The Supreme Court is On a Religious Crusade

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

 

TLDR: The Supreme Court seems poised to rule that Maine will be forced to use public funds to pay for some students to attend private Christian schools that openly discriminate against gays, other religions, and non-Christians.  Over the past decade the Supreme Court has given victory after victory to Christian causes, giving Christians the ability to ignore laws they don't like and forcing government entities to favor Christian causes and allow exemptions for them. This is eroding viability of the Establishment Clause and can be argued that the Court views it as "religious dicrimination" to not give Christians and religious people favorable status under US laws. This conservatives Supreme court is full of very religious members who seem primed and poised to continue to rulings that exclusively side with the concerns and desires of Christian causes and against the constitutional mandate that the US not have or favor one religion over another. 

Conservative Christians have plenty of reasons to feel that their beliefs are not ascendant in modern America. But they have one unquestioned redoubt of power: the Supreme Court, whose majority is determined to keep widening their privileges, to excuse them from laws others must obey and to force government to change its rules to accommodate their beliefs.

 

This week the court demonstrated it once again.

While they may not get the attention of decisions on abortion or guns, those justices have issued a series of rulings whose effect is to give a privileged position to conservative Christians, always in the name of “religious freedom.” By the time they’re done, the separation of church and state will seem like a historical artifact from a bygone time.

 

In the case heard Wednesday, the court’s majority made clear they are ready to require states to fund sectarian education. That had long been considered a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which limits the government’s ability to give explicit support to religious doctrines and institutions.

But this court cares about as much about the Establishment Clause as it does about the part of the Second Amendment that mentions “a well regulated Militia.”

The case concerns a program in Maine, which contains remote rural areas with too few students to justify the creation of a public school. In those places — which cover about 5,000 students — the state pays for kids to attend private schools, as long as the funds aren’t used for religious education.

 

The state’s position is that they are offering a substitute for public education. Just as parents in the rest of the state can choose to send their kids to religious schools if they want but would have to pay for it themselves, parents in these rural areas can do the same. The plaintiffs argue that the state should be forced to fund not just schools affiliated with churches but schools that feature an intentionally sectarian education.

According to the state’s brief, both schools these parents want the state to fund deny admission to gay students. One school has a social studies curriculum that seeks to “[r]efute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” The other requires staff to sign a declaration agreeing that “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted.”

 

At oral arguments, the conservative justices were deeply concerned that the parents who want the state to pay for such education are being discriminated against. “That’s just discrimination on the basis of religion right there at that — at the neighborhood level,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

 

This isn’t the first time the subject of taxpayer money for religious schools has come up recently. In previous cases the court has said states can provide funds to support facilities and scholarships to such schools. But the court now looks like it could push the door open even further, by saying a state must fund schools whose central purpose is sectarian.

In the past decade or so, the conservative majority has given one victory after another to conservative Christians claiming either that they should be exempt from laws they find disagreeable or that government should have to give their institutions money and benefits despite their sectarian character.

They’ve won again and again, whether the subject was prayers at government meetings, public displays of Christian imagery, the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, cakes for gay couples or a previous case on state-sponsored scholarships to religious school. Whether the rulings are sweeping or limited, the movement always seems to be in one direction.

 

It has all been guided by an idea that the justices won’t quite say out loud: that the way we have handled the Establishment Clause for decades is simply wrong. In this view, to not give favor to religion is itself to discriminate against religious people.

We often debate how “political” the court is, and this is an important aspect of that question. A number of the conservative justices are deeply engaged with the right’s argument that we’re living in the midst of a grand cultural battle between Christianity and secularism. In this rendering, the Establishment Clause itself begins to look like a tool of your enemies.

And it’s no accident that again and again these cases concern the rights and privileges of Christians — and not only because there’s a well-funded legal establishment of conservative Christian organizations and lawyers eager to litigate cases.

Those advocates know perfectly well that if these cases involved Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu groups that wanted the state to accommodate, honor and fund their religious expression and activities, the results could be very different. But because the court’s conservatives are all themselves Christian, they clearly feel an affinity with these plaintiffs.

