Posted on 06/26/2017 7:05:26 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Edited on 06/26/2017 7:38:33 AM PDT by Sidebar Moderator. [history]
See link
“The left have gone too far in their attempt to remove all religion (except Muslim which for some reason they find okay) from the public space.”
You haven’t yet figured out why the Democrats favor Islam? Militant Islam is the armed wing of the DNC.
My goodness, Sotomeyer is a fool. Her dissent is the convoluted meanderings of a blathering doomsayer. She stretches the anti-establishment clause so far that indeed if the court were to hear a challenge to local police offering traffic control for after busy church services she would rule against such actions.
To read her tell I almost think she believes the church somehow will permeate the new playground surface with penetrating Jesus vapors whereby those poor innocent children become brainless drones of the Christian hegemony. Marching off the establish and conquer in the name of Jesus.
This decision moves the Overton window to the right as far as religious liberty. Good news.
I am not sure you are agreeing, disagreeing or just adding information... but that was the point of my post. There is no separation of Religion, just that the government can not establish one.
According to the opinion, the vote was 7-2.
Let her stew in her own juices. Reminds of the liberals on the WI Supreme Court. Real pieces of work, they are.
A part of the Missouri constitution forbids the state from funding any church. I believe it was put in to prevent the funding of parochial schools which were and still are pretty prominent in many parts of the state. So because of this clause, the state can reimburse any group that provides for rubber safety coverings for playgrounds except churches.
I think that would be an inedible stew.
Militant Islam is the armed wing of the DNC.- If true, they are fools.
I sat on a Christian school board for several years. We were constantly solicited by “well meaning” state agencies to provide services such as CPR training. The intentions seemed good, until we read state and federal statute rulings for non profits. This is the govt’s way to hand tie religious institutions and their efforts are deliberate.
>
Wow. We need the Supreme Court now to rule on playgrounds??? They’ve already decided all the important issues??
>
Nobody seems to understand how many cases the SC *could* take in a year *IF* they used the Constitution as the 1st/only reference.
As you said, 180 degrees from start and a ruling of 300+ pages (or whatever it turns out to be) of case site vs. case site vs., not a ONE (I’d bet) referencing any Amendment (let alone the 1st).
The People may start to get the idea they have Rights
>
People have begun to have the “discrimination” idea backwards when it comes to many “separation of church and state” issues.
While the federal policy machinery should not FAVOR some religious outfit, over others, when it comes the granting federal funds to citizens, for anything, it should not discriminate against religious organizations, eliminating them from allocations it provides to other citizens.
Separation of church and state has come to mean SANCTIONING AGAINST, DISCRIMINATING AGAINST the religious. That is a totally modern Progressive constitutional interpretation.
>
Easier fix is to stop the illegal/unconstitutional theft and redistribution of taxpayer property, church or no church.
Then, those that want to donate are more than free to do as they wish w/ their property/time/$$.
No ‘issue’, no quandary, no SC case.
*AMAZING* the ‘issues’ solved by simply following the Constitution.
It’s great news as a group of leftist swill judges were reversed again.
In this case, the State (Missouri) made a decision: the Missouri State Constitution bars any state aid to religious schools. SCOTUS said that Missouri's Constitution violates the federal First Amendment.
.
Baffles me!
I don’t see how it involves the 1st.
.
Yes we are in complete agreement
Thanks
According to the SCOTUS majority, Missouri violated the Church's right to "free exercise of religion" because it gave state aid to nonreligious private schools and not to religious ones.
I don’t disagree.
MEANWHILE, b4 winning THAT battle, we can admit it is ALSO unconstitutional to discriminate against the religious when the government IS handing out favors.
That is in part why I put “separation of church and state” in quotes. It does not come from the Constitution, but from misinterpretation of the Constitution.
>
MEANWHILE, b4 winning THAT battle, we can admit it is ALSO unconstitutional to discriminate against the religious when the government IS handing out favors.
>
HA! You expect govt to be consistent/logical while being in this illegal state of being? /s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.