Jump to content

The Supreme Court Just Forced Maine to Fund Religious Education


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Angry Byrds said:

Can’t answer that. It was a thing that white people did back then and they didn’t see anything wrong with it. So I guess if they treated the slave poorly then it would be a sin. The Bible doesn’t condemn it, but tell you that they should be treated well. Idk if you are white but maybe if you lived at that time you also would possibly have slaves. Hard to say

 

do I think GW is in heaven? Based things he’s written yes I do.

the bible is against modern day slavery.  Freeing the jews  from Egypt was one of them. The slavery that is mentioned by Chriist is not the same kind of slavery . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Angry Byrds said:

Can’t answer that. It was a thing that white people did back then and they didn’t see anything wrong with it. So I guess if they treated the slave poorly then it would be a sin. The Bible doesn’t condemn it, but tell you that they should be treated well. Idk if you are white but maybe if you lived at that time you also would possibly have slaves. Hard to say

 

do I think GW is in heaven? Based things he’s written yes I do.

Why can't you answer? 

So according to your religion, which is based on an all loving god (lol), has no issue with forcing one human to work and obey another human under the threat of violence? Is that correct? 

How does one treat a slave poorly? Isn't the act of keeping a slave in of itself treating someone poorly already?

It sounds to me that you intrinsically know slavery is wrong, but your bible doesn't explicitly say that. So you have difficulty rationalizing why its wrong. But the bible also says to treat others as you want to be treated, and to love your neighbor. It would seem from a non-Christian perspective, that the bible is littered with contradictions because it was written by iron age cultists who had very narrow understanding of the world that we do today.

 

  • Poop 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Why can't you answer? 

So according to your religion, which is based on an all loving god (lol), has no issue with forcing one human to work and obey another human under the threat of violence? Is that correct? 

How does one treat a slave poorly? Isn't the act of keeping a slave in of itself treating someone poorly already?

It sounds to me that you intrinsically know slavery is wrong, but your bible doesn't explicitly say that. So you have difficulty rationalizing why its wrong. But the bible also says to treat others as you want to be treated, and to love your neighbor. It would seem from a non-Christian perspective, that the bible is littered with contradictions because it was written by iron age cultists who had very narrow understanding of the world that we do today.

 

WRONG! Th bible is against modern day slavery. I'd explain it to you but it would just go over your head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, RichJ said:

you dont want children going to public schools  indoctrinated with Christian beliefs but you want them indoctrinated with lgbtq and CRT garbage. LOL. You should start your own school . 

 

 

The government runs public education. The government is not supposed to sponsor any religion over another. Its the whole separation of church and state thing written in that weird thing called the constitution. So to  remain out of and neutral on religion, the government  doesn't fund any religious schools, not funding all of them equally. Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians.

  • Poop 1

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

The government runs public education. The government is not supposed to sponsor any religion over another. Its the whole separation of church and state thing written in that weird thing called the constitution. So to  remain out of and neutral on religion, the government  doesn't fund any religious schools, not funding all of them equally. Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

The government runs public education. The government is not supposed to sponsor any religion over another. Its the whole separation of church and state thing written in that weird thing called the constitution. So to  remain out of and neutral on religion, the government  doesn't fund any religious schools, not funding all of them equally. Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians.

You're so full of crap.

 

Best Islamic Schools in the USA

 

https://www.helptostudy.com/best-islamic-schools-in-the-usa/

 

You're slow.  If you dont want public schools indoctrinating kids with Christianity, we shouldn't be teaching them your lgbtq and your racist beliefs either. I dont know how to dumb that down for you.

Do you know that taxes in some instances have  funded sex change ? We should stop that. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RichJ said:

You're so full of crap.

 

Best Islamic Schools in the USA

 

https://www.helptostudy.com/best-islamic-schools-in-the-usa/

 

You're slow.  If you dont want public schools indoctrinating kids with Christianity, we shouldn't be teaching them your lgbtq and your racist beliefs either. I dont know how to dumb that down for you.

Do you know that taxes in some instances have  funded sex change ? We should stop that. 

