Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

News and events of the day
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:13 pm And would have expected you, of all people, to understand his reference to established regions. When he says established he’s referring to the concept of a state established religion and why we have a prohibition.
Me of all people has been teaching on this subject for years.

Me knows that many American colonists came to these shores seeking freedom from the tyranny of the Anglican Church, like the Puritans, and then when they established their colonies, turned around and denied it to others. Like the Quakers. This is the tragedy of early colonial America. And Jefferson the Deist, the author of the Jefferson Bible, was quite familiar with it. And concerned with stopping this cycle.

Me knows this is why Rhode Island was very concerned about this question, and why a very important letter was sent by George Washington to the Touro Synagogue on this matter.

Me also knows when Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, ... who supported his Virginia Statute BTW ... he articulated a point they agreed with ... the best protector of religious freedom and independence is to make sure religious organizations and institutions are not dependent on government support. The "wall of separation" is to protect churches from the government. Too. Once they become dependent on government support, they also become subject to governmental manipulation and interference.

Religion thrives best and most when separated from, and not entangled with, the government and politics. That includes financial support, and why most states ended taxpayer support of churches by the 1830s.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by JoeMemphis »

ProfX wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:47 pm Me of all people has been teaching on this subject for years.

Me knows that many American colonists came to these shores seeking freedom from the tyranny of the Anglican Church, like the Puritans, and then when they established their colonies, turned around and denied it to others. Like the Quakers. This is the tragedy of early colonial America. And Jefferson the Deist, the author of the Jefferson Bible, was quite familiar with it. And concerned with stopping this cycle.

Me knows this is why Rhode Island was very concerned about this question, and why a very important letter was sent by George Washington to the Touro Synagogue on this matter.

Me also knows when Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, ... who supported his Virginia Statute BTW ... he articulated a point they agreed with ... the best protector of religious freedom and independence is to make sure religious organizations and institutions are not dependent on government support. The "wall of separation" is to protect churches from the government. Too. Once they become dependent on government support, they also become subject to governmental manipulation and interference.

Religion thrives best and most when separated from, and not entangled with, the government and politics. That includes financial support, and why most states ended taxpayer support of churches by the 1830s.
My personal opinion is that these discussions tend to drift away from education and center on religion and separation of church and state. I’m not interested in state sponsored religion. I am concerned and interested in providing quality education to students.

It seems to me we ought to be able to agree on reasonable academic standards without micromanaging private schools. If we need to require a “wall” of sorts between religious studies and other studies (an educational Hyde amendment) then I’m okay with that discussion. But at the end of the day, no student should be trapped in a failing school without options. The mission is education and not maintaining a failed or failing educational institution or bureaucracy be it public or private.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:37 pm My personal opinion is that these discussions tend to drift away from education and center on religion and separation of church and state. I’m not interested in state sponsored religion. I am concerned and interested in providing quality education to students.

It seems to me we ought to be able to agree on reasonable academic standards without micromanaging private schools. If we need to require a “wall” of sorts between religious studies and other studies (an educational Hyde amendment) then I’m okay with that discussion. But at the end of the day, no student should be trapped in a failing school without options. The mission is education and not maintaining a failed or failing educational institution or bureaucracy be it public or private.
The problem is that this educator is a far-right religious organization that is teaching religion.

Now, there are SOME religious schools that might be okay. I understand you can get a high-quality education at many Jesuit institutions, and they don't shove their religion down your throat. Of course, the Catholic faith accepts things like evolution and the germ theory.

If one wasn't required to participate in religious ceremonies and worship, I'd be fine with that. But that's not what this is. And I note that you ignore questions about other religious institutions like Wahhabi Madrassas, which the government would have to fund too under the Supreme Court's new regime.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:37 pm If we need to require a “wall” of sorts between religious studies and other studies (an educational Hyde amendment) then I’m okay with that discussion.
Good news: no need to reinvent the wheel. The Lemon Test exists. I wrote about what it is. (And no, it's not a process of lemonade quality control. :D )
Key problem: both Maine schools in this decision fail it.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:32 pm https://www.au.org/the-latest/articles/ ... id-ruling/

“The court’s ultra-conservative bloc argued that refusing to tax citizens to fund religion is ‘discrimination against religion.’ It’s nothing less than gaslighting to cloak this assault on our Constitution in the language of non-discrimination,” Laser asserted. “If the conservative justices were concerned with discrimination, they would not have issued this opinion because it forces taxpayers to fund two religious schools that discriminate against LGBTQ families, one barring their admission and the other forcing them to undergo ‘counseling’ and renounce their sexual orientation or gender identity, or be expelled. One school’s stated educational objective is to ‘refute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s word’ – and now Muslim taxpayers will be forced to fund that school.”

