? Because with property taxes - the school system is completely beholden to parents/property owners - for their activities/teachings in schools. and those citizens sure as heyl won't put up with a constant barrage of liberal perverted teachings in their schools.

   So, eventually, lawsuits prevailed, and now funds come from higher up - the state - and those obaMao inspired/leaned on schools can teach outrageous anti-Christian truths at will, and parents have no way out - except to get their kids into a private Christian school...

or home school. - Except the idea of public education funded by property taxes isn't a recent idea; it has been around for more than a century. And, up until as recently as a few decades ago, those same taxes were used to fund Christian ideology taught in public schools, with no consternation from the religious. It was only when it was pointed out through litigation and law making that funding religious ideology using public dollars was unconstitutional that the religious began to complain about federal funding of public schools and public education in general.

******************************************************

      The government cannot establish, NOR prohibit. It's a balance. Far too many lawsuits have been activist liberal groups forcing God completely out of public schools. What happened to "shall not establish nor prevent the free exercise thereof" ?

It got ignored by some judges who decided that God should not be in public schools. Which.... violates the "free exercise thereof".  Makes no legal sense - but makes liberal activist sense. In effect - if the government refuses tax credits - they are deciding that the folks who can't afford to send their kids to a religious/private school... are second class citizens with no right to the free exercise of religion, and no right to the pursuit of happiness in their kid's education.

**************************************************

   And guess how the nea, state "ea"s and teachers unions feel about that. THEY HATE IT. They can't control/groom the minds of young children if they don't go to their school. And the left is self-defined - as justified in controlling. and grooming a new generation away from Real American parents. - I think teachers unions are more concerned about losing money to line their own pockets than "controlling the minds" of children, but you're not going to get an argument from me about the questionable usefulness of today's teachers unions.

*********************************************************

      Granted, except all too often - some principal/teacher demands student(s) to not be allowed to silently pray, i.e., before their lunch, to themselves. A head coach can NOT tell all the players to pray. But he CAN pray. A liberal local government cannot have it both ways.

*********************************************************

   So, Christian families PAY THE TAXES TOO, and that means they cannot, often, afford to pay for public schools, and still, to pursure their own Happiness, and Life/LIberty - have their kids go to the expensive Christian schools they choose.

  God already knows - that home schoolers are already under the watchful eye and basic regulations by the state education associations/state legislators anyways. - Yes, because I don't think it's out of the realm of reason to have set minimum standards when it comes to education, i.e. reading/writing comprehension, mathematical competency, etc; things that couldn't be guaranteed otherwise by home-schooled education.

**********************************************************

    Absolutely true. The government has every right to establish basic education requirements in math, science, reading......etc.

the problem is -- the teaching of anti-Christian family values. More than two genders? trans reading to students? trans bathrooms?

"God doesn't exist" ? "not allowed to ever pray" ? that list goes on and  on. Public schools have been their own worst enemy all too often. And they get a free ride to be extremely liberal when they cannot be held accountable by parents. So, parents have no choice, but to choose schooling for their children outside of the public school system, when that happens. "Separation of church and state" means, cannot establish a religion, nor can it prevent the practice of one.  Christian/private schools/home schools are a no brainer solution to the problem. Failure to let some tax breaks assist parents in their choice is just part of complying with the "shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof": part.]

It's complicated.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

I'm a big believer in "what is understood does not need to be said".

 and yet...

When this thread was started, EVERYBODY knew what the responses and supporting arguments were going to be.  Nothing new, nothing insightful.  Why Any of you guys still bother is beyond me.     Must be a lot of masochists here.  

 yep we all know what each other's responses will probably be. Including your own. Thanks.

Maybe when something that is rather new comes up, sure... I could see possible discussion.     You are, the sort of you, each others secret best friends. You just don't know it.   

 there's not much new that goes on in the world. When you think of something let us know. If you have time go to the Browns board and count the number of posts and how many years do they go back regarding any particular topic. Offensive line quarterback coaching changes coordinators etc etc call me if you spot something brand new.

WSS

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

 

I'm a big believer in "what is understood does not need to be said".

