This is no small thing

[CaptainObvious]

Supreme Court Rules Religious School Can Use Taxpayer Funds For Playground
http://news.wgbh.org/2017/06/26/new...ious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-playground

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment."

I completely agree with those in the dissent. First they, organized religion, want to have all kinds of influence in the political system, and now they want, and will receive taxpayer dollars while not contributing themselves. Tax the churches, NOW!!!

 

[jem]

from that article it seems Sotomayor has the history wrong so her conclusion would be very suspect.

historically the bible was taught in schools which had govt funding.

this changed when the supreme court became more left and more activist starting around 1950s. but it was not odious to the constitution to have govt funding schools which were religious. seperation of church and state was about ensuring that the govt did not choose one religion.

 

[Tony Stark]

Supreme Court Rules Religious School Can Use Taxpayer Funds For Playground
http://news.wgbh.org/2017/06/26/new...ious-school-can-use-taxpayer-funds-playground

In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "If this separation means anything, it means that the government cannot, or at the very least need not, tax its citizens and turn that money over to houses of worship. The Court today blinds itself to the outcome this history requires and leads us instead to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment."

I completely agree with those in the dissent. First they, organized religion, want to have all kinds of influence in the political system, and now they want, and will receive taxpayer dollars while not contributing themselves. Tax the churches, NOW!!!

I agree.The door is now open,wont be long before churches are coming after more tax dollars.

 

[jem]

if churches meet all the requirements for tax dollars for a grant, why should they not get tax payer funding?
in general I would be fine with it as long as it is done equally and without discrimination.

but... I tell you what... since I see it already happening... ..

lets just agree schools and other govts entities should not make accommodations or spend any money on any religion.

no govt paid Christmas trees or govt paid play structures in a preschool also means no prayer rooms in govt buildings, no prayer time, no prayer on loud speakers etc. It would also mean no scarfs covering faces when security is an issue... etc.

I am happy to go either way... lets have religious accommodations or not. I just don't want to see discrimination.

 

[java]

Time to get the government out of education.

 

[Wallet]

Time to get the government out of education.

Amen

 

[CaptainObvious]

People should be free to worship without government intervention regulation, but if you're going to line up for the free money while taking advantage of the tax relief which is a direct result of this constitutional right, it's more than a little disingenuous to claim that the separation between church and state isn't a one way street being manipulated by the church.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

People should be free to worship without government intervention regulation, but if you're going to line up for the free money while taking advantage of the tax relief which is a direct result of this constitutional right, it's more than a little disingenuous to claim that the separation between church and state isn't a one way street being manipulated by the church.

I'm not familiar with the facts of this particular case but I assume the reasoning was there was no religious restriction on using the playground.

In my view, these are political issues, not Constitutional ones. The Supreme Court could save everyone a lot of time and expense if it rolled back these ridiculous First Amendment religion precedents. The Court went off the rails, as it did so many times, during the Warren court years and distorted the First Amendment to ban all government interaction with religion. It is quite clear from historical records that this was never the intent of the Founders. They were concerned about imposition of a state religion or prohibitions on religious worship. Even then, the limitations were placed only on the federal government. The states were free to set up their own state religions and several did.