Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
1–10 of 12 posts
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#2Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#3Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.
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
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#4Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.
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
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.
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#5Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.
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
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?
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#6While 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.
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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…
I'll add, I basically harassed my parents non-stop about smoking because of public school indoctrination.
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#8I'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.
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#9I 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?
Re: Supreme Court ruling forces taxpayers to pay for private religious schools.
#10Supreme Court ruling allows states to fund private schools, including ones that are religious, as long as states do not discriminate based on religion.
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
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.