 

They also seem sympathetic to the argument so common on the contemporary right that Christians are a kind of persecuted majority. Living in a society that increasingly incorporates pluralist mores and practices — such as “Happy Holidays” signs — constitutes oppression so brutal that government, the law and the Constitution itself must bend to lessen their burden. Protecting these noble victims requires steadily whittling away at the Establishment Clause.

 

Whenever this era in the Supreme Court’s history ends, we’ll have a very different legal system when it comes to church and state. You can bet that all kinds of plaintiffs are waiting to see just how far the court will go in dismantling that wall. They’re nowhere near done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/09/supreme-court-crusade/

[DKW 86 7,440]

Funding any school that doesnt accept all students is wrong.

End of statement.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

5 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

TLDR: The Supreme Court seems poised to rule that Maine will be forced to use public funds to pay for some students to attend private Christian schools that openly discriminate against gays, other religions, and non-Christians.  Over the past decade the Supreme Court has given victory after victory to Christian causes, giving Christians the ability to ignore laws they don't like and forcing government entities to favor Christian causes and allow exemptions for them. This is eroding viability of the Establishment Clause and can be argued that the Court views it as "religious dicrimination" to not give Christians and religious people favorable status under US laws. This conservatives Supreme court is full of very religious members who seem primed and poised to continue to rulings that exclusively side with the concerns and desires of Christian causes and against the constitutional mandate that the US not have or favor one religion over another. 

Conservative Christians have plenty of reasons to feel that their beliefs are not ascendant in modern America. But they have one unquestioned redoubt of power: the Supreme Court, whose majority is determined to keep widening their privileges, to excuse them from laws others must obey and to force government to change its rules to accommodate their beliefs.

 

This week the court demonstrated it once again.

While they may not get the attention of decisions on abortion or guns, those justices have issued a series of rulings whose effect is to give a privileged position to conservative Christians, always in the name of “religious freedom.” By the time they’re done, the separation of church and state will seem like a historical artifact from a bygone time.

 

In the case heard Wednesday, the court’s majority made clear they are ready to require states to fund sectarian education. That had long been considered a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which limits the government’s ability to give explicit support to religious doctrines and institutions.

But this court cares about as much about the Establishment Clause as it does about the part of the Second Amendment that mentions “a well regulated Militia.”

The case concerns a program in Maine, which contains remote rural areas with too few students to justify the creation of a public school. In those places — which cover about 5,000 students — the state pays for kids to attend private schools, as long as the funds aren’t used for religious education.

 

The state’s position is that they are offering a substitute for public education. Just as parents in the rest of the state can choose to send their kids to religious schools if they want but would have to pay for it themselves, parents in these rural areas can do the same. The plaintiffs argue that the state should be forced to fund not just schools affiliated with churches but schools that feature an intentionally sectarian education.

According to the state’s brief, both schools these parents want the state to fund deny admission to gay students. One school has a social studies curriculum that seeks to “[r]efute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” The other requires staff to sign a declaration agreeing that “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted.”

 

At oral arguments, the conservative justices were deeply concerned that the parents who want the state to pay for such education are being discriminated against. “That’s just discrimination on the basis of religion right there at that — at the neighborhood level,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh.

 

This isn’t the first time the subject of taxpayer money for religious schools has come up recently. In previous cases the court has said states can provide funds to support facilities and scholarships to such schools. But the court now looks like it could push the door open even further, by saying a state must fund schools whose central purpose is sectarian.

In the past decade or so, the conservative majority has given one victory after another to conservative Christians claiming either that they should be exempt from laws they find disagreeable or that government should have to give their institutions money and benefits despite their sectarian character.

They’ve won again and again, whether the subject was prayers at government meetings, public displays of Christian imagery, the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, cakes for gay couples or a previous case on state-sponsored scholarships to religious school. Whether the rulings are sweeping or limited, the movement always seems to be in one direction.

 

It has all been guided by an idea that the justices won’t quite say out loud: that the way we have handled the Establishment Clause for decades is simply wrong. In this view, to not give favor to religion is itself to discriminate against religious people.

