Current Events

TOPICS:

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

74 | 75 | 76 | 77 | 78

 ... 441

Next

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 27, 2006 09:00 AM

Monday was an ugly day for the Lord Jesus Christ. The Supreme Court basically spit in Jesus's eye when it rejected a case from Maine about school choice. Our crazy religious friends were hoping this case was going to be the big one and blow the doors open for public funding of private religious schools. They were wrong because of something called the Constitution.

In Maine, school districts in 145 small towns with no high schools offer tuition for 17,000 students to attend high schools of their choice, public or private, in-state or out-of-state. But religious schools are no longer on the list.



Asking the court to take the case, a conservative group, the Institute for Justice, is representing eight Maine families who would receive public tuition funds but for the fact that their children attend religious schools.

A Maine state law bars the use of public funds to send students to private religious schools. Jesus would have been so mad. So, just like the Lord would have done, opponents of the law sued. They hoped the Supreme Court would take the case and spank Maine for their pagan ways. But the Supreme Court is under the power of Lucifer, the dark lord of the nether region.



The Maine Supreme Court ruled last may that the religious school restriction is legal. The Court stated the law was about respect for the Constitution and not hostility toward religion. The baby Jesus then cried. The US Supreme Court ruled in 2004 in favor of a Washington state scholarship program that did not allow the funds to be used for a devotional theology degree.



Maine used to enjoy the Lord Jesus Christ. When Maine's tuition system was set up in 1879, almost all private schools were religious. But in 1980, Satan intervened and the state attorney general declared the program to be unconstitutional and the Legislature passed the current law.

Zarth

Zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

NOV 27, 2006 09:42 AM

But what will this mean for the School of Voodoo Economics?

Southside

Southside

Coraopolis, PA
September 2006

NOV 27, 2006 09:54 AM


But the Supreme Court is under the power of Lucifer, the dark lord of the nether region.



I don't know about you, but I know Lucifer is the dark lord of my nether regions.

ortho7117

ortho7117

Charlotte, NC
April 2004

NOV 27, 2006 10:15 AM

Cool, now we know what FTR looks like!

DieWhiteGirls

DieWhiteGirls

Madison, WI
July 2005

NOV 27, 2006 10:23 AM

ortho7117 said:
Cool, now we know what FTR looks like!



FTR is a Western misrepresentation of Jesus Christ himself? I knew that fucker had a Messianic Complex, but whoa...

ChiTownGuy32

ChiTownGuy32

Chicago, IL
October 2005

NOV 27, 2006 10:49 AM

lol @ the pictures biggrin

mydogfarted

mydogfarted

Waldwick, NJ
June 2003

NOV 27, 2006 11:21 AM

Today I learned that Lucifer is the dark lord of vaginas.
Thanks FTR!

Nothingful

Nothingful

San Diego, CA
October 2004

NOV 27, 2006 11:39 AM

"The baby jesus then cried"

hahhahaha.

MisterEnrolled

MisterEnrolled

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

NOV 27, 2006 11:48 AM

is FTR Missy's hubby? I've had a hunch he is, for the longest time.

IgnorantProdigy

IgnorantProdigy

Naples, FL
June 2006

NOV 27, 2006 01:23 PM


Everybody knows carbon dating is manipulated by the devil. If these kids don't get schooled by Jesus we will never get back to the glory of god and trickle down economics.

joeywrists

joeywrists

Lake Grove, NY
March 2006

NOV 27, 2006 02:31 PM

im confused if the state is giving the families money because they dont have high schools. does that mean the families pay school taxes and then just get them back, if thats the case then it shouldnt matter where the kids go. im so confused

mattmar

mattmar

United Kingdom
November 2004

NOV 27, 2006 02:35 PM

It's amazing that these secular bastards even find time to pass their Godless laws in between planting fake 'Dinosaur' fossils in deserts to test our faith.
x

stluv1

stluv1

Saint Paul, MN
December 2002

NOV 27, 2006 02:41 PM

By the way, there are some Christians on this site who have a clearer understanding of what Jesus would say from reading what Jesus really said and probably would say concerning issues of church versus state issues. Here is an example on the issues concerning the issue. I think Jesus would strongly endorse such separation by with verse alone. Enjoy.
It is amazing what people would tell you what Jesus say or do instead of pointing you directly to what the Bible says said. Interpret at your own risk.

