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.
.
There are no “Separation of church and state” issues.
The subject was never inserted into the constitution.
The clause in the constitution merely protected the right of the states to make the decisions.
.
>
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.