We often debate how “political” the court is, and this is an important aspect of that question. A number of the conservative justices are deeply engaged with the right’s argument that we’re living in the midst of a grand cultural battle between Christianity and secularism. In this rendering, the Establishment Clause itself begins to look like a tool of your enemies.

And it’s no accident that again and again these cases concern the rights and privileges of Christians — and not only because there’s a well-funded legal establishment of conservative Christian organizations and lawyers eager to litigate cases.

Those advocates know perfectly well that if these cases involved Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu groups that wanted the state to accommodate, honor and fund their religious expression and activities, the results could be very different. But because the court’s conservatives are all themselves Christian, they clearly feel an affinity with these plaintiffs.

 

They also seem sympathetic to the argument so common on the contemporary right that Christians are a kind of persecuted majority. Living in a society that increasingly incorporates pluralist mores and practices — such as “Happy Holidays” signs — constitutes oppression so brutal that government, the law and the Constitution itself must bend to lessen their burden. Protecting these noble victims requires steadily whittling away at the Establishment Clause.

 

Whenever this era in the Supreme Court’s history ends, we’ll have a very different legal system when it comes to church and state. You can bet that all kinds of plaintiffs are waiting to see just how far the court will go in dismantling that wall. They’re nowhere near done.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/12/09/supreme-court-crusade/

Finally.

[homersapien 11,440]

Its past time to recognize the SCOTUS has become hopelessly partisan.  We need more judges to achieve balance.

[jj3jordan 2,060]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

Its past time to recognize the SCOTUS has become hopelessly partisan.  We need more judges to achieve balance.

Why would that change anything?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

14 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Why would that change anything?

What’s ironic about his statement is; he believes the SCOTUS has become hopelessly partisan AND we need more judges to achieve balance, which I presume would be nominated by Democrats.  Of course the number would rise to the level of one more judge appointed by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Problem solved!!!  🤣

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

With no public schools available I see no problem with the funding. Looks like Kavanaugh agrees.
 

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/08/1061996765/supreme-court-weighs-mandating-public-funds-for-religious-schools-in-maine

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/11/2021 at 12:49 PM, SaltyTiger said:

With no public schools available I see no problem with the funding. Looks like Kavanaugh agrees.
 

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/08/1061996765/supreme-court-weighs-mandating-public-funds-for-religious-schools-in-maine

How about the obviously secular "teachings" mentioned above?   Should the government be funding that?

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/11/2021 at 12:48 PM, I_M4_AU said:

What’s ironic about his statement is; he believes the SCOTUS has become hopelessly partisan AND we need more judges to achieve balance, which I presume would be nominated by Democrats.  Of course the number would rise to the level of one more judge appointed by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Problem solved!!!  🤣

If it's acceptable policy for the secularists it should be acceptable for everyone, right?

Or is your intention to simply confirm the basic point of the OP? 

Edited December 16, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about the obviously secular "teachings" mentioned above?   Should the government be funding that?

Why shouldn’t they? No public school available, school of choice. 

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Why shouldn’t they? No public school available, school of choice. 

So just to be clear here, if in the backwoods of your state where no public schooling exists, you'd be 100% in support of an Imam opening up a private Islamic school and for your state to use your tax dollars to pay for kids in the area to attend that school, where they would be taught like normal but also have classes on studying the koran and encouraging the children to grow up Muslim? 

 

 

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

No public schools available. I would have no problem with tuition assistance to a school of choice.

[homersapien 11,440]

On 12/11/2021 at 12:48 PM, I_M4_AU said:

What’s ironic about his statement is; he believes the SCOTUS has become hopelessly partisan AND we need more judges to achieve balance, which I presume would be nominated by Democrats.  Of course the number would rise to the level of one more judge appointed by the Democrats than the Republicans.  Problem solved!!!  🤣

Whereas, a six vote majority of theocratic MAGA judges is not a problem at all, right?

[homersapien 11,440]

2 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

No public schools available. I would have no problem with tuition assistance to a school of choice.

