David Ancell / Thursday, June 30, 2022 / Comments(0)
I have just a few moments tonight, but I can’t help but really be happy about much of the new directions that the Supreme Court has taken. It’s interesting to read some of the media stories that are coming out of the “mainstream” media. We knew something hadn’t been quite right for a long time, but now they are really showing their stripes.
I just love reading stories that refer to the court as “out of touch.” The only thing the court really is supposed to be in touch with is the text of the law and the Constitution. We have had too much trouble with court imposing their own opinions instead of upholding rule of law.
In fact, people with an agenda really need to try to convince others and go through the legislative process instead of trying to ram stuff through the courts. If you can’t get the support to do that, then your agenda won’t pass. This is truly what a democracy is.
Category: Social Commentary
David Ancell / Tuesday, June 21, 2022 / Comments(0)
I was pretty hopeful hearing of this Supreme Court ruling. The state of Maine had a program that gave parents money for private school tuition in places where there were not public schools available. However, they prohibited the use of these funds for schools that were religious in nature. Someday, I hope to see the end of the idea that the First Amendment was intended to mean that any religious idea or organization is to be excluded from public life.
This decision really doesn’t directly give an edge to faith-based schools. This may be what happens in practice, but it is based solely on the decision of the parents receiving the funding. If Maine wants to give money for school tuition where needed, the Supreme Court decision means that faith-based schools are to be treated on an equal basis with other schools. If they favored only the Baptists or the Methodists, then they’d be favoring a particular religion, and we’d have a constitutional argument. Religion is not and should not be some special category that is verboten, nor should it be discriminated against. It’s interesting that Sonia Sotomayor cites in her dissent a constitutional commitment to separation of church and state when the words aren’t in the Constitution.
What is this all about? Well, in the above article, the state of Maine argued that they wanted education to be something that was education in a “religiously neutral manner” and also “exposes children to different viewpoints and promotes tolerance and acceptance.” Are these anti-religious statements in disguise? They might be, but I do not know. However, I do believe they are a usurpation of parental authority in the education of their children. Education is ultimately the purview of the parents, not the state.
Of course, this doesn’t mean that the state will not have some say in the development of educational standards and of what should legally constitute a school. There are things kids need to learn to be able to function in society. Also, we wouldn’t want a “school” that was established solely to encourage children to be violent revolutionaries or something that like. How much authority should the state have? Well, I think that’s up for debate, and I don’t have a clear answer. However, parents do have the right to pass their faith along to their children and to expect their choice of school to respect that. Hopefully, this recent Supreme Court decision is a step in this direction.
Category: Response