[snip][end]

Separating Church and State
https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights- ... -and-state

At this time, the Church of England (also known as the Anglican Church) was the established religion of Virginia. This meant that the Anglican Church was the only officially recognized church in the colony. Virginia taxpayers supported this church through a religion tax. Only Anglican clergymen could lawfully conduct marriages. Non-Anglicans had to get permission (a license) from the colonial government to preach.

[snip]

Thus, on the eve of the Revolutionary War, nine of the 13 colonies supported official religions with public taxes. Moreover, in these colonies, the government dictated "correct" religious belief and methods of worship. Religious dissenters, like "Swearing Jack," were discriminated against, disqualified from holding public office, exiled, fined, jailed, beaten, mutilated, and sometimes even executed. Only Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware did not have a system linking church and state. After the Revolution, leaders like Jefferson and Madison worked to ensure freedom of religion for all citizens of the new nation.

[snip]

A year after Thomas Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, he wrote a bill on religious freedom for his home state of Virginia. In writing these documents, Jefferson was strongly influenced by the 17th century English philosopher John Locke. In 1689, Locke had argued that "the church itself is a thing absolutely separate and distinct from the commonwealth [government]." Taking this idea from Locke, Jefferson proposed that Virginia end all tax support of religion and recognize the natural right of all persons to believe as they wish.

[snip]

During spring and summer of 1785, Madison worked to sway public opinion against Henry's religious tax bill. In a widely circulated petition against the bill, Madison declared that it was the natural right of all persons, even atheists, to be left to their own private views of religion. He argued that throughout history "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" have accompanied the union of religion and government. He also asserted that Christianity did not need the support of government to flourish.

Baptists and other evangelical religious groups in Virginia also circulated petitions against the religious tax bill. They viewed this bill forcing government into church affairs and threatening religious liberty. Overwhelmed by the negative public response to Henry's bill, the General Assembly did not even bring it up for a vote. Instead, Madison reintroduced Jefferson's bill, which called for severing all ties between the state of Virginia and religion. Jefferson's "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" was passed on January 19, 1786. This was the first time that a government anywhere in the world had acted to legally separate religion from the state.

"A Wall of Separation"

[snip]

The Bill of Rights originally only limited acts of the federal government. Thus, the First Amendment's prohibition against laws "respecting an establishment of religion" did not affect what states could do. Consequently, seven states (including newly admitted Vermont) continued to assess taxes in support of Christian churches. State laws also frequently required public officeholders to be Christians, denied the vote to non-Christians, and enforced the Christian Sabbath.

[snip]

Gradually, all states followed the lead of Virginia in ending religion taxes. Massachusetts in 1833 was the last of the original 13 states to do this. But some states still involved themselves with religion. For instance, several states made recitation of the Lord's Prayer and devotional Bible readings mandatory in public schools.

Not until the 20th century did the U.S. Supreme Court apply most of the Bill of Rights to the states. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) requires states to guarantee fundamental rights such as the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion. This means that states, like the federal government, can "make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

In 1947, the Supreme Court attempted to define the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. Justice Hugo Black, writing for the court, held:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. . . . In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against the establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a "wall of separation between Church and State." [Everson v. Board of Education (1947).]

[snip][end]
The taxes were specifically to support religion(establishment). Quite different from paying religious organizations for services.

It’s sublimely clear Jefferson separation was specifically targeted to the establishment clause. It’s obvious because jefferson routinely payed religious organizations for services. That has nothing to do separation. Jefferson separation refers exclusively to the establishment clause.
Bludogdem
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:47 pm Me of all people has been teaching on this subject for years.

Me knows that many American colonists came to these shores seeking freedom from the tyranny of the Anglican Church, like the Puritans, and then when they established their colonies, turned around and denied it to others. Like the Quakers. This is the tragedy of early colonial America. And Jefferson the Deist, the author of the Jefferson Bible, was quite familiar with it. And concerned with stopping this cycle.

Me knows this is why Rhode Island was very concerned about this question, and why a very important letter was sent by George Washington to the Touro Synagogue on this matter.

Me also knows when Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists, ... who supported his Virginia Statute BTW ... he articulated a point they agreed with ... the best protector of religious freedom and independence is to make sure religious organizations and institutions are not dependent on government support. The "wall of separation" is to protect churches from the government. Too. Once they become dependent on government support, they also become subject to governmental manipulation and interference.