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. eeek eeek

Artsitis

Artsitis

Vancouver, BC
December 2004

NOV 27, 2006 02:45 PM

A win for the good guys... I know i'd hate to find out my tax money was going to brainwash children with religious crap... people who want their kids brainwashed should pay for it themselves smile

stluv1

stluv1

Saint Paul, MN
December 2002

NOV 27, 2006 02:49 PM

Matthew 22:15 by the way. eeek

BadSquire

BadSquire

East Providence, RI
April 2006

NOV 27, 2006 02:50 PM

What no bush bashing here? You must be slipping.

Well, I suppose you still have the extremely heavy handed sarcasm.

You might just become a journalist yet. Nah, never mind.....

beastlyphoenix21

beastlyphoenix21

Conroe, TX
June 2006

NOV 27, 2006 03:17 PM

I think everyone is missing an important part of this...


school districts in 145 small towns with no high schools offer tuition for 17,000 students to attend high schools of their choice, public or private, in-state or out-of-state.




So if it's cheaper to send them to a religious school that they want to go to in state, rather than a super expensive school with out of state tuition on it... I say let them go. In this case the religion isn't being forced upon the individual unless it's from their parents, and if that's the case it'll be forced on them whether they go to a religious school or not.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

NOV 27, 2006 03:21 PM

joeywrists said:
im confused if the state is giving the families money because they dont have high schools. does that mean the families pay school taxes and then just get them back, if thats the case then it shouldnt matter where the kids go. im so confused



Generally speaking, you pay taxes, and some portion of the funding thereof may be allocated to funding schools, among other uses. So in most cases nobody is paying a "school tax", although it's certainly not impossible. I think it's already uncommonly generous (and possibly a bit questionable) to allocate state money to these people if they choose to go to a private school of a non-religious sort, or an out-of-state school of any variety. Paying for them to attend religious schools would pretty clearly violate that whole separation of church and state business. Hence the ruling.

Margot_Dent

Margot_Dent

Los Angeles, CA
February 2004

NOV 27, 2006 03:21 PM

BadSquire said:
What no bush bashing here? You must be slipping.

Well, I suppose you still have the extremely heavy handed sarcasm.

You might just become a journalist yet. Nah, never mind.....



really, what does this have to do with anything?

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 27, 2006 04:29 PM

Margot_Dent said:

BadSquire said:
What no bush bashing here? You must be slipping.

Well, I suppose you still have the extremely heavy handed sarcasm.

You might just become a journalist yet. Nah, never mind.....



really, what does this have to do with anything?



It's just hilarious, bitter ranting from a man who has a small grasp on reality.

18%

cato

cato

I'm lost
November 2005

NOV 27, 2006 08:57 PM

malkav11 said:
Paying for them to attend religious schools would pretty clearly violate that whole separation of church and state business. Hence the ruling.


This is an incorrect statement of law. In fact, Maine's conclusion in 1980 that the program was unconstitutional has been proven wrong by the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court case Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which held that voucher programs such as the one in Maine do not violate the Establishment Clause. FTR's hyperbole that "[o]ur crazy religious friends were hoping this case was going to be the big one and blow the doors open for public funding of private religious schools," is incorrect for the same reason.

Nor, as FTR claims, did the Court say that the Institute for Justice's argument was "wrong." The Court did not reach the merits of the case, it merely denied cert.

The school choice movement was not started to promote religion; the late Milton Friedman, the father of the school choice movement, was agnostic (as am I, if that matters). The school choice movement was started to improve education. People can (and should) argue about whether or not it is capable of doing so, but that argument should focus on the merits of the idea, not silly conspiracy theorizing.