I'm sure there are Islamic schools in the US. I don't have a problem with any religious school. I have a problem with my tax dollars paying for them.

the only reason you dont want LGBTQ issues taught in school is because of your bible. Thats not an excuse for it not to be taught in school. You dont want CRT taught in school (which its not) is because you dont want the racist history of this country to be taught to kids because it makes you feel bad. Oh well, thats not an excuse to not teach American history. Unless you hate America. 

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

I'm sure there are Islamic schools in the US. I don't have a problem with any religious school. I have a problem with my tax dollars paying for them.

the only reason you dont want LGBTQ issues taught in school is because of your bible. Thats not an excuse for it not to be taught in school. You dont want CRT taught in school (which its not) is because you dont want the racist history of this country to be taught to kids because it makes you feel bad. Oh well, thats not an excuse to not teach American history. Unless you hate America. 

so what happened to  "Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians."

WRONG again. I dont want any form of sex, STRAIGHT/gay/trans/  to children PERIOD. 

You freaks just keep trying to make it that we are against LGBTQ sex only. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, my kids dont even know what race is. They know that their black, hispanic, white asian playmates are just playmates and they respect everyone for thei differences.  They will not be taught that they are decendants or born oprressors and that their  minority friends are vicims of white people like you( you're welcome)

CRT can go down the toilet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RichJ said:

so what happened to  "Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians."

WRONG again. I dont want any form of sex, STRAIGHT/gay/trans/  to children PERIOD. 

You freaks just keep trying to make it that we are against LGBTQ only. 

I still stand by that comment. Because it was in relation to public funds. Let me know what happens if a publicly funded Islamic school is erected in bum fuck Oklahoma. 

You say that for plausible deniability. I'm not stupid.

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RichJ said:

BTW, my kids dont even know what race is. They know that their black, hispanic, white asian playmates are just playmates and they respect everyone for thei differences.  They will not be taught that they are decendants or born oprressors and that their  minority friends are vicims of white people like you( you're welcome)

CRT can go down the toilet.

nice, so they will be oblivious to the real world. 

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, f8ta1ity54 said:

I still stand by that comment. Because it was in relation to public funds. Let me know what happens if a publicly funded Islamic school is erected in bum fuck Oklahoma. 

You say that for plausible deniability. I'm not stupid.

of course you'll stand by your stupidity even though the evidence proves otherwise. I'm not surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RichJ said:

fantasizing again

Oh okay, you're just fantasizing again? I'm not in to dudes, but you say it a lot, so I figured I would ask. Maybe if you and everyone else learned that it was okay to be gay when you were in school, you wouldn't have had to live a closeted life with a deep feeling of self-loathe about your true identity.

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

The government runs public education. The government is not supposed to sponsor any religion over another. Its the whole separation of church and state thing written in that weird thing called the constitution. So to  remain out of and neutral on religion, the government  doesn't fund any religious schools, not funding all of them equally. Because we know in this country when the first Satanic or Islamic school is opened, it will be burned to the ground by peaceful and all loving Christians.

Dude, I’ve explained the separation of church and state to you a 100 times now. The government can have religion they just can’t tell you which one YOU choose. Unbelievable, you have this shit in your head, and when you’re wrong you just block shit out. I’ve never seen anything like it from an adult.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

nice, so they will be oblivious to the real world. 

Died, let me just tell you. You wouldn’t know the real world if it but you on the ass. You are literally alone in this argument other than me, and your still arguing with me lmao. You don’t even know what you want from this world. Indoctrination is you sticking your kid in a public school and them teaching your kid something that you don’t want taught to them. Not putting your kid in a private Christian school and expecting secular teachings. Your 1st lesson is free 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

 you wouldn't have had to live a closeted life with a deep feeling of self-loathe about your true identity.

LOL. Thats your comeback? Sorry. Still against teaching kids your freak beliefs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Oh okay, you're just fantasizing again? I'm not in to dudes, but you say it a lot, so I figured I would ask. Maybe if you and everyone else learned that it was okay to be gay when you were in school, you wouldn't have had to live a closeted life with a deep feeling of self-loathe about your true identity.

 

the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Angry Byrds said:

 

the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will.

