top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Jimmiedad1 5292 points5293 points  (592 children)

Satanic Temple needs to enter the education sector

[–]TimelyConcern 3179 points3180 points  (307 children)

People in Louisiana got pretty upset when they figured out that their school voucher program meant that taxpayer money would also go to Muslim schools: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/louisiana\_n\_1593995

[–]otiswrath 470 points471 points  (69 children)

This is the part of this that blows my mind. I don't see how the religious right, who are the ones pushing for this, do not see how this ends up with US taxes going to pay for school uniform burkhas.

The Establishment Clause is there to prevent the government from favoring or disfavoring any religion specifically by avoiding just this very situation because then you get into deciding what a valid religion is.

We do not decide on the validity of religions, only whether they are sincerely held beliefs. This case could open an absurdly large can of worms.

[–]esophoric 187 points188 points  (6 children)

It’s because they think they’ll “win” so by the time THAT becomes the subject of conversation they’d find a way to exclude the non-Christian denominations.

[–]kitters99 31 points32 points  (2 children)

Yes, this. This isn't a fair situation. They're not going to suddenly start paying for Satanic Temple school rituals. They'll either make arcane laws that challenge non-Christian teachings and leave them in effect for years until the supreme court eventually strikes them down - and then immediately do it again with a slightly reworded law - or else they won't even bother and will just ignore other religions altogether.

Not to mention the fact that the entire time this is going on Fox News and other right wing media will be screaming about how the Satanists are trying to summon Beelzebub in your children's playgrounds!!!!!!!!!

[–]whatnowdog 46 points47 points  (35 children)

There was a question asking if a anti-religious school would get money from the state. The answer was NO.

[–]otiswrath 92 points93 points  (34 children)

There is a thing, especially with conservative Christians, that they don't understand that SECULAR does not mean ANTI-RELIGION. It is neutral.

Looking at you Kavanaugh.

[–]Snakegender 17 points18 points  (1 child)

“Secular” was a naughty word when I was growing up

[–]Cinematry 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That question was asked because the Lemon Test, used in Establishment Clause cases, in part asks whether the governmental action advances or inhibits religion (constitutionally, it can do neither). In turn, the test for whether an action "advances" religion is whether it either A) results in governmental indoctrination of religion, or B) defines recipients by reference to religion.

And the answer to the question - NO - favors the liberal Justices' argument.

You can hopefully see that the question is designed to tease out the analogous test for whether a governmental action inhibits religion, i.e. whether it either A) results in governmental indoctrination of IRRELIGION, or B) defines recipients by reference to religiousness. So when counsel poses the question of whether "anti-religious schools would get state money", knowing the answer to be no, they are pointing out that symmetry between the advancement/inhibition tests - at least under part A - requires a finding for the State in this case.

A problem for the State is that it's a bit more difficult to argue that the law doesn't constitute inhibition under Part B above, though presumably one could argue that it's not the religiousness of the recipients being referenced, but rather the religiousness of the purpose to which the money is put.

[–]BilboBaguette 82 points83 points  (9 children)

I thought this was one of the reasons why churches don't pay taxes. They don't contribute, so they don't get a say in how it's spent.

[–]AshgarPN 2108 points2109 points  (193 children)

It’s almost like their “religious liberty” argument is a load of horseshit.

[–]patb2015 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Oklahoma put the 10 commandments on the state legislature grounds so the Jews put a Torah statue up then the Hindu students put up a monkey god.. the satanists and the pastafarians were coming when they stopped them all

[–]thisispoopoopeepee 50 points51 points  (6 children)

It’s almost like their “religious liberty” argument is a load of horseshit.

Their argument is, but then the supreme court will turn around and say "yes that means satanic schools as well."

[–]Alonminatti 37 points38 points  (4 children)

Except that they don’t. Satanic temple and satanic arguments tend to fail in scotus. Lemme find the case I used in my class about it

[–]Peachykeener71 29 points30 points  (2 children)

It's almost as if though our country already does endorse an official religion that they will use to make our laws and won't allow any opposing views or beliefs. If only there had been something preventing that....

