Anonymous ID: 1e48d7 Jan. 22, 2020, 3:33 p.m. No.7879835   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I utterly refuse to give [them] an eye.

 

They should be down on their knees, on the chamber floor, begging: first, God's forgiveness, then the forgiveness of the American people. That said, getting God's forgiveness does not mean one does not suffer the consequences of their actions, neither should it with human forgiveness. It's how we learn.

 

They raped innocents, they murdered innocents, they lied, they cheated, they turncoated and when they get the rope, they will learn. Bet they never do that again.

Anonymous ID: 1e48d7 Jan. 22, 2020, 4:07 p.m. No.7880313   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0395 >>0432 >>0518

Supreme Court has chance to strike bipartisan blow against anti-religious discrimination

 

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that has somewhat flown under the radar but has massive implications.

 

The ruling the court hands down in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue may establish once and for all whether states should be free to exclude religious organizations from government programs. There’s no reason that both liberal and conservative justices can’t take this opportunity to come together in support of equality for all, religious liberty, and educational freedom.

 

The case concerns a Montana program granting $150 in tax credits to those who donate to help fund private school tuition scholarships. Single mother Kendra Espinoza sought to use the scholarship program to send her children to a private religious school. A state agency excluded religious schools from the program, citing an archaic “Blaine amendment” in the state constitution that bars taxpayer dollars from going to religious organizations. The Montana Supreme Court upheld this backward decision.

 

This is foolish. The state has no right to discriminate arbitrarily against religious schools, and it sure seems like a blatant violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which bars government discrimination. As Nicole Russell explained in these pages, the history of Blaine amendments is “steeped in bigotry.”

 

And no, allowing taxpayer dollars to subsidize education indirectly at a religious school doesn’t violate the “separation of church and state.” In fact, those words appear nowhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment does, of course, bar the government from establishing a formal religion, through the establishment clause. But treating all schools equally by allowing secular and religious organizations alike to participate in the scholarship program in no way would establish a state religion. If anything, the status quo does, by establishing atheism or agnosticism as the state religion.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/in-espinoza-v-montana-supreme-court-can-strike-a-bipartisan-blow-against-religious-bigotry?

Anonymous ID: 1e48d7 Jan. 22, 2020, 4:20 p.m. No.7880437   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0488 >>0505 >>0518

President Trump on Friday will become the first president to attend in-person the March for Life.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/479468-trump-to-attend-march-for-life-rally