Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "TAXPAYER Funded Religious Education? Bri And Robby Debate SCOTUS Ruling" video.

  1. He spouts nonsense and you support him. By this logic, find enough people who want the Koran taught, and the state has to fund no school or every school, including that one. The law used to be that the state could only fund the secular courses in a religious school, for example, mathematics, reading, and art. The kids are free to read religious books with their reading skills, or create religious-themed art, and have it welcomed in class on the same basis as any other art. That was the rule.
    6
  2.  @jcmeadows1  Very well stated.
    4
  3. @Brett Look at the results here. How many of the people commenting do you think would know how to find the case, published in full and available online of course, or recognize that they really ought to read it for themselves to see what it says? And to see what's at stake? Look, they may truly not have the time to read it. That's not the issue. That's just life. That's not the problem. They don't see why they should read it -- not just before taking a firm position on it, but in light of the very simple fact that we all know, that reading something for yourself is the only way to know what it says, and that you cannot place complete faith in any media to tell it to you straight.
    3
  4. Yeah, put that on the shoulders of a fourth grader, or a high school freshman for that matter. Or how about this? Let's all take a stand for raising educational standards and fail to read a nationally significant Supreme Court case on First Amendment rights. Let's lead by example. /s
    3
  5.  @ditaneous  Since when? Since neoliberalism and Clintonism.
    2
  6.  @joelaplante9674  What do you think "nonsectarian" means? If you had the patience, you'd have read further and found out that religious affiliation poses no problem under the law, but using government funds to indoctrinate children into any particular religion (or no religion) was prohibited. The money had to be used for strictly nonsectarian purposes, such as, you know, mathematics, literature, geography, that a child of any religious background could benefit from equally.
    2
  7.  @joelaplante9674  I have the case downloaded and read it this afternoon.
    2
  8. I have an idea: read the case? Nah. Never mind.
    2
  9. I have a crazy idea. Take a real stand for education and lead by example: READ THE CASE. I bet you won't. I have 💰 riding on this.
    1
  10.  @scottmcloughlin4371  Asian parents, who are generally Buddhists and Hindus, and Jewish parents do even better. Just send money to those parents and call it a day.
    1
  11.  @ditaneous  I agree with that entirely. I know what the word means.
    1
  12.  @ditaneous  Yes, neoliberals want to push the privatization of all public goods. Reagan pushed that, Clinton pushed that. The Chicago parking meter fiasco is the usual outcome, looting the public sector and rendering it less able to do what it must do.
    1
  13.  @Etatdesiege1979  I suggest you look at relative achievement. Of course I was being ironic, in part, but my point stands: your claim is highly selective, and dubious overall. Actually, non-Christians and non-Western youth have the very highest test scores that you tout so much and apparently place so much importance on. It was one of the alleged bases for the lawsuit of a group of Asians who filed a complaint against the Ivies for discrimination in admissions. You must not read. Reading is good for your mind and stuff.
    1
  14.  @riledmouse4677  No, not solely because they are religious.
    1
  15.  @riledmouse4677  Of course it is discriminatory to fund private schools for the purpose of providing an academic curriculum, but then to withhold that funding from schools, or from a teaching corps, that adheres to a particular religion. When the schools' avowed mission is to inculcate students into a particular faith, however, that is where the Establishment Clause issue arises.
    1
  16. Did Robbie read the case?
    1
  17. Try reading the case? In matters of education, lead by example. Okay, a crazy idea. Go back to whatever you were doing. It's working great.
    1
  18.  @leechowning2712  Not what THE CASE says. But I digress. 🤣
    1
  19. @Brett I certainly have.
    1
  20.  @nottherealxandercrews4742  That's funny. Those words do not appear in the opinion or dissent.
    1
  21.  @javiervonsydow  Not what the Maine law said. But if you 👍ed it, what else matters? We are a nation of ad men, but we're having less fun.
    1
  22.  @javiervonsydow  So, I take it you read their opinion and the dissent? Great! 😉
    1
  23. @Prey R I have no objection to parents being fully informed about the curriculum and having an opportunity to be heard, and to be welcomed at school board meetings. They are not "terrorists."
    1
  24.  @joelaplante9674  No, what I'm saying is not false. The term Brie used was "secular," the term the Court used was "nonsectarian." Religious affiliation is not dispositive. Why didn't you read the opinion and dissent? If you care about education, you must have a desire to know.
    1
  25.  @joelaplante9674  You don't even understand what I said. Never mind.
    1
  26. Let's all take a stand for educational standards and fail to read a nationally significant Supreme Court case on First Amendment rights.
    1
  27. If you live in a cloud.
    1
  28. Robbie wants still more fragmentation.
    1
  29. This is over. The time bomb is ticking on this society.
    1
  30.  @saltyyankee5149  Try reading the case itself, and the two dissenting opinions.
    1
  31. Did you read the case, or is that a howler? 🤣
    1
  32.  @TS-lw5nv  But you just did. You stated Robby trounced Bri. I made no mention of Bri. But now that you bring her up, she conflated nonsectarian and secular. Reading the case and the Breyer dissent (not Sotomayor's, for reasons that are apparent to anyone who does) is essential. But you won't. Because you believe in education. Pardon me while I 🤣.
    1
  33.  @scottmcloughlin4371  I know. I miss the Muslim community I knew in Paris. Brilliant people, and so easy to get along with.
    1
  34.  @brantkim  Another one who refuses to read the opinion and dissent. Look, the rights you lose will be your own. Billionaires do not have this problem. I fail to see why tax dollars from Jews, Muslims, and Hindus should fund a school whose stated mission is to inculcate the Christian faith (by its own sectarian lights) into children. The Establishment Clause was always considered a bulwark against demanding that taxes support any such endeavor.
    1
  35. @Internet Critic If he gives references, YT will delete the post.
    1
  36. Let's all take a stand for educational standards and fail to read a nationally significant Supreme Court case on First Amendment rights.
    1
  37. I know you didn't read the case. I doubt Robby did. I have to wonder whether Briahna did. Wow, those educational standards . . .
    1
  38. The case is called CARSON v. MAKIN. You could read it. Or just go by cable television and what sounds right to you based on what they tell you.
    1
  39. Let's all take a stand for educational standards and fail to read a nationally significant Supreme Court case on First Amendment rights. That'll show 'em.
    1
  40. Robbie advocates for yet more fragmentation and disintegration. It won't hurt him, I guess. Cool, bro.
    1