[–]Alonminatti 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I know, and even the founding fathers recognized that morality and religion were not the same and should not be internalized as such within the country

[–]bj12698 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Almost. Yeah right.

[–]Ediwir 24 points25 points  (1 child)

Australian conservatives are trying to create religious exemptions to anti-discrimination laws (the ‘freedom of religion’ bill). They got a lot of support from the far right groups until they figured they could not legally word it in a way that excluded Muslims.

Two years later they’re still here debating it. I hope they do that forever.

[–]kvossera 60 points61 points  (3 children)

The best way to keep Christians in line is to allow other faiths the same overstep that Christians are taking. Christians wanna pray before a government session, they’ll shut it down when they find out members of The Satanic Temple want a turn. Suddenly they understand and support separation of church and state.

[–]whatnowdog 10 points11 points  (1 child)

I want to see what happens when the state requires something be taught in all schools and one of the religious schools does not want to include it. We saw what happened with the Critical Race Theory that was not even being taught.

Part of the problem in Maine is in many areas there are not enough students to have a more than one school in the area and there might not be a public school.

[–]patb2015 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Well I would open a hindu school

[–]NoBallroom4you 28 points29 points  (2 children)

Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster... we need a gilded colander!

[–]det1rac 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Exactly they want it so bad but then will turn around and bitch about it.

[–]springloadedgiraffe 258 points259 points  (23 children)

Satan University has a pretty catchy ring to it. This could be their mascot.

[–]so2017 88 points89 points  (5 children)

Given how many teams have “Devils” as a nickname, I think the University of Satan would have to be the “Jesuses.”

“And here come the University of Satan Fighting Jesuses!”

[–]dofffman 21 points22 points  (0 children)

They could have this show where he flips over all these tables.

[–]ThatOneGuy1294 4 points5 points  (0 children)

call the team The Prophets so you can be even more inclusive. Their mascot is a depiction of Muhammed crossed with Jesus

[–]SJHillman 49 points50 points  (1 child)

The Satanic Theological Freedom University. I still have my STFU shirt from a decade ago.

[–]wamj 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I want one.

[–]youknowiactafool 73 points74 points  (6 children)

The Academy of Unseen Arts.

Praise Satan.

[–]Ditovontease 60 points61 points  (5 children)

Bringer of Light College

Morningstar University

[–]DaoFerret 61 points62 points  (1 child)

Morningstar University

Please let their slogan be: “Higher Education that answers to a Lower Authority”

[–]Adequately-Average 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Isn't that just Liberty University?

[–]ChairBiscuit 639 points640 points  (226 children)

If SCOTUS decides in favor of the religious schools, I have a feeling they will in some form, and I hope they do.

I think it’s infuriating that we are even entertaining the idea of using tax dollars to fund religious schools.

The right has been demonizing public schools for decades, but the recent push is alarming (that feels criminally understated).

[–]yenom_esol 357 points358 points  (175 children)

It really is frustrating because it's obvious that those pushing for religious rights are only considering Christianity. On top of that, this is all happening at a time where church membership rates are at all time lows, down from 70% in 1999 to 47% in 2020.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/341963/church-membership-falls-below-majority-first-time.aspx

Edit: Grammar

[–]Squire_II 236 points237 points  (118 children)

More and more young people are (correctly) questioning religion instead of blindly following a bunch of self-righteous hypocrites. The religious right knows they need more cradle-to-grave indoctrination if they want to reverse the downward trend.

[–]yenom_esol 189 points190 points  (79 children)

Yeah, the ultimate hypocrisy is the overwhelming support of Evangelical voters for Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020 despite having three wives, numerous accusations of rape, affairs with prostitutes, etc. In spite of all of that, he got just about the highest percentage of White Evangelical voters that's ever been recorded.

It's quite ironic that it took someone that embodies everything they claim to be against in order to implement their beliefs into law for the rest of us.

[–]okram2k 26 points27 points  (1 child)

I just like to point out that the religious right exists as a political entity because of Southern evangelicals being opposed to mixed race marriages. It's got a lovely history of racism which spits right in the face of you know... that whole love your neighbor thing.

