Public Funds for Islamic Education
-
Seems like you need to decide if forgoing public funds is something they can do on a whim to follow their principles or if it means they can’t afford teachers or equipment. Because you’re saying both and it’s a bit inconsistent.
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems like you need to decide if forgoing public funds is something they can do on a whim to follow their principles or if it means they can’t afford teachers or equipment. Because you’re saying both and it’s a bit inconsistent.
There is no inconsistency. I am saying the school can take the hit if and when they need to, but not earlier. I make no claims about the pain of the hit. I understand you’d like Christian schools to self-flagellate, but they are under no obligation to do so. I think you mostly want to imply that it’s unprincipled for them to take public money to begin with.
-
I’m sure there are any number of criteria to meet to be turned down for public funds. But now religion is not one of them. We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
@Mik said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
True, not to mention charity, shelter, counseling, assisting new mothers, etc.
BTW - I only scanned it but it seems the ruling is about how citizens USE the taxpayer money, which I think is different from "give tax dollars directly to a religious schools". It (correctly, IMO) says that citizens can use the money for schools, regardless if the school is religion-based. Seems fair to me.
Also the separation of church and state is one of those over-used phrases that doesn't even appear in the Constitution IIRC. Now, if they are talking about the establishment clause (government shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or free exercise thereof), then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct. Shocker.
-
@Mik said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
True, not to mention charity, shelter, counseling, assisting new mothers, etc.
BTW - I only scanned it but it seems the ruling is about how citizens USE the taxpayer money, which I think is different from "give tax dollars directly to a religious schools". It (correctly, IMO) says that citizens can use the money for schools, regardless if the school is religion-based. Seems fair to me.
Also the separation of church and state is one of those over-used phrases that doesn't even appear in the Constitution IIRC. Now, if they are talking about the establishment clause (government shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or free exercise thereof), then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct. Shocker.
-
@89th said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
... then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct.
Try taking a look at this post and let me know what you think of the "states' rights" aspect of this ruling.
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@89th said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
... then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct.
Try taking a look at this post and let me know what you think of the "states' rights" aspect of this ruling.
It’s not rocket science. Read the ruling.
-
The Supreme Court on Thursday morning left in place a ruling by the Oklahoma Supreme Court rejecting an effort by a Catholic virtual charter school to become the country’s first religious charter school. In an unsigned one-sentence order, the justices indicated that, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused from the case, they had divided 4-4. The order did not indicate how any of the justices voted. That tie means the state supreme court’s opinion remains good law, although it is binding only in Oklahoma and does not have nationwide effect.