When this thread was started, EVERYBODY knew what the responses and supporting arguments were going to be.  Nothing new, nothing insightful.  Why Any of you guys still bother is beyond me.     Must be a lot of masochists here.  

Maybe when something that is rather new comes up, sure... I could see possible discussion.     You are, the sort of you, each others secret best friends. You just don't know it.   

If you or J start a thread (or logic ) and I see it I'll pop in and take a look. Once in a while that happens. I find reading those posts interesting.

 

The rest, yes, we know what's going to happen. Even my response to the expected responses is... well, expected. It would be interesting to get into an actual debate but we know that's not going to happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

If you or J start a thread (or logic ) and I see it I'll pop in and take a look. Once in a while that happens. I find reading those posts interesting.

 

The rest, yes, we know what's going to happen. Even my response to the expected responses is... well, expected. It would be interesting to get into an actual debate but we know that's not going to happen.

woodpecker - you haven't been involved in any intelligent discourse because you have never mustered any.  You just sit back and smart off to people. You don't know much of anything to be able to contribute to any discussion. You always fail.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

If you or J start a thread (or logic ) and I see it I'll pop in and take a look. Once in a while that happens. I find reading those posts interesting.

 

The rest, yes, we know what's going to happen. Even my response to the expected responses is... well, expected. It would be interesting to get into an actual debate but we know that's not going to happen.

I don't start threads here. Waste of key strokes.  Besides, what's the best I'll get in return...?  Steve?    

I'm fortunate enough to have a couple boards for more intelligent talk when it's required.   One I'm lucky enough to have made through an OSU contact who is actually a lawyer that specializes in congressional law application.   It's actually thought provoking a good amount of time what he posts.  Taking great care to examine his own potential bias or personal politics When drawing conclusions.   Not something you find here.  

The resident congressional "expert" here is..... ?     This IS the safe space for some.   That's the irony.   I choose to not live in an echo chamber and to grow my ideas with exposure to new information.

What you will find here... Isn't that. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

I don't start threads here. Waste of key strokes.  Besides, what's the best I'll get in return...?  Steve?    

I'm fortunate enough to have a couple boards for more intelligent talk when it's required.   One I'm lucky enough to have made through an OSU contact who is actually a lawyer that specializes in congressional law application.   It's actually thought provoking a good amount of time what he posts.  Taking great care to examine his own potential bias or personal politics When drawing conclusions.   Not something you find here.  

The resident congressional "expert" here is..... ?     This IS the safe space for some.   That's the irony.   I choose to not live in an echo chamber and to grow my ideas with exposure to new information.

What you will find here... Isn't that. 

 

then why come here? to bitch about being here? that is what woodpecker always has done.

You should be better than that. You aren't a birdbrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, tiamat63 said:

I don't start threads here. Waste of key strokes.  Besides, what's the best I'll get in return...?  Steve?    

I'm fortunate enough to have a couple boards for more intelligent talk when it's required.   One I'm lucky enough to have made through an OSU contact who is actually a lawyer that specializes in congressional law application.   It's actually thought provoking a good amount of time what he posts.  Taking great care to examine his own potential bias or personal politics When drawing conclusions.   Not something you find here.  

The resident congressional "expert" here is..... ?     This IS the safe space for some.   That's the irony.   I choose to not live in an echo chamber and to grow my ideas with exposure to new information.

What you will find here... Isn't that. 

 

Well yeah, no shit. It's just here by proximity. That's it. I just hold you guys above the rest, so I'd be more interested in reading your posts.

We used to have a very rational guy on here from the conservative side, and he made good arguments. He left tho. And now most rational posters eventually get tired of the vocal group here and leave. Can't blame them. I mean even just staying on topic through a debate without going into fallacies is a rarity with many here. Hell, it looks like Cal moved from "tax dollars to religious schools" to "Christian schools being completely banned". Pointing out the massive gaps in logic just doesn't do it anymore. At least for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:
7 hours ago, jbluhm86 said:

Here's my take. It is absolutely essential to provide funds to private Christian schools. People against it act like Christian parents don't pay taxes, so why should they get aid to THEIR schools? - This argument is also valid in reverse; people who practice other religions besides Christianity or no religion at all also play taxes, so why should they have to pay taxes for Christian schools?