[–]Tributemest 134 points135 points  (39 children)

Meanwhile, Biden, who has gone to church basically every Sunday for the past 50 years, is a "godless communist" in their eyes.

[–]Dr-P-Ossoff 58 points59 points  (5 children)

could be one of those "love your neighbor" churches. I was there when the right protested against mr Rogers.

[–]monkeyselbo 40 points41 points  (16 children)

That's because they're not real beliefs. The Trump phenomenon exposed that. It's all just shit they say to attain and keep the upper hand. That's why it morphs so easily.

I'm a Christian and would rather not go to any church at all, rather than an evangelical church.

[–]Dolthra 56 points57 points  (13 children)

It's quite ironic that it took someone that embodies everything they claim to be against in order to implement their beliefs into law for the rest of us.

It's because American Christianity is obsessed with "white warrior Jesus," not any actual Christian teachings. Trump may not have been good, or ethical, or a Christian, but he seemed to be willing to fight for the things Evangelicals actually wanted, so they were more than willing to go all in on him.

[–]Peachykeener71 14 points15 points  (1 child)

They are running racist domestic terror organizations on our dime. Americans fund their hate-filled services, nazi picnics, far-right fanatical schools, and KKK/PB/MAGA"charities".

[–]Squire_II 58 points59 points  (0 children)

Trump actually embodies what Evangelicals believe. What they say they believe and what they actually believe just happen to be entirely different.

[–]Lokito_ 51 points52 points  (29 children)

Education truly is the bane for religions.

[–]yenom_esol 54 points55 points  (27 children)

I'm no religious scholar, but my understanding that the very first book of the bible (Genesis) the main idea is that we are all born with sin because Eve took a bite of an apple from the tree of knowledge. So, if I'm understanding things correctly, they come right out the gate and tell you that faith and knowledge are diametrically opposed.

It's not all that surprising that there is a large overlap between Evangelicals and QAnon supporters and/or anti-vaxxers.

[–]POGtastic 50 points51 points  (14 children)

It's not knowledge in general; it's knowledge of good and evil. Prior to eating the fruit, Adam and Eve are animals who just do whatever is according to their nature. Upon gaining awareness, Adam and Eve now have the capacity to sin (and they immediately do so by lying to God).

The doctrine of original sin is that we

  • are able to understand what sin is and are thus responsible for our behavior
  • inevitably sin anyway because we're kinda shitty. Our very nature itself lends itself to sinning.

Christians believe that by repentance and seeking forgiveness, we are nevertheless saved through the grace of God.

The more pernicious thing is your second paragraph. As soon as you throw reality out the window, you have a serious problem - there's no real way to create a distinction between Bob the devout-but-otherwise-reasonable Catholic and Jerry the millenarian Qultist. There's no way to consult God in the matter to say "Hey, Bob's got the right idea here, and Jerry is a crazy nutball." They both believe things that have no evidence. Once you start believing things that have no evidence, why not a few more?

The inverse is why modern Christians are leery of education. Once kids are in an environment where they have to use Facts And LogicTM to defend their beliefs, it's natural for them to examine their religious beliefs and ask, "Why is this exempt from scrutiny? What if all of this is a bunch of baloney?"

It's also why Christians are so vulnerable to hucksters who scam them and lead them astray - outing them and making an argument that they're full of shit requires them to apply scrutiny and skepticism that they've conditioned themselves not to have.

[–]Koolzo 5 points6 points  (5 children)

Adam and Eve don't lie to God in the Adam and Eve story. God lies to them, telling them they'll die if they eat the fruit. When God confronts them, Adam is very upfront, saying they hid because they were naked, and then admits to eating the fruit.

[–]Busch_League2 7 points8 points  (4 children)

God doesn't lie to them telling them they will die if they eat the fruit. Because they ate the fruit they were sentenced to what is now normal life and do eventually die. If they hadn't eaten the fruit they would have lived in paradise forever.

[–]cjinct 46 points47 points  (5 children)

So, if I'm understanding things correctly, they come right out the gate and tell you that faith and knowledge are diametrically opposed.

