Supreme Court OKs public money for religious education


The extent you will go to die on this hill is amazing to me.

Yes, I am.

I can read.

“Moral fortitude”? :rofl:

Try combat for a day.

You’re mismanaging your business, or not managing at all.

I’m not dying. Internal locus of control. You should try it, it will bring you peace.

Ah, here is the offender. Are you a product of that specific system?

1 Like

that book was published in 2020.
Try again.

You offer no proof. So I don’t believe you.

Didn’t. Can’t.

But thank you for stepping up. You should be proud. I’m sure it was hard, and I’m sure you met the challenge.

We’re thriving.

We lose money if someone is out for a week, let alone dead.

Seems to me you’ve never run a business, which is fine. Talk to someone you trust, not some ‘;ib’ on a forum.

If a team member dies, you lose sales, productivity, spend money on recruitment and training.

That’s just simple facts and true for factory work, or the higher end, service work we do.

1 Like

So you read that book (published in 2020) in the 1960s, when you were in middle school?

You’re steadfastly sticking to a claim that is easily determined to be facially false.

That’s what the expression “die on this hill” refers to - but I guess that’s a little outdated, as it assumes that one values the credence of one’s words.

The copyright on this book is 08/2020.

Ah yes. When all else fails.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the amendment, the Establishment Clause, is not a protection of individual rights, but of State prerogatives. The remainder of the amendment protects the mentioned individual rights.

Backtracking a bit.

From Article IV of the Constitution:

Section. 2. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States

Then forward in time.

From Amendment 14:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The privileges and immunities clause of the original Constitution merely required that each State treat citizens of other States the same as their own citizens, with no Federal involvement.

That original clause was superseded and replaced by the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment. The broader wording of the new clause opened the door to the incorporation doctrine which the Supreme Court finally adopted.

I have no problem with the incorporation doctrine, insofar as the Supreme Court forced States to adhere to the protections of individual rights delineated in the Bill of Rights.

But they screwed the pooch when they incorporated the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause is NOT and NEVER was intended to protect any individual right. Therefore, the Establishment Clause should never have been incorporated.

The remainder of the First Amendment, yes. It was rightfully incorporated.

Now I realize there is a thread on the overall topic of incorporation which I don’t want to get into a duplication of, so I will limit my response to the First Amendment.

This thought of so-called “religious” instruction is very concerning. The kids who go to these schools may be more prone to humble themselves or to forgive others! The horror!

No he’s not:

Furthermore, as someone who was in public education, the NEA is very much a wing of the Democrat Party.


“I decided” is not a fact. At least you didn’t use “proven”

That’s were it tends to happen.

So what?

Good post.

And develop a morality other than “Show Biz” morality and the New Sensibility. Can’t have competition with The One True Way.

1 Like

you read a lot into it. the simple answer is the first amendment is the only one of the first ten that restricts ONLY the federal government. We know this because it says so… “The congress shall make no law…”, we know that that restriction on the congress applies to the entirety of the 1st amendment because of all the "or"s which link back to the prohibition.

the priveleges and immunities which are not limited to federal restrictions can be found in amendments 2 thru 10 which are not and never have been restrictions only on the federal government, but on all levels of government. we know this because no level of government is specified as it is in the 1st. the 14th amendment does not change that one single iota, as all it says is that every person in a state must be treated equally with every other person in that state. it says nothing about one state having to treat its people the same as another state does.

1 Like

Much of these religious schools are reading, writing, math, foreign languages, history etc.
Aren’t they teaching the same things that other schools are teaching?
They are receiving money to teach the same things as other schools are teaching.
So should the government withhold money from them, I.e. discriminate and punish them, because they are “tainted” by also having religious connections at their school?
Is that a form of prohibiting their religion?

There is a workaround.

It’s called ‘build a public school’. They didn’t, and that is why this is happening.

1 Like