*************************************

True - but it's more complicated than that. Let Jewish parents get tax cred etc for their CHOICE of school, obviously? the Jewish private school. Muslim - same thing. For parents who pay taxes and don't have children - good point. But in the end, the American people want their next generation to have good educations, good schools. Tax levies have fallen when some school board goes off the deep end on what they teach. That is how it should be. MAGA.

**************************************

   The the point about government interference is not a bad point - it just isn't valid to prevent our gov also getting some funds to private Christian schools. The government is not allowed to establish an official accepted religion, and it cannot act to prevent a Christian school from existing. Those Christian parents PAY TAXES TOO. - Again, it's not the job of the government to fund any religious institution; that's why the concept of separation of Church and State exists. It not only prevents religious encroachment onto the greater body politic, but - more importantly - protects religious institutions from government involvement.

*******************************************

Agreed, except, it is the job of the government to support education of the next generation. The problem is, so many public schools are failing in either safety...or quality of education/equipment... that a school is a Christian school is immaterial - it is still a school. Home schools are still schools. Because, parents, in their PURSUIT of HAPPINESS - insist on school choice. The government can NOT demand a religion-free school as the only choice to the public. That would violate the separation of church and state clause.

statement:"the concept of separation of Church and State exists. It not only prevents religious encroachment onto the greater body politic, but - more importantly - protects religious institutions from government involvement. " is not true.

" Separation of church and state " is paraphrased from Thomas Jefferson and used by others in expressing an understanding of the intent and function of the Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution which reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." 

    What this means...is that the government cannot establish a particular religion as a state religion...nor can it prohibit the free exercise of religion".

Meaning, of course, that Christian schools, etc, are ALLOWED and shall not be prohibited from existing. Granted, governmental education standards are fine across the board. It's cultural/religious interference that the left wants to perpetrate. That again, violates the Establishment clause. Why do liberals demand "Freedom of Choice" to be able to murder children, but they insist no freedom of choice in sending their children to public or private schools? Sorry, had to toss that in there....

******************************************************

   So, we have a bit of a quandary there. A simple solution is tax credits for the money paid in tuition to schools. Why should a poor Christian family not be able to pursure their hopes/dreams/Christian beliefs because they are too poor? - That could possibly be a solution, as long as the tax credit/tuition voucher is attached to the individual student, not to an educational institution, religious or otherwise. But, you'd still run into the same problem: federal tax dollars would be the one funding the tax credit/tuition voucher, so that could potentially open the door to the government dictating what can and cannot be taught in a religious-based school.

************************************************************

     True - except the separation of church and state means they cannot interfere with the Christian teaching in a church, but that across the board, certain legitimate standards on basic math/reading/science must be met. Teaching evolution theory is fine, as long as teaching Creationism is not forbidden. A Muslim madrassa teaching blowing up people is hardly a legitimate school. Terrorism is illegal.

************************************************************

   What about THEIR "Life, Liberty, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS ?" Why demand that Christian parents go to public schools, only to have those kids educated to not accept Christian teachings? - "PURSUIT" of happiness, not a "GUARANTEE" of happiness. The ideals behind the phrase mean that any government should provide an environment in which individuals are free to pursue their own happiness, not directly fund it. And the fact that there are Christian and other religious schools to begin with dissuades the notion that Christians are being demanded to or forced into going to public schools.

*********************************************

True, never implied? "guarantee". And yes, no one is forced to send their kids to public schools. But, if they can't home school them, per law or careers/etc... and they can't afford it - our schools MUST give ALL students opportunity to get a great education. But in the end, it is the parents whose choice it is, to educate their children without interference in their teachings or risking their children's safety (inner city schools, etc). Right now, kids aren't allowed to pray in public schools in a lot of systems. The government can NOT condone the exclusion of prayer in schools, because then they violate the "free excercise thereof". They just can't order prayer in schools. They can't establish prayer as an official practice. but the hatemongering denial of students praying on their own ...dramaticallly violates the free exercise part of the separation of church and state clause.

