Supreme Court Ruling On Funding Religious Schools Was The Absolute Wrong One

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." --Thomas Jefferson: Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545

That public funding of religious schools has no place in a secular society ought to be a no-brainer. But it evidently isn't given the conservo justices in the Supreme Court ruling Tuesday that a Montana scholarship program could not preclude its use to attend private religious schools.   According to the opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts:

"A state need not subsidize  private education. But once a state decides to do so it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious."

What's the problem here? It is violating Jefferson's "Wall of separation" and the First Amendment by enabling public tax payer monies to be used to fund private, religious educations. This doesn't fly, sorry! Worse, it uses money that might have gone to enhancing resources at public schools and puts it in private hands! This is an abomination. 

When one also learns (WSJ, p. A16) that in 2018 the state Supreme Court struck down the program, given Montana's constitution "bans any direct or indirect payments to any schools or institutions controlled by any church, sect or denomination", it makes the 5-4 conservo decision even more appalling.

Of course, the WSJ editorial nabobs, as they are often wont to do, cast the state's constitutional prohibition in terms of "prejudice" i.e. 

"Many states passed such provisions, often called Blaine Amendments, amid the anti-Catholic fervor of the late 1800s."

Evidently forgetting or discounting Jefferson's cornerstone principle of the wall of separation as articulated in his letter to Danbury Baptists (1802), in which he wrote:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Thereby providing an abiding, unwritten principle that has been practiced on multiple judicial levels since.   The most famous ruling arising?  The 1962 case brought by Madalyn Murray -O'Hair  which has kept prayer out of the public schools, as it should be.   This is irrespective of the Journal's bloviations that -- never mind the Chief's sometime "missteps"  -  John Roberts "sides with the angels in disputes over religious liberty".  

The truth is he sides with the religious extremists (Christian nationalists, Trump-worshipping evangelicals, Opus Dei Catholics etc.)  still seeking a Theocratic state where none is warranted or justified. So it is not a case of  "protecting" religious liberty but enabling religious transgression and hegemony over the secular state.  For those who believe this is over the top maligning of the religious I invite you to check out Americans United for Separation of Church & State's short video  about the Christian extremist program to take over the country,  "Project Blitz".

Meanwhile,  the court's four liberal justices disagreed with the  conservo majority opinion, but on different grounds.  As a separate opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg pointed out (joined by Justice Elena Kagan, WSJ, p. A2)  "no constitutional violation occurred  because the Montana court decision treated religious  and secular schools equally."

Clearly, the Roberts' conservo lapdogs are more invested in pandering to the Religious Right's malcontents and others than they are in respecting the constitution or separation of church and state.

Yes, I myself benefited from a private (Catholic parochial) high school education, however, I paid for it myself. I asked no state or government to take from the taxpayer's till to fund the education I wanted.  I negotiated a contract with the Marist Brothers  who ran the school (Monsignor Edward Pace High in Carol City, FL )  to work after class hours, to clean classrooms, science labs etc. This provided just enough to pay the tuition.($200/month).

My argument is if any of these kids desiring escape from public schools want the same kind of private education, then fine, but find a way to pay for it themselves! (Or let their parents!)   But under no conditions, rob the public schools and taxpayer monies to pay for it.   In the words of Anna Maria Chavez, executive Director of the National School Boards Association (WSJ, ibid.):

"States historically have committed themselves to supporting public education by restricting the use of taxpayer funds for religious schools. State legislatures everywhere should act now to erase the long sought loophole opponents of public schools have gained by rescinding short sighted voucher programs and tax credit schemes aimed at redirecting public to private schools with no accountability."

See Also:

• The School Voucher Scam: When Will Politicos Wake Up?

Verbally Assaulting Women Seeking Abortion Services is NOT Free Speech!

 As seen in the appended image, states across the nation have erected impediment after impediment to prevent women seeking abortions from accessing services. 

But even in those states (e.g. Mass. ) where legislative obstacles are relatively few, the  resident religious knuckle draggers aren't satisfied. They want no abortion "buffer zones" - i.e. where women can enter clinics free of hassling and verbal molestation.

Hence, a 77 year old Massachusetts harpy and religious fruitcake has taken a case to the Supreme Court, that she be permitted to "quietly engage women going for abortions, to talk them out of it". Make no mistake that this is not "quietly talking" it is forcefully pushing a religious view on women who are already in a psychologically  fragile state. In this sense, it is akin to psychological torture and molestation. Indeed, in many cases, women attempting to enter clinics are yelled at with shouts of "Don't kill that baby!" with the idiots not even aware that a fetus isn't a baby, or even a person.

The assorted chatter of some Supremes (Scalia, Alito, and Kagan)  broadcast last night makes one wonder how they will eventually vote. According to Scalia: "They (Christians) only wish to quietly talk to the women, and express their free speech rights."

He added that the Massachusetts- declared 35 foot buffer zone prevented this, because most of the women could get inside before the protestors even had a chance to see who they wanted to target.......errrrrr.......talk to.

It makes me wonder where the fuck Scalia was when good old Bush Junior had his henchmen erect two hundred foot distant (from Bush events)  "free speech zones" - whenever demonstrators wanted to protest one or more of his policies. Of course, Bush had good reason to establish such "free speech zones" given all his criminal actions, including validating torture at Guantanamo, "rendering" people to isolated torture outposts in Turkey, etc., and launching illegal, pre-emptive "wars".

But the point is, if those two hundred foot buffer zones for Bush could be viewed as within the law, then the thirty -five foot abortion buffer zones in Massachusetts certainly meets the legal standard too. If, on the other hand, the 35' buffers are deemed illegal, it means we can add one more unlawful act to the Bushies' list during their reign of terror. Because obviously those 200' free speech zones would have to be illegal in hindsight.

Let us also get clear what is "free speech" and what isn't.  Free speech is NOT oral terrorism! In this regard, I put the sort of fundie-Xtianoid yapping at women entering abortion clinics in the same category as evangelical "witnessing".  Aggressive proselytizing, in other words, or "witnessing", amounts to personal terrorism.  That is, psychological terror applied to the person, as opposed to say a city or blowing up an abortion clinic.

If it is terror then any fundie screaming bible quotes in my face as I go on my way deserves to get clocked. It's as simple as that. He is encroaching on my space, and in doing so attempting a psychological act of terror - so it is incumbent on me to stop him if he refuses to obey a direct order to back off.

I assert the same applies to those screaming their nonsense and "talk" at women entering an abortion clinic. In this sense, one must view Massachusetts' buffer law as a means to protect the anti-abortion fanatics from themselves - and likely from any woman who may have had enough and already be at the end of her tether.

As for Scalia's interpretation that the anti-abortionists are only engaged in "quiet talk", give me a break. If you are "quietly" telling a woman that she is about to "go to Hell" for her sin or  kill her "baby" you're still practicing oral terror. The level of decibels with which the message is delivered doesn't matter.  The objective is still to intimidate a citizen and harass her into complying with the religionist's bollocks.

The best course for the Supremes to take is to leave the Massachusetts abortion buffer zone law the way it is. Not to do so will be to invite retaliation by those subjected to localized terrorism.

Yes, you have a right to your speech, but your speech ends where my nose begins. If you violate that, then well......