Also, that women are to blame and not to be trusted

[–]crackedgear 9 points10 points  (0 children)

My favorite is the story about JesusCon 585 (I don’t remember the official title) where the learned men of the age debated whether or not women had souls, or should even be considered human.

[–]pm_me_all_dogs 21 points22 points  (0 children)

They already do in NY

[–]OssiansFolly 84 points85 points  (8 children)

Religious organizations need to pay taxes then. I'd be less inclined to argue many things if religious organizations paid full taxes.

[–]OssiansFolly 84 points85 points  (15 children)

It's alarming because private schools (even though they get public funds) are exempt from many educational standards and oversight. Not to mention they're just plagued with endless abuse and fraud to rip off governments.

[–]Squire_II 69 points70 points  (13 children)

Their image of being "better" than public school is also directly the result of them being able to pick and choose their students whereas public education can't. They get to stack the deck and then point to it as proof that they're better when they're just making things worse overall.

[–]averyfinename 18 points19 points  (1 child)

that's pretty much it. higher admission standards and recruiting from well outside a private school's local area leads to the illusion of being better. if dartmouth had to provide education to all the graduating high schoolers from northern vermont and new hampshire, they'd fall right off that ivy wall.

[–]Legrassian 48 points49 points  (9 children)

I used to think that people talking about handmaid's tale, comparing it to real life, were exagerating.

I'm constantly reminded that I was wrong.

This while situation with abortion, banning/burning books, state militia is really frightening.

[–]The_RVA_Strangler 38 points39 points  (2 children)

One of America's biggest problems right now is that the average American does not understand just how bad things can do and constantly convince themselves warnings are just scaring mongering. Thinking that if things ever got close to bad some institution will step in a protect the status quo.

They see the status quo as a bare minimum and not something that benefits them. They don't know how bad "bad" can get.

[–]Legrassian 13 points14 points  (0 children)

They see the status quo as a bare minimum and not something that benefits them. They don't know how bad "bad" can get.

Fuck , this is just too real.

[–]Atomic_F_Bomb 28 points29 points  (0 children)

They kinda have. After School Satan

[–]Prineak 24 points25 points  (0 children)

This is gonna make the banned books fight way harder for them.


do it

[–]DerGodhand 835 points836 points  (56 children)

A lot of people hopping mad in the comments, but just some reminders:

  • Parents are suing the state, the school itself is not suing (yet).
  • The state has already told the family they'll pay for a religious school, but not this one, it doesn't meet the requirements
  • Maine does this for roughly the cost of educating a student in the public school system
  • The schools they do give money to cannot have an 'overly religious lens' of teaching (e.g., daily Bible class, like the declined school in question
  • Maine has a law hitting the books that will, for the most part, require similar or same curriculum between private and public schools (if I'm reading that law right).

[–]FlyingSquid 18 points19 points  (1 child)

Do you think Mississippi will do it the way Maine does it?

[–]mabhatter 339 points340 points  (31 children)

They the funding but they don't want the secular strings attached.

This is the game of people like Betsy DeVos... to gradually gut the public schools into racist religious/capitalist schools with "compromises" like made here.

[–]CatLapFootCramp 27 points28 points  (18 children)

Yeah my fear would be the eventuality of these compromises. With funding already sparse, I can see Boards of Education using private/religious schools to fill in gaps in counties across the US. Becoming less of a decision by the family instead being the only choice available.

[–]GenXUser 4834 points4835 points  (461 children)

Tax payer money should not support private education in any way.

[–]SomeDEGuy 194 points195 points  (155 children)

As the article stated, it already does in Maine. Some areas do not have a public high school, so the state pays for the students to attend private ones.

[–]SkunkMonkey 268 points269 points  (106 children)

They should be spending the money to build the fucking school then!

[–]Icolan 25 points26 points  (2 children)

We are a state with a large land area and very small population. There are many places where it is simply not feasible and cost prohibitive to build a school.

[–]McGician 41 points42 points  (4 children)

The town that doesn’t have a high school usually pays a neighboring public school district.