For anyone who wants more information on this case, you should check out IJ's litigation backgrounder HERE

Finally, I should point out IJ is not, as the source article describes them, a "conservative group." IJ is a libertarian group.

malkav11

malkav11

Saint Paul, MN
July 2003

NOV 27, 2006 09:35 PM

That conclusion seems rather...odd to me, but okay. I am certainly not a lawyer and I am not prepared to gainsay the Supreme Court on a matter of law. As for vouchers...not a fan, but I don't feel like this is the thread to get into that particular discussion.

FearTheReaper

FearTheReaper

NEWSWIRE

I'm lost

NOV 27, 2006 10:15 PM

cato said:
[ FTR's hyperbole that "[o]ur crazy religious friends were hoping this case was going to be the big one and blow the doors open for public funding of private religious schools," is incorrect for the same reason.

Nor, as FTR claims, did the Court say that the Institute for Justice's argument was "wrong." The Court did not reach the merits of the case, it merely denied cert.



Never said thier argument was "wrong." You are spinning and lying about something that is written above. I said they were wrong about thinking it would blow the doors off religious schools being able to obtain vouchers. Bill O'Reilly would be impressed by your spin and distortion.

If you read the article you would also see that I never said "the court reached on the merits of the case." You have lazily distorted again. The entire article is about how the religious zealots were defeated because the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case. That is what they wanted they did not get it. That is a defeat.

cato said:

The school choice movement was not started to promote religion; the late Milton Friedman, the father of the school choice movement, was agnostic (as am I, if that matters).



Who gives a shit who wanted to start it? To give state money for religious education would violate our constitution. I don't really care if your desires are good when you are in bed with people who wish to turn our country into a theocracy.

emotedcreations

emotedcreations

Germany
July 2006

NOV 27, 2006 10:55 PM

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

stluv1 said:
By the way, there are some Christians on this site who have a clearer understanding of what Jesus would say from reading what Jesus really said and probably would say concerning issues of church versus state issues. Here is an example on the issues concerning the issue. I think Jesus would strongly endorse such separation by with verse alone. Enjoy.
It is amazing what people would tell you what Jesus say or do instead of pointing you directly to what the Bible says said. Interpret at your own risk.

15Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. 16They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. 17Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"
18But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? 19Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, 20and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

21"Caesar's," they replied.
Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

22When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away. eeek eeek



Render unto Caesar?

cato

cato

I'm lost
November 2005

NOV 27, 2006 11:11 PM

FearTheReaper said:
If you read the article you would also see that I never said "the court reached on the merits of the case." You have lazily distorted again. The entire article is about how the religious zealots were defeated because the Supreme Court refused to even hear the case. That is what they wanted they did not get it. That is a defeat.


I agree that they were defeated, but since you said "They were wrong because of something called the Constitution," I assumed you meant they lost before the Supreme Court on some constitutional grounds, which, as you admit, they did not. You can assume laziness or bad faith on my part if you want, but I think it's a plausible reading of what you wrote. However, if I misread you, I apologize.

Now to substance. While I'll admit they were defeated, I don't see how the people defeated were "religious zealots". Perhaps religious zealots wanted IJ to win, but the Institute for Justice most certainly isn't staffed with them (among other acts of secular zealotry, IJ submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs in the homosexual sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas).
As for the plaintiffs themselves, if they're anything like the plaintiffs in previous voucher cases, it's unlikely that they're zealots either. In previous cases, the majority of students attending religious schools on voucher programs were not practicing members of the school's denomination. The article you link to certainly doesn't provide any evidence to the contrary. In fact, I don't see any evidence of "religious zealotry" in the article at all.

If the Court had granted cert. and IJ had won, religious zealots probably would have been happy. But not everything that makes those crazy people happy is a bad thing. Nor is everything they view as a "defeat" a good thing.

Who gives a shit who wanted to start it? To give state money for religious education would violate our constitution. I don't really care if your desires are good when you are in bed with people who wish to turn our country into a theocracy.


Neutral voucher programs that allow parents to select the school do not violate the Constitution, see Zelman, cited above. And motive does matter. Zelman turned, in large part, on the state having a valid secular purpose, namely, the desire to improve children's education. This is why no one expected this case to be "the big one." Zelman was the big one.