 

Carson v. Makin: The Supreme Court may end public education as we know it. (slate.com)

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

 

After a year of nationwide panic over what’s taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument in Carson v. Makin deserves more attention. The questions posed in the case have major ramifications for the engineered hysteria over critical race theory, as well as the general dismay many Americans feel over the kind of education they’re subsidizing with their tax dollars. Carson v. Makin asks whether the First Amendment compels individuals of every faith to help finance the indoctrination of children by conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, and liberal Christians. This pedagogy is so extreme, so divisive and fanatical, that it makes critical race theory look like Blue’s Clues. Yet the Supreme Court will almost certainly force taxpayers to subsidize these harmful teachings, no matter how gravely it violates their own sincerely held moral and religious beliefs.

ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter

A daily email update of the stories you need to read right now.

Email address:
Send me updates about Slate special offers.
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.
Sign Up

Carson is the latest in a line of decisions that has obligated Americans to underwrite religious instruction. In 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana, the conservative justices held that Montana infringed on the free exercise clause by subsidizing private secular schools but not private parochial schools. The justices declared that once a school funds private education, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” That decision compelled Montana’s taxpayers to help finance Christian schools that inculcate students with virulently anti-LGBTQ ideology, teaching pupils that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and incest.

The decision also marked a complete reversal of the court’s precedents. Only in 2002 did the Supreme Court even permit states to provide tuition aid to children for religious education. Before that point, the court insisted that the use of any public money to underwrite religious schools ran afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which erects a wall of separation of church and state. Espinoza used the free exercise clause to bulldoze that wall. But the justices feigned modesty by preserving a distinction between “status” and “use”: States could not discriminate on the basis of religious “status,” the court asserted, but they could withhold funding for religious “use.”

This principle constitutes the last remaining barrier between church and state in the field of education. And Carson may obliterate it. The case involves a tuition program in Maine that helps children who live in rural areas without a public school. Maine provides funding to private schools that educate these students so long as their education is “roughly equivalent” to what public school students receive. While the schools may be affiliated with a religion, they must provide “secular instruction” to qualify for funding. Maine therefore complies with Espinoza: It declines to put public money to religious “use,” but does not discriminate against schools because of their religious “status.” For that reason, a panel of judges for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which included retired Justice David Souter—upheld the program.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why, then, did the Supreme Court take up Carson? There’s only one plausible explanation: The GOP-appointed justices are preparing to reverse the 1st Circuit, abolish the distinction between status and use, and require Maine residents to fund Christian indoctrination.

Public education is a bedrock of American democracy. A bad decision in Espinoza would shake the foundation of the nation’s education system, spurning the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance. The Christian schools that would receive a windfall from Maine operate as prejudice academies, instructing students to hate people who are different from them. They reject equality in favor of intolerance, preaching a fundamentalist ideology that’s incompatible with multicultural democracy.

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

ADVERTISEMENT
 

• TA rejects any student with same-sex parents, even if the student is not LGBTQ.

• To work at TA, instructors must acknowledge “homosexuals and other deviants” are “perverted.” The school only hires born-again Christians, even for custodial positions, and openly discriminates against LGBTQ applicants.

Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy have a right to practice these beliefs. But if SCOTUS forces Maine to fund these schools, it will tacitly suggest that such noxious ideas have an equal place in a secular, diverse world. The court would implicitly endorse the radical theory that states may not favor the teaching of tolerance over the inculcation of hate, bigotry, and Christian supremacy. To frame Maine’s refusal to fund a school like Temple Academy as “religious discrimination” is to demean the value of a secular public education.

 

Thats what you support. 

 

 

81Yi-LuxR2L._SY355_.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Carson v. Makin: The Supreme Court may end public education as we know it. (slate.com)

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

 

After a year of nationwide panic over what’s taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument in Carson v. Makin deserves more attention. The questions posed in the case have major ramifications for the engineered hysteria over critical race theory, as well as the general dismay many Americans feel over the kind of education they’re subsidizing with their tax dollars. Carson v. Makin asks whether the First Amendment compels individuals of every faith to help finance the indoctrination of children by conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, and liberal Christians. This pedagogy is so extreme, so divisive and fanatical, that it makes critical race theory look like Blue’s Clues. Yet the Supreme Court will almost certainly force taxpayers to subsidize these harmful teachings, no matter how gravely it violates their own sincerely held moral and religious beliefs.

ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter

A daily email update of the stories you need to read right now.

Email address:
Send me updates about Slate special offers.
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.
Sign Up

Carson is the latest in a line of decisions that has obligated Americans to underwrite religious instruction. In 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana, the conservative justices held that Montana infringed on the free exercise clause by subsidizing private secular schools but not private parochial schools. The justices declared that once a school funds private education, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” That decision compelled Montana’s taxpayers to help finance Christian schools that inculcate students with virulently anti-LGBTQ ideology, teaching pupils that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and incest.

The decision also marked a complete reversal of the court’s precedents. Only in 2002 did the Supreme Court even permit states to provide tuition aid to children for religious education. Before that point, the court insisted that the use of any public money to underwrite religious schools ran afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which erects a wall of separation of church and state. Espinoza used the free exercise clause to bulldoze that wall. But the justices feigned modesty by preserving a distinction between “status” and “use”: States could not discriminate on the basis of religious “status,” the court asserted, but they could withhold funding for religious “use.”

This principle constitutes the last remaining barrier between church and state in the field of education. And Carson may obliterate it. The case involves a tuition program in Maine that helps children who live in rural areas without a public school. Maine provides funding to private schools that educate these students so long as their education is “roughly equivalent” to what public school students receive. While the schools may be affiliated with a religion, they must provide “secular instruction” to qualify for funding. Maine therefore complies with Espinoza: It declines to put public money to religious “use,” but does not discriminate against schools because of their religious “status.” For that reason, a panel of judges for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which included retired Justice David Souter—upheld the program.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why, then, did the Supreme Court take up Carson? There’s only one plausible explanation: The GOP-appointed justices are preparing to reverse the 1st Circuit, abolish the distinction between status and use, and require Maine residents to fund Christian indoctrination.

Public education is a bedrock of American democracy. A bad decision in Espinoza would shake the foundation of the nation’s education system, spurning the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance. The Christian schools that would receive a windfall from Maine operate as prejudice academies, instructing students to hate people who are different from them. They reject equality in favor of intolerance, preaching a fundamentalist ideology that’s incompatible with multicultural democracy.

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

ADVERTISEMENT
 

• TA rejects any student with same-sex parents, even if the student is not LGBTQ.

• To work at TA, instructors must acknowledge “homosexuals and other deviants” are “perverted.” The school only hires born-again Christians, even for custodial positions, and openly discriminates against LGBTQ applicants.

Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy have a right to practice these beliefs. But if SCOTUS forces Maine to fund these schools, it will tacitly suggest that such noxious ideas have an equal place in a secular, diverse world. The court would implicitly endorse the radical theory that states may not favor the teaching of tolerance over the inculcation of hate, bigotry, and Christian supremacy. To frame Maine’s refusal to fund a school like Temple Academy as “religious discrimination” is to demean the value of a secular public education.

 

Thats what you support. 

 

 

It’s a private Christian school. Don’t send your kid there lol

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, f8ta1ity54 said:

Carson v. Makin: The Supreme Court may end public education as we know it. (slate.com)

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

 

After a year of nationwide panic over what’s taught in publicly funded schools, the Supreme Court’s upcoming argument in Carson v. Makin deserves more attention. The questions posed in the case have major ramifications for the engineered hysteria over critical race theory, as well as the general dismay many Americans feel over the kind of education they’re subsidizing with their tax dollars. Carson v. Makin asks whether the First Amendment compels individuals of every faith to help finance the indoctrination of children by conservative Christians to discriminate against LGBTQ people, women, religious minorities, and liberal Christians. This pedagogy is so extreme, so divisive and fanatical, that it makes critical race theory look like Blue’s Clues. Yet the Supreme Court will almost certainly force taxpayers to subsidize these harmful teachings, no matter how gravely it violates their own sincerely held moral and religious beliefs.