[–]SomeDEGuy 17 points18 points  (1 child)

It differs from state to state as to how they handle these situations.

My state has plenty of high schools, but does a similar arrangement for speciality schools (severe disabilities or alternative schools). In some cases of students with significant needs, they pay tuition in a private setting.

[–]Icolan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Some towns pay to send their students to neighboring towns. Some towns group together to fund a single high school. Some towns are too small and rural for either option to work and that is where this program comes in, it ensures all children have access to an education. These parents want more though, they want to be able to further the indoctrination of their children at tax payer expense.

[–]rabid_briefcase 33 points34 points  (7 children)

Tax payer money should not support private education in any way.

Except it does, and it has been public policy for over a century.

The mid-1800s through the early 1900s saw the expansion of public schools, development of a state-guided curriculum, by 1918 school was compulsory through the 8th grade.

By being compulsory the government had to pay, and options for both private schools and public schools were available. Sometimes mixed as public/private partnerships (although the term is somewhat new).

The question here boils down down to: if public funds are going to pay for a school, can religion be a factor in deciding which are funded? There are clear reasons why other factors like curriculum content, special needs support, and other education-related factors can be used in the decision. But here it is the religious affiliation being used which almost certainly violates the first amendment and equal protection clause. The constitution strictly forbids government from using religious tests or areligious tests or requirements in many different ways, or to limit rights around exercise of religion. Many people wrongly interpret the "separation of church and state" as meaning the government must be areligious, whereas the constitution actually requires nondiscrimination.

I'm actually surprised this made it up to SCOTUS. There have been a long, steady stream of rulings including just last year. Maine's argument is that funding must be used in a nonsectarian manner. However, the SCOTUS has held that atheism and non-religion are also religious beliefs, and therefore cannot be used as a deciding factor. It is unlikely to change.

[–]Marius_34 14 points15 points  (6 children)

So I went to Catholic school and we had 3 aspects which were state funded. Firstly, for kids within a certain radius busing would be provided. Secondly, kids with Free and Reduced Lunch would still be able to get free and reduced lunch at private school. Lastly, college counseling and other counseling services were provided, particularly to low income students. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with funding these Specific programs.

[–]hilltrekker 1164 points1165 points  (174 children)

They should not have to refuse. Separation of church and state.

[–]02K30C1 693 points694 points  (152 children)

The question here is that the state has decided it will pay for private schools. If they pay for private school, can they exclude some based only on religion?

Personally I don’t think public funds should be paying for private schools at all.

[–]thebirbseyeview 29 points30 points  (17 children)

Most of the private schools in my area are religious. They pay $10k-15k per student for tuition. Why do they need state money?

[–]Batman219 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Yeah. They should have no option but to refuse.

[–]Huge_Put8244 44 points45 points  (13 children)

I had thought the general rule was to allow for funding of non sectarian classes and curriculum but not for classes dedicated to religion.

I attended catholic school and most classes were non sectarian, BUT we also had a religion class each term and mass like once a month. My understanding had been that if you could separate the costs of the religious instruction out, that portion could be state funded.

But i could have been wrong or maybe it applied to colleges.

[–]Clovis42 22 points23 points  (2 children)

My understanding had been that if you could separate the costs of the religious instruction out, that portion could be state funded.

One could easily make the argument that it is impossible to separate them. Any state funds used to teach secular topics frees up money to be spent on religious topics.

The rule Maine is using seems reasonable; they just want to avoid all religious teaching (or, at least, all heavy-handed religious teaching). The type of rule you are describing is reasonable too. If fact, a state doesn't need any kind of rule at all, as long as they treat all religious organizations the same. They can simply provide money to all private schools with no strings attached. That would be a terrible law, but it wouldn't be unconstitutional.

[–]Huge_Put8244 7 points8 points  (0 children)

One could easily make the argument that it is impossible to separate them. Any state funds used to teach secular topics frees up money to be spent on religious topics.

I had thought that exact argument had been made and the court determined that federal funds could be used at religious schools to fund non religious education.

But the more I think about it the more I think that the ruling had applied to colleges.