************************************************

   So many public schools are sold out to liberalism. Part of the reason is - the lawsuits against property taxes being the funding for our schools. Know why? Because with property taxes - the school system is completely beholden to parents/property owners - for their activities/teachings in schools. and those citizens sure as heyl won't put up with a constant barrage of liberal perverted teachings in their schools.

   So, eventually, lawsuits prevailed, and now funds come from higher up - the state - and those obaMao inspired/leaned on schools can teach outrageous anti-Christian truths at will, and parents have no way out - except to get their kids into a private Christian school...

or home school. - Except the idea of public education funded by property taxes isn't a recent idea; it has been around for more than a century. And, up until as recently as a few decades ago, those same taxes were used to fund Christian ideology taught in public schools, with no consternation from the religious. It was only when it was pointed out through litigation and law making that funding religious ideology using public dollars was unconstitutional that the religious began to complain about federal funding of public schools and public education in general.

******************************************************

      The government cannot establish, NOR prohibit. It's a balance. Far too many lawsuits have been activist liberal groups forcing God completely out of public schools. What happened to "shall not establish nor prevent the free exercise thereof" ?

It got ignored by some judges who decided that God should not be in public schools. Which.... violates the "free exercise thereof".  Makes no legal sense - but makes liberal activist sense. In effect - if the government refuses tax credits - they are deciding that the folks who can't afford to send their kids to a religious/private school... are second class citizens with no right to the free exercise of religion, and no right to the pursuit of happiness in their kid's education.

**************************************************

   And guess how the nea, state "ea"s and teachers unions feel about that. THEY HATE IT. They can't control/groom the minds of young children if they don't go to their school. And the left is self-defined - as justified in controlling. and grooming a new generation away from Real American parents. - I think teachers unions are more concerned about losing money to line their own pockets than "controlling the minds" of children, but you're not going to get an argument from me about the questionable usefulness of today's teachers unions.

*********************************************************

      Granted, except all too often - some principal/teacher demands student(s) to not be allowed to silently pray, i.e., before their lunch, to themselves. A head coach can NOT tell all the players to pray. But he CAN pray. A liberal local government cannot have it both ways.

*********************************************************

   So, Christian families PAY THE TAXES TOO, and that means they cannot, often, afford to pay for public schools, and still, to pursure their own Happiness, and Life/LIberty - have their kids go to the expensive Christian schools they choose.

  God already knows - that home schoolers are already under the watchful eye and basic regulations by the state education associations/state legislators anyways. - Yes, because I don't think it's out of the realm of reason to have set minimum standards when it comes to education, i.e. reading/writing comprehension, mathematical competency, etc; things that couldn't be guaranteed otherwise by home-schooled education.

**********************************************************

    Absolutely true. The government has every right to establish basic education requirements in math, science, reading......etc.

the problem is -- the teaching of anti-Christian family values. More than two genders? trans reading to students? trans bathrooms?

"God doesn't exist" ? "not allowed to ever pray" ? that list goes on and  on. Public schools have been their own worst enemy all too often. And they get a free ride to be extremely liberal when they cannot be held accountable by parents. So, parents have no choice, but to choose schooling for their children outside of the public school system, when that happens. "Separation of church and state" means, cannot establish a religion, nor can it prevent the practice of one.  Christian/private schools/home schools are a no brainer solution to the problem. Failure to let some tax breaks assist parents in their choice is just part of complying with the "shall not prohibit the free exercise thereof": part.]

It's complicated.

if Tiam or woodpecker can emote anything intelligent to this discussion, they are free to contribute.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

IQ is not wisdom nor does it equal wisdom. I've known many high IQ failures in life because they lacked wisdom.

I actually wonder if woodpecker had to have his exams read to him, or they used sign language in classes to reach him....

3 hours ago, OldBrownsFan said:

With an air of "superiority".

and Tiam = "air of superiority" you betcha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...