SCOTUS strikes down ME law that gives tuition assitance for private but not religious schools

[Torie]

Assuming arguendo that the school while owned and operated by a religious institution does not teach theology on a discriminatory basis (e.g., if a Catholic school teaches Catholic theology, it must also teach the theology of other religions on a non discriminatory basis as part of a liberal arts education on the topic of theology), and thus is barred solely by virtue of the religious status of its owners, does that not trouble anyone as a violation of the free exercise clause. Here, the state is being required to hand out money irrespective of the religious status or lack thereof of the owners, and that certainly seems reasonable as to what the free exercise clause requires.

As an atheist, I concur in the Roberts decision, provided that the religious school avoids discriminating as described above in its curriculum.

Although not relevant here, I have also endorsed school vouchers since rocks cooled as a policy matter, and still do.

[Torie]

BRTD, your long post left me totally confused. You think that while  a law that forces parents to get the stipend must have their kids be bused 50 miles, right past a Catholic school within walking distance that meets state requirements otherwise, while being dumb, is also Constitutional,  because ... ?

[Torie]

BRTD, your long post left me totally confused. You think that while  a law that forces parents to get the stipend must have their kids be bused 50 miles, right past a Catholic school within walking distance that meets state requirements otherwise, while being dumb, is also Constitutional,  because ... ?

Because there's not some arbitrary standard in question. Just a dumb one.

My main point though is that it seems everyone is misunderstanding the case. The liberals didn't even dissent because they thought there should be no funding whatsoever of religious organizations (like I said a case on that would easily be 9-0), but because they didn't think the law was unconstitutionally discriminatory. Also there's a ton of stupid posts (I even highlighted one covering the really stupid and completely irrelevant point about Muslim schools) referencing federal funding...when this case didn't involve federal funds at all!

Dumb  standards that violate the free exercise clause are still illegal, precisely because they are not random walk arbitrary. I appreciate those that hate schools with a religious affiliation are discommoded when there are no other schools around, public or private, within a distance that would be acceptable, if one cares at all about the humans involved.

I also think it is a sin when one does not have at the top of the food chain, getting kids whose parents cannot otherwise afford it, in the best possible schools available,  no matter what, particularly if it does not cost the State more money.

After the culture wars end, and the secular v religious wars end, and all else that is toxic is exorcised, perhaps necessitating the Jubilee, but I hope not, we can back to the basics, and do our best to maximize the potential of the young, irrespective of status. And on that, our nation has not performed even barely adequately, due to the toxins that deflect the public square from a righteous path.

[Torie]

In other news, it turns out the two religious affiliated schools that sued, can't get funds in any event. Why? Because 1) they discriminate against LQTBQ students, and 2) Maine, having  expected to lose the Carson, case passed a law denying eligibility to receive funds for schools who discriminate against LQBTQ's in their admission policies. The implication is that the legislature knew that the school eschewed the rainbow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/23/opinion/supreme-court-guns-religion.html