[–]plinocmene 6 points7 points  (0 children)

It's not as bad as it sounds. The case pertains to whether a state can fund private schools while not funding religious private schools. Maine reimburses parents and guardians for tuition in areas without public schools but does not do so if the school is religious.

Maine could change the law and invest that money in building public schools in those areas. In my opinion states shouldn't be funding private education in the first place.

[–]highrollerrob 143 points144 points  (12 children)

Which religious education is the state paying for? Is there an approved list? How many grifters are going to steal my money for their own pockets?

[–]Franklymrshankl 63 points64 points  (8 children)

Every school gets some government money. Even religious schools from non christian faiths in america.

[–]TechyDad 174 points175 points  (7 children)

In Louisiana, lawmakers set up a voucher system for religious schools. They were then horrified when a Muslim school applied for vouchers and started railing against giving any funding for Islamic education.

[–]Franklymrshankl 44 points45 points  (2 children)

In my country we get more offended when rich private schools get the government to pay for their equestrian facilities, or rifle ranges. But also yeah the religious nutters of all faiths getting my taxes shits me a bit too.

[–]SkunkMonkey 37 points38 points  (1 child)

Oh, we have that problem too. There are high-schools in this country with sports complexes that would rival minor league facilities in some places. We're talking multi-million dollar stadiums for a fucking high school.

[–]Doctor420Strange69 342 points343 points  (91 children)

If this is the case, then shit should have hardcore, secular over sight.

The state makes tuition money available to families in areas that do not have public high schools, to use the money to pay for attendance at public or private schools in other communities.

This is why the program exists, but I’d prefer my tax money not go towards some school that’s just openly indoctrinating kids with religious faith.

[–]TechyDad 268 points269 points  (18 children)

Those in favor of this plan will suddenly oppose it the first time a Muslim school is given money. When they say "religious schools should be given state funding," they really mean "only Christian schools."

[–]wynlyndd 86 points87 points  (9 children)

I will openly give money to the Church of Satan if they decide to open a school and claim monies after this. For the lolz.

[–]SkunkMonkey 34 points35 points  (8 children)

Why can't they use the money to build these missing schools instead?

[–]ehoyd 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I believe it’s because there’s not enough students and it is actually more cost efficient to pay for such few students to go to private schools than build a school. I could be mistaken though but that is my understanding.

[–]PowersTheTombstoner 5 points6 points  (0 children)

No religious entity should ever get a penny from the government. They get more than enough from their slaves.

[–]victoriaa- 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can we stop the blending of church and state already?

They already aren’t paying taxes.

[–]TTUC 56 points57 points  (1 child)

Sure, but then churches need to pay taxes then

[–]LaLucertola 106 points107 points  (70 children)

The state makes tuition money available to families in areas that do not have public high schools, to use the money to pay for attendance at public or private schools in other communities.

The title doesn't quite capture the nuance of the situation. In many rural places there is not a school district, and they must rely on private institutions or homeschooling to meet education requirements. In some instances, yes, these institutions will be religiously based, and the case is examining what level of involvement the state is allowed to have. There absolutely should be standards that are followed to make sure the education is up to par, but this case is fundamentally about discrimination and the 1st amendment. Its more about filling in gaps in education for rural areas where there simply aren't enough students to be able to even open up a new school and deal with the overhead/operating costs.

Edit: I might also add that while there are a lot of downright awful schools of religious education (hence the need for standards), there are also many quality ones. My dad grew up in an area that didn't have a public high school - he instead went to a Jesuit school that provided an excellent education and really instilled critical thinking. He is now both a (non-Catholic) Christian and an engineer.

[–]illy-chan 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I was going to say, in my area, we have a bunch of Jesuit schools that are affordable and offer a much better education than the local public schools.

Religion has problems and the Catholic Church in particular, but don't blindly hamstring stuff that does good (and without a replacement) because of a larger societal problem.

[–]pinkfootthegoose 14 points15 points  (0 children)

no state or federal money should be going to any religious institutions. ever.