Religion thrives best and most when separated from, and not entangled with, the government and politics. That includes financial support, and why most states ended taxpayer support of churches by the 1830s.
Being paid for services is not dependence on government. Being paid for services by the government doesn’t require the wall of separation.

In the previous quote you posted he ferreted directly to an established religion. His separation view was specifically the establishment clause. Paying religious groups for service was routine. No different than providing tuition for students. Separation doesn’t apply there.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:28 pm Being paid for services is not dependence on government. Being paid for services by the government doesn’t require the wall of separation.

In the previous quote you posted he ferreted directly to an established religion. His separation view was specifically the establishment clause. Paying religious groups for service was routine. No different than providing tuition for students. Separation doesn’t apply there.
We should NOT be paying a church to teach children their religious dogma. It's that simple. And that's what you're arguing for.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 2825
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Libertas »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:40 pm We should NOT be paying a church to teach children their religious dogma. It's that simple. And that's what you're arguing for.
Getting rid of public education entirely is in the works.

Today or tomorrow Roe is gone, school prayer is allowed, etc. There are 7 more, not sure what they all are.

But the BASHING of Hillary is how we got here and unless we increase the size of the court it will be decades to fix this.
Last edited by Libertas on Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Toonces
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 9:52 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Toonces »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:28 pm Being paid for services is not dependence on government. Being paid for services by the government doesn’t require the wall of separation.

In the previous quote you posted he ferreted directly to an established religion. His separation view was specifically the establishment clause. Paying religious groups for service was routine. No different than providing tuition for students. Separation doesn’t apply there.
Yet religious schools do promote a specific religion. It's more than providing a service, so it's certain to meet with some objection.School prayer seems to be a consistently hot topic. I assume it was removed because of the religious aspect of it. You're definitely going to get prayer in religion-based schools. Though, as I previously said, I would not object if they were not allowed to discriminate, even if it violates their religious views.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

It depends on the "services" rendered.

As I said, I'm OK with the Lemon Test.

If you go to a Catholic run hospital, and they treat your tinnitus (or whatever), and you leave without being forced to read a Catholic catechism, and the hospital doesn't refuse you service for being gay ... fine, Medicare can reimburse them. I am OK with it and so is HHS.

The trickier part ... if government supports a religious operated school, and they teach that the Earth was created in six days, that does not meet any reasonable academic standards, ... now to be clear, yes they can teach it, even if it happens to be scientifically false, but as I keep saying, not with government/taxpayer support. If that religious operated school refuses to serve LGBTQ students, or forces Jewish students to attend Christian prayer meetings ... BTW, they can do it but once again, not with government/taxpayer support.

Discrimination, failure to serve on that basis, and religious indoctrination and proselytization should not get government support.
Last edited by ProfX on Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

Toonces wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 4:45 pm School prayer seems to be a consistently hot topic. I assume it was removed because of the religious aspect of it. You're definitely going to get prayer in religion-based schools.
Engele vs. Vitale, 1962. A landmark SCOTUS decision in the U.S. We've discussed it many times. It neither ended religion nor prayer in schools. Post-Engele, Christian student associations can most definitely meet on public school campuses and do - and they most definitely can hold prayer sessions and Bible study. They can even evangelize and try and recruit students. All during non-school hours, of course, BTW. All Engele forbids is faculty or staff in a public school mandating & leading forcible school prayer on students during school hours. They can absolutely meet with (opting) students and hold a prayer session or Bible Study who opt for it, after the bell rings, though.

My Dad remembered, in the pre-Engele days, being forced to read aloud the Lord's Prayer, the Protestant version, in his home room. As a Jew, he was neither allowed to leave nor not to participate. This is what SCOTUS put an end to in 1962 ... and good.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:51 pm The problem is that this educator is a far-right religious organization that is teaching religion.

Now, there are SOME religious schools that might be okay. I understand you can get a high-quality education at many Jesuit institutions, and they don't shove their religion down your throat. Of course, the Catholic faith accepts things like evolution and the germ theory.

If one wasn't required to participate in religious ceremonies and worship, I'd be fine with that. But that's not what this is. And I note that you ignore questions about other religious institutions like Wahhabi Madrassas, which the government would have to fund too under the Supreme Court's new regime.
No. I didn’t ignore it. I addressed it more than once. You just have to read. I could repost it but you would just ignore it again.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:08 pm No. I didn’t ignore it. I addressed it more than once. You just have to read. I could repost it but you would just ignore it again.
Bullshit.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

Joe, you didn't answer anything. Here's the deal - Indoctrination of religious dogma has no place in the schools of this nation. That's very clear. You can't force kids to pray. You can't teach "creationism" because it's not science, it's not factual.

