Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

It does not violate the 1st amendment.
2
@sekhmara8590 government is not directly giving money to religious institutions. It goes to the student who uses at the school of their choice.
2
That is not true. Private catholic schools typically have some of the highest standards and teach more science. For example, in my old state the private schools taught evolution where the public schools did not. In fact, the whole argument of how creationism should be taught along side evolution typically comes from public schools where private schools know to keep creationism out of the classroom.
1
@williamjameslehy1341 and that, as a private school, will be their choice. If a parent wants to send their kids there then so be it.
1
Because the SC is the highest court in the land. Their positions are to be apolitical, thus lifetime appointments. Next, nothing at the federal level is determined by the majority of the people. Thus, the president and senate decide who becomes a justice.
1
@chrishakala528 compare it this way. Planned Parenthood receives tax dollars as long as it does not go towards abortion. PP still redirects money though. Same here with this voucher. The schools are not receiving money directly, thus these vouchers are legal.
1
@chrishakala528 I know PP provides other services. Taxes going to them allows PP to distribute funds to abortion. It is similar to if the government were give you money for food and just for food, now money you have on hand that you would have used for food you can use for something else like weed. Is the government paying for your weed? Well, not directly. The voucher is for education. The student can spend it on the education they want. The government is not directly funding a religious school that teaches religion. So no, it is not a clear violation of the first amendment.
1
The voucher is given to students for them to decide where to get an education. Some private schools are religious but still follow the same or similar curriculum public schools follow. And in many ways they have a better education in private schools.
1
It is the standard to go off of. It can be change and have many times. However, the standard to do that is set as well. The constitution, though, places limits on all governments which is needed.
1
@Crawling-Chaos-2024 most of the democrat party is far left these days.
1
They are not paying to subsidized religious schools. They are offering students vouchers to be used to pay for an education. The schools are not receiving the money directly.
1
This does not violate separation of church and state. There is an argument schools should be allowed to teach education as an elective. Also, religious school or not, the vouchers are paying for an education. The government is not funding a school based on the religion but instead giving vouchers that students can only use for education.
1
@chrishakala528 it is not clear. There are arguments of allowing public schools to teach religion as an elective. It is not promoting religion because it will be an elective. As for voucher, it is for private schools and for education at the student's decisions. It is not directed towards religion and does not promote a particular religion.
1
@belkyhernandez8281 vouchers offer school choice which causes schools to compete improving education. What religious indoctrination? If a school is doing indoctrination how many people are going to actually attend?
1
@chrishakala528 it does not violate the first amendment. The schools are not receiving the money directly, the student has a choice. Compare it to this. Say you get food stamps and in the process you buy food from a small shop that promotes religion? Does that violate the first amendment? No as the money is for food, not for any type of religion.
1
@belkyhernandez8281 again, that is the choice of the student to spend money on that school. Government is not forcing anything.
1
@chrishakala528 "The constitution certainly doesn't ALLOW the kinds of religious classes that conservatives WANT to be taught in schools." That is false. Here is what it says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Allowing a public school to teach a religion as an elective does not violate the constitution as it is not establishing a religion. Instead it just offers students another course.
1
@chrishakala528 just because the school is private does not mean it is religious. Even with it being religious does not mean they teach it.
1
@belkyhernandez8281 never said religious indoctrination was beneficial. What I am saying the voucher does not directly fund religious schools, it just gives students a choice.
1
@belkyhernandez8281 the vouchers are for education and the student to choose the education they receive. If a school is teaching indoctrination like that chances are they have a low enrollment and thus they are not doing well financially and won't last long.
1
@belkyhernandez8281 never said teaching indoctrination was good. But there is nothing illegal about it either. One can argue many public schools teach indoctrination as is. Really, I feel many universities teach indoctrination.
1
@chrishakala528 state curriculums in education set a minimum. For example, many states do not requires a foreign language but schools still offer it. There is really no standard in how it is taught. A teacher can go straight the route of language, but I had a teacher that taught a lot of culture when I took spanish. The same will be with a class on religion. Maybe one is taught, maybe multiple. It is up to the teacher and school, and possibly even the students since it is an elective. The point is, though, that it would be an elective, not a requirement thus religion is not being established.
