Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/supreme-court-espinoza-montana-religious-schools.html

by silasrude • 6 years ago

15 11 6 years ago

dannyw• 6 years ago

Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.

silasrude• 6 years ago

Which boils down to my tax dollars being used to fund private religious schools. I believe in separation of church and state. My tax dollars should in no way be funding proselytizing and indoctrination

SamReidHughes2• 6 years ago

They’re giving parents who don’t send their kids to public school a tax credit.

This prohibits discriminating against parents for how they want to raise their children.

dternyak• 6 years ago

This is a bit of an unorthodox take, but I think there are actually no schools or institutions more broadly that are truly "a-religious".

After reflection on my own experience going through the public school system, I've realized that the absence of the prototypical religion in public schools did not by any means remove "proselytizing and indoctrination". Instead, a sort of undefined religion has emerged, that we'll likely only be able to encapsulate in the rear-view mirror of history.

The most obvious form of proselytization, to me, was the constant preaching about college. While a rabbit-hole on its own, college attendance has not been leading to good outcomes for many of its attendees in recent times, and seems to have been an unquestionable tenet.

Simply put, secular public schools are not devoid of proselytizing and indoctrination. Why withhold taxpayers the option to choose their preferred form of indoctrination for their kids?

cafard• 6 years ago

It boils down to your tax dollars (if you are in Montana) being used to fund private schools.

I live in Washington, DC, where there is no such provision. But I'd be as reluctant to see the tax dollars go to Washington International School or Georgetown Day School as I would to Sidwell Friends or Gonzaga.

soganess• 6 years ago

While I'm 100% against the supreme courts ruling and hope there is eventually some movement on it, I cannot get behind the writing of this article. It is two superlatives short of pointing people to a pitchfork store.

elindbe2• 6 years ago

I'm not understanding the legal argument for funding private secular schools but not private religious schools. That seems like clear discrimination on the basis of religion, which is a protected class. It seems like in response though, the state could cease funding for all private schools which would not discriminate on the basis of religion.

OldHand2018• 6 years ago

I live in a state that Fox News calls a liberal hellhole and for as long as I can remember people have been able to take an income tax deduction on tuition payments to private schools, including religious schools. Money is fungible, so the only real difference is that now you can take a tax credit for paying for someone else's kid. But even then, the 2018 federal tax law allowed fully deductible contributions to 529 plans for other people's kids.

I honestly don't see why there is an attempt to create outrage here. If the people of Montana, via their democratically-elected representatives, see fit to offer this scholarship program then why is this so wrong?

thomastjeffery• 6 years ago

Because living in most states as a non-Christan or atheist is living as a minority. This minority group does not have enough influence to convince their representatives to oppose such legislation.

The first amendment is only necessary protection for minority rights. What is freedom of religion if you can't have freedom from religion?

I live in Utah, where The Corporation for the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints (the mainstream Mormon Church) has an overtly significant voice in politics and media. Its private university Brigham Young University likely benefits significantly from this situation, which is totally unnecessary, since the church itself has plenty of funding available, including a 501c3 tax-exempt $124 billion+ liquid investment account built from tithing donations in excess if $7 billion per year.

I don't want to see a penny of my country or state's tax dollars going to a university named after a man who, as a self-proclaimed prophet of God, taught that interracial marriage is to be punished by death on the spot, and does not allow students to be in same-sex relationships, or leave their religion before graduation.

I don't see this as an attempt to create outrage, but to express that which already exists.

Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.

Related Stories