There is no place in publicly-funded schools for such things. And this is an end-around by a very radical Supreme Court to allow the teaching of religious dogma in a government-funded school. You can BET they have prayer and teach creationism.

Now, this opens up so that anti-American Muslim Madrassas can be paid for by the government - as you said, if they fund the Christian school, they have to fund other religious schools. We have areas of our nation that are majority Muslim. Today, all those children go to public schools, and that's a good thing. If they want them to go to a religious school, they can fund that out of their own pocket.

This is all about defunding and, ultimately, doing away with public schools. The right doesn't like them and never has.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:32 pm Joe, you didn't answer anything. Here's the deal - Indoctrination of religious dogma has no place in the schools of this nation. That's very clear. You can't force kids to pray. You can't teach "creationism" because it's not science, it's not factual.

There is no place in publicly-funded schools for such things. And this is an end-around by a very radical Supreme Court to allow the teaching of religious dogma in a government-funded school. You can BET they have prayer and teach creationism.

Now, this opens up so that anti-American Muslim Madrassas can be paid for by the government - as you said, if they fund the Christian school, they have to fund other religious schools. We have areas of our nation that are majority Muslim. Today, all those children go to public schools, and that's a good thing. If they want them to go to a religious school, they can fund that out of their own pocket.

This is all about defunding and, ultimately, doing away with public schools. The right doesn't like them and never has.
So you did go back and find where I answered your question. Good for you. Wasn’t the answer you wanted. I get that. But it was a direct answer to your question nonetheless.

By the way, you said there was now an established religion. I asked what that religion was and who was it’s head. You must have missed that cause you have yet to reply and we know you never run away from difficult questions.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:57 pm So you did go back and find where I answered your question. Good for you. Wasn’t the answer you wanted. I get that. But it was a direct answer to your question nonetheless.

By the way, you said there was now an established religion. I asked what that religion was and who was it’s head. You must have missed that cause you have yet to reply and we know you never run away from difficult questions.
It WASN'T an answer, it was a deflection. Nothing more. Not a direct answer at all. You basically said that they'd handle it. But if you have to treat all religions the same, they have to fund everyone. Something you won't address. Not surprised.

Our established religion is Christian Nationalism. Donald Trump was it's head. Five members of the Supreme Court are members, and so they are on a path to establish their religious beliefs into law. The GOP is completely controlled by the Christian Nationalists.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:21 pm But if you have to treat all religions the same, they have to fund everyone.
Neutrality toward religions is a bitch, but it is what the Constitution says. When you open the door for one, you must open the door for all.

There is no way Maine now could deny - if one was opened - a school operated by the Satanic Temple from requesting voucher support.

Pennsylvania school board torpedoes After School Satan Club
https://www.fox29.com/news/after-school ... ary-school

An elementary school board in Pennsylvania doesn't have any sympathy for the devil.

Northern Elementary School in York, Pennsylvania, put to vote the introduction of an After School Satan Club at Tuesday night’s meeting. The club, which was proposed and pushed by a parent at the school, was initially rejected by the principal. However, the club was tabled for a probationary vote at the school board meeting Tuesday.

The Satanic club was shot down with an 8-1 vote. There are currently four similar clubs operating in U.S. schools across the country, with regular attempts to expand.

[snip]

The Satanic Temple opened an after-school "Satan Club" in a Moline, Illinois, elementary school, as part of its nationwide campaign to push back against the Christian Good News Clubs offered to schoolchildren after regular-hour classes.

[snip][end]

If you're going to allow Christian fellowship groups to operate on campus (and I'm not saying you shouldn't, but), you gotta allow the Satan Club to as well. Otherwise, you are not showing neutrality towards religions. This is where all of a sudden conservatives suddenly start to change their minds.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:21 pm It WASN'T an answer, it was a deflection. Nothing more. Not a direct answer at all. You basically said that they'd handle it. But if you have to treat all religions the same, they have to fund everyone. Something you won't address. Not surprised.

Our established religion is Christian Nationalism. Donald Trump was it's head. Five members of the Supreme Court are members, and so they are on a path to establish their religious beliefs into law. The GOP is completely controlled by the Christian Nationalists.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:45 pm :roll: :roll: :roll:
Translation: "I've got nothin'!"
Bludogdem
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:28 pm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] The court ruled in an 8–1[2] decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private elementary schools from public textbooks and with public instructional materials.[3]

[snip]

The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test"[4] (named after the lead plaintiff Alton Lemon),[5] which details legislation concerning religion. It is threefold:

The statute must have a secular legislative purpose. (Also known as the Purpose Prong)
The principal or primary effect of the statute must neither advance nor inhibit religion. (Also known as the Effect Prong)
The statute must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. (Also known as the Entanglement Prong)


Factors:
Character and purpose of institution benefited.
Nature of aid the state provides.
Resulting relationship between government and religious authority.