Even if said schools teach extreme sectarian bigotry?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Whereas, a six vote majority of theocratic MAGA judges is not a problem at all, right?

Which judges are theocratic?  You’ve gone off the deep end.  Judge Roberts has continually sided with the more liberal judges and Justice Gorsuch even sided with the majority when it came to trans rights being covered under the civil right bill.  In case you forgot:

But on Monday, Justice Gorsuch, 52, led the way on one of the most sweeping L.G.B.T. rights rulings in the court’s history, protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination and confounding those who thought he would be a reliable conservative on those issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html

 

[homersapien 11,440]

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Which judges are theocratic?  You’ve gone off the deep end.  Judge Roberts has continually sided with the more liberal judges and Justice Gorsuch even sided with the majority when it came to trans rights being covered under the civil right bill.  In case you forgot:

But on Monday, Justice Gorsuch, 52, led the way on one of the most sweeping L.G.B.T. rights rulings in the court’s history, protecting gay and transgender people from workplace discrimination and confounding those who thought he would be a reliable conservative on those issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/us/politics/gorsuch-supreme-court-gay-transgender-rights.html

 

"Theocratic" was my term.  However there is some supportive evidence for it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Gorsuch

Gorsuch advocates a broad definition of religious freedom that is inimical to church–state separation advocates.^[51][52][53]

51) Boston, Rob (December 29, 2017). "Here Are the Top Ten Church–State Stories from 2017". Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Archived from the original on January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 20, 2018.

52) Mystal, Elie (April 10, 2017). "Religious Freedom or Religious Preference? Neil Gorsuch Will Decide Next Week". Above the Law. New York. Archived from the original on November 8, 2021. Retrieved January 20, 2018.

53) Epps, Garrett (March 20, 2017). "Gorsuch's Selective View of 'Religious Freedom'". The Atlantic. Washington, DC. Archived from the original on January 21, 2018. Retrieved January 20, 2018.

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

30 minutes ago, homersapien said:

"Theocratic" was my term.  However there is some supportive evidence for it:

Somehow I should have guessed that.

[homersapien 11,440]

51 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Somehow I should have guessed that.

Well apparently, you missed the primary clue - I drafted the sentence in question.

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

8 hours ago, homersapien said:

Even if said schools teach extreme sectarian bigotry?

What is “ extreme sectarian bigotry”?

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

What is “ extreme sectarian bigotry”?

Like football coaches that only direct top recruits to Bama. Enough! Enough, I say! Get on the right side of history! 😉

[homersapien 11,440]

16 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

What is “ extreme sectarian bigotry”?

From the OP:

"According to the state’s brief, both schools these parents want the state to fund deny admission to gay students. One school has a social studies curriculum that seeks to “[r]efute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” The other requires staff to sign a declaration agreeing that “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted.”

Edited December 18, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

7 hours ago, homersapien said:

From the OP:

"According to the state’s brief, both schools these parents want the state to fund deny admission to gay students. One school has a social studies curriculum that seeks to “[r]efute the teachings of the Islamic religion with the truth of God’s Word.” The other requires staff to sign a declaration agreeing that “God recognize[s] homosexuals and other deviants as perverted.”

Thanks, read that in the OP

[homersapien 11,440]

17 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Thanks, read that in the OP

Sooooo, does that mean you don't think those examples don't represent sectarian bigotry? 

Edited December 19, 2021 by homersapien

[SaltyTiger 7,859]

53 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Sooooo, does that mean you don't think those examples don't represent sectarian bigotry? 

You forgot “extreme”. Just looking at the cases. Tough situation in Maine

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/08/1061996765/supreme-court-weighs-mandating-public-funds-for-religious-schools-in-maine

[homersapien 11,440]

15 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

You forgot “extreme”. Just looking at the cases. Tough situation in Maine

https://www.npr.org/2021/12/08/1061996765/supreme-court-weighs-mandating-public-funds-for-religious-schools-in-maine

Does sectarian bigotry in a public school have to be "extreme" before it violates the first amendment?