1
@chrishakala528 it does not violate the 1st amendment as the student has a choice. The funds are not going from the government to the schools directly.
1
@chrishakala528 you talk about money laundering then you can say programs like food stamps are illegal. Or when government gives tax dollars to Planned Parenthood one can argue they are funding abortions which are illegal.
1
@chrishakala528 they are not funding religious schools though. It is on the option of the student. Say someone receives food stamps and buys food from a small store that promotes a religion? Is that illegal?
1
@chrishakala528 vouchers are not illegal either. So what is your point? You give someone a voucher they choose the education they desire. You give someone food stamps they choose where to buy food.
1
@chrishakala528 so government can no longer fund planned parenthood as they do abortions?
1
@chrishakala528 no it is not. It is given to the student to choose where to go for an education. What about universities? They are government funded and religious groups have held meetings on campus using their facilities.
1
@chrishakala528 tax dollars funding abortions is illegal. When PP receives tax dollars it can allocate funds to fund abortion. It is like if someone gets food stamps the money they would have used for food go towards buying weed. So government is buying weed for that man. That is similar to what you are arguing at this point. Someone with a voucher chooses where to get an education. If that institution is religious it does not violate the first amendment because the student chose it. The government did not promote the school nor demand the student goes there. The government is not saying "go to that catholic school with that money". So no, the first amendment is not violated.
1
@chrishakala528 this is not funding religious institution. I agree, government funds to fund religious institution should not be allowed. In this case it is not, it is funding education.
1
@chrishakala528 "Planned Parenthood does not use government funds for abortion services. This has been explained to you numerous times" Receiving government funds allows them to allocate other funds to abortion. I gave you an example similar to someone receiving food stamps and then using money that was going to be used for food is used for something else.
1
@chrishakala528 "School vouchers are earmarked for private schools, so the student and parents are not legally allowed to spend that money elsewhere." I agree. If that school happens to be religious that is still legal. Thanks for agreeing with me now.
1
@keirfarnum6811 "Do you really believe a school run by Catholic clergy will keep religion out of the curriculum?! " A lot of them do. In fact, look at their science curriculum, it is usually the best. In my old state all the catholic schools there taught evolution where many public schools did not. That is one reason why so many parents send their kids to private schools even if they are a private catholic schools, they are better.
1
@chrishakala528 "t should also be pointed out that the main reason why college tends to turn students liberal is that it is the first time in their lives when they are pulled out of the isolated bubbles they were living in." That is not true. Most people who are liberal at universities are either professors and graduate students who are lost when it comes to reality. A reason why is because they are very intelligent in one field but ignorant elsewhere. Some of the most close minded people I met are those who go deep in academics as that is all they know. They never really grow up and expose themselves to the real world.
1
@keirfarnum6811 "Universities educate adults." Universities offer access to resources so individuals can accomplish a long term goal. Too many universities are filled with close minded administrators and professors who push far leftists ideas on people. My graduate school did it a lot when, in reality, they should take no stance. Basically, many people who are conservative just learn to keep their mouth shut, keep their GPA and get a job afterwards.
1
@chrishakala528 " It is unconstitutional for the government to provide funds for religious institutions." It actually depends. They can't promote a religion. In this case the money is not going to a religious institution but an individual for them to use on their education. In another case a local church applied for a grant to build a park. The grant was approved but people thought it was violating the 1st amendment. It was not as the money was for a park, not to establish religion. What government can't do is give money to the church directly to promote their religion and not do so equally to other churches and religions. So in the case of the voucher, the money is given to individuals. At that point the government has limited control on how the individual choses how to spend their money. As long a it is on education that is fine. If everyone decided to go to a certain school that was religious then so be it. If schools choose, in an unequal way decide to go to other schools then so be it. So again, thanks for agreeing with me.
1
@chrishakala528 "It is unconstitutional for the government to provide funds for religious institutions." And again, please read the 1st amendment. The government cannot establish a religion. As in this voucher, they are not telling students to go to a certain school based on their religion. They give them an option. The government is not establishing a religion because the government is not deciding which school the money goes. Say, deep down the politicians wanted the students to go to a catholic school but instead go to a Baptist one. Well, that is that. So again, it is establishment of religion the government cannot do. Please, read the constitution.
1