[snip]

The court found that the parochial school system was "an integral part of the religious mission of the Catholic Church," and held that the Act fostered "excessive entanglement" between government and religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause.[1]

[snip][end]

An 8-1 decision of SCOTUS moonbats ... obviously. :roll:
Lemon is dead. Just don’t know it yet.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... lemon-test
Bludogdem
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Bludogdem »

ProfX wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 5:09 pm 37 states disagree with you.

37 states have Blaine Amendments blocking public funds from religious schools in their constitutions
https://www.thecentersquare.com/nationa ... 6a615.html

Blaine Amendments refer to language in state constitutions that prohibit public funding for schools or educational institutions run by religious organizations. The language in each state constitution varies. Blaine Amendments are named after an amendment to the U.S. Constitution—sponsored by James Gillespie Blaine—that was proposed but never passed.

Thirty-seven states have Blaine Amendments in their constitutions as of 2020. Louisiana's Blaine Amendment was repealed by voters in 1974.

[snip][end]

Maybe these states are filled with moonbats, or they get a principle I've been articulating.

Again, please read the HHS proviso I noted earlier. Yes, HHS will provide funds to religiously operated hospitals. NO, they CANNOT use those funds to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, or proselytize and promote religion. It's the latter that constitutes the government establishing religion and failing to separate church and state.

Note this problem is greater when dealing with religious education, as opposed to religious charities or medical services.
As of last year Blaine amendments are unconstitutional.
gounion
Posts: 3948
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:52 pm Lemon is dead. Just don’t know it yet.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-we ... lemon-test
The ultimate aim of this Supreme Court is to make the Establishment Clause unconstitutional. Just put out decisions that says that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Because it's inconvenient to their ultimate goals.

And you're fully on board with this, while pretending you're not in favor of turning our nation into a theocracy.
User avatar
ProfX
Posts: 2112
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2021 3:15 pm
Location: Earth

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by ProfX »

Bludogdem wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:53 pm As of last year Blaine amendments are unconstitutional.
I assume you are referring to Espinosa vs. Montana Dept. of Revenue.
https://ballotpedia.org/Espinoza_v._Mon ... of_Revenue

I cannot deny the court appears to have struck down Montana's Blaine amendment. (Or, per se, the state SCOTUS upholding its constitutionality.)

If it affected any other states other than Montana, Ballotpedia does not note that. I don't see anything in the ruling that states it has any impact beyond the narrow one on how Montana was applying its law. After all, if it did, all state Blaine amendments would have been overturned.
https://ballotpedia.org/Blaine_amendmen ... stitutions

It couldn't have wide ranging scope, as the state Blaine amendments vary in nature, scope and impact. They are not uniform and exactly similar to Montana's.

As for the Lemon Test, I'm well aware of many conservative justices disliking it (Scalia being a notable example), and yes I know some want it overturned, but in the mean time, it has never been overturned.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/ar ... lemon-test

The repeated criticisms and modifications of Lemon, in addition to other tests used by the justices in the establishment clause area, mean that the test has an uncertain future. However, the Lemon test remains the dominant test used by lower courts in Establishment Clause cases. Some lower courts still use the traditional three-part Lemon test, while other courts use a combination of the Lemon and endorsement tests.

[snip][end]

This continues to be true.
Last edited by ProfX on Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Don't believe every quote attributed to people on the Internet" -- Abraham Lincoln :D
Bludogdem
Posts: 748
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 7:00 pm The ultimate aim of this Supreme Court is to make the Establishment Clause unconstitutional. Just put out decisions that says that the Constitution doesn't mean what it says. Because it's inconvenient to their ultimate goals.

And you're fully on board with this, while pretending you're not in favor of turning our nation into a theocracy.
Yeah, that’s just fucking stupid. The establishment clause is distinctly clear. No rational way to interpret it as unconstitutional. It would take an amendment. If you really believe that I really, really, pity you. That’s just delusional.
JoeMemphis
Posts: 1150
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:25 pm

Re: Supreme Court breaks down wall between church and state

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 6:51 pm Translation: "I've got nothin'!"
You truly don’t.
Post Reply