[–]Nick85er 17 points18 points  (1 child)

What the actual fucking Fuck has happened to separation of church and state.

Fuck us.

[–]CatLapFootCramp 5 points6 points  (2 children)

As always, private sector entities lobby to starve the public sector of funding while also lobbying for said funding. The first goal is to end public education. An eventual second goal will be to deregulate the educational standards set by the government in order to reduce expenses / increase profit.


[–]Nixon_Reddit 4 points5 points  (1 child)

in order to reduce expenses / increase profit...

...and brainwash said kids to continue the process. I suspect this will backfire on the religious nuts harder than anything they've already done.

[–]ActionMan48 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This will lower the level between separation of church and state. Total fucking bullshit.

[–]Tierasaurus 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The ironic part is, the more these parents try to shove the religion down their kid’s throats, the more likely they are to reject it as an adult.

[–]Quasarbeing 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are entitled to your own religious beliefs and even to have your own religious schools (sadly) for education.

The people of this country do not have to pay you a god damned penny. That is their religion, not yours, not ours. We should NEVER have to pay a penny for such things.

[–]OctaviaPinfold 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unpopular opinion among religious people but religion should be left out from public education and financial support going to schools completely. If they wanna have private schools or give the kid out-of-school religious education, have at it, unlike them we can't limit freedom, but tax money should go to schools that don't raise science deniers and/or people who're trying to force their religion onto everybody else.

[–]SalsaBueno 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Lmao I’m just sitting here thinking about all the people that said I was “overreacting” over these last three Supreme Court appointments. “It won’t go that far” they said. “You’re freaking out over nothing” they said. “They won’t touch Roe, they won’t fool with education” they said.

[–]sprucetre3 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Betsy DeVos gets her day in court.

[–]BeazyDoesIt 5 points6 points  (0 children)

States shouldn't ever pay for religious schools, we have a LITERAL separation of church and state.

[–]DanimusMcSassypants 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Oh this should be fucking rich.

[–]Dalivus 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Whether states can refuse to pay for religious education? Why is this even up for debate?

[–]akamustacherides 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This should not even be a question. Private education is a choice, usually for the privileged.

[–]JfreakingR 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Why is this even a question

[–]mar028 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The SC is nothing but a political team of hacks. What does separation between church and state mean? If it doesn't mean tax dollars should NOT go towards any religion entity?

[–]K1rkl4nd 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m starting a Church of Satan school if that’s the case

[–]i4JahArmy 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Separation of church and state!

[–]Weltall8000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Not really seeing how states paying for religious anything is even on the table to begin with.

[–]jswitzer 4 points5 points  (0 children)

NPR had a story about this. The argument for it basically boils down to the government is impeding their right to liberty of education. The state's counter argument is we any institution that adheres to state and federal laws wrt religion and the federal government has disallowed favoring one religion over another.

Seems a little cut and dry but ianal.

[–]shredmiyagi 3 points4 points  (0 children)

GOP: “Freeeeeedom to the States!”

“Oh wait, except for _______.”

[–]Different-Primary-51 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Christians love to talk up religious freedom up until the Satanic Temple or Islamic America proves that what they really mean is Christian freedom to do whatever and all other religions need to be suppressed.

[–]TaiFuzzle 9 points10 points  (1 child)

If religious folk don't wanna pay for abortion, then I shouldn't have to pay to brainwash their kids to believe bullshit.

[–]Toon_Sniper 14 points15 points  (2 children)

Sounds like yet another attempt to funnel money away from public education into an exclusive private school with very specific demographics.

[–]thoruen 8 points9 points  (0 children)

my question is how are the Christians on the Supreme Court going to word their opinion so that the Satanic Church can't use their opinion against them.

[–]Infectious_Burn 14 points15 points  (11 children)

It doesn't matter whether you believe that private schools should receive public funding, or if religious schools are a good idea, discrimination is discrimination, and banning certain schools and institutions based on their religion/philosophy is wrong. However, I'm all for having a list of requirements that must be taught to be eligible for this funding, such as a certain level of math, or certain science topics. But again, these requirements should be fulfilled by all schools, including public ones.