ADVERTISEMENT

Subscribe to the Slatest Newsletter

A daily email update of the stories you need to read right now.

Email address:
Send me updates about Slate special offers.
By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms.
Sign Up

Carson is the latest in a line of decisions that has obligated Americans to underwrite religious instruction. In 2020’s Espinoza v. Montana, the conservative justices held that Montana infringed on the free exercise clause by subsidizing private secular schools but not private parochial schools. The justices declared that once a school funds private education, “it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” That decision compelled Montana’s taxpayers to help finance Christian schools that inculcate students with virulently anti-LGBTQ ideology, teaching pupils that homosexuality is akin to bestiality and incest.

The decision also marked a complete reversal of the court’s precedents. Only in 2002 did the Supreme Court even permit states to provide tuition aid to children for religious education. Before that point, the court insisted that the use of any public money to underwrite religious schools ran afoul of the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which erects a wall of separation of church and state. Espinoza used the free exercise clause to bulldoze that wall. But the justices feigned modesty by preserving a distinction between “status” and “use”: States could not discriminate on the basis of religious “status,” the court asserted, but they could withhold funding for religious “use.”

This principle constitutes the last remaining barrier between church and state in the field of education. And Carson may obliterate it. The case involves a tuition program in Maine that helps children who live in rural areas without a public school. Maine provides funding to private schools that educate these students so long as their education is “roughly equivalent” to what public school students receive. While the schools may be affiliated with a religion, they must provide “secular instruction” to qualify for funding. Maine therefore complies with Espinoza: It declines to put public money to religious “use,” but does not discriminate against schools because of their religious “status.” For that reason, a panel of judges for the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which included retired Justice David Souter—upheld the program.

ADVERTISEMENT

Why, then, did the Supreme Court take up Carson? There’s only one plausible explanation: The GOP-appointed justices are preparing to reverse the 1st Circuit, abolish the distinction between status and use, and require Maine residents to fund Christian indoctrination.

Public education is a bedrock of American democracy. A bad decision in Espinoza would shake the foundation of the nation’s education system, spurning the notion that state-funded schools should teach students how to engage in diverse and pluralistic self-governance. The Christian schools that would receive a windfall from Maine operate as prejudice academies, instructing students to hate people who are different from them. They reject equality in favor of intolerance, preaching a fundamentalist ideology that’s incompatible with multicultural democracy.

In its own briefs, Maine highlights this problem by describing the policies at two schools that would presumably receive public funding if SCOTUS rules against the state, Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy. For instance:

• Bangor Christian School expels all students who identify as gay or transgender, or who display any gender-nonconforming behavior, on or off campus. Children who profess to be gay are expelled even if they swear to remain celibate.

• BCS compels all teachers to affirm that they are a “Born Again” Christian and an “active, tithing member of a Bible believing church.” It will not hire teachers who are gay, transgender, or gender-nonconforming.

• BCS explicitly denounces non-Christian faiths; in social studies class, for example, ninth grade students are taught to “refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” All students are instructed that men serve as the head of the household.

• Temple Academy has a “pretty hard lined” rule against accepting non-Christian students. It will not admit students who are gay or transgender. Every student’s parents must sign a “covenant” affirming their opposition to abortion and same-sex marriage. Students must sign a “covenant” promising to glorify Jesus Christ and attend weekly religious services.

ADVERTISEMENT
 

• TA rejects any student with same-sex parents, even if the student is not LGBTQ.

• To work at TA, instructors must acknowledge “homosexuals and other deviants” are “perverted.” The school only hires born-again Christians, even for custodial positions, and openly discriminates against LGBTQ applicants.

Bangor Christian School and Temple Academy have a right to practice these beliefs. But if SCOTUS forces Maine to fund these schools, it will tacitly suggest that such noxious ideas have an equal place in a secular, diverse world. The court would implicitly endorse the radical theory that states may not favor the teaching of tolerance over the inculcation of hate, bigotry, and Christian supremacy. To frame Maine’s refusal to fund a school like Temple Academy as “religious discrimination” is to demean the value of a secular public education.

 

Thats what you support. 

 

 

 

the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church or involve citizens in religion against their will.

 

 

 

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...