Author Topic: The Anti-Catholic Law (Read 685 times)

poche · « **on:** January 13, 2020, 01:42:20 AM »

In deciding Espinoza, the Court has the opportunity to do more than just settle the fate of one controversial tax credit; it could also junk Montana’s Blaine Amendment, finding it in violation of the Constitution’s religious-freedom and equal-protection clauses. In doing so, it would set a strong precedent against any law born of bigotry, even if other justifications seem neutral.
The Espinoza case dates back to 2015, when, shortly after state lawmakers enacted the tax-credit scholarship program, the Montana Department of Revenue devised a rule that banned families from using the scholarships to attend religious schools, which account for more than two-thirds of the state’s private schools. The case is brought by three Montana moms whose children are thriving at a private religious school; without the tax-credit scholarships, the families are struggling to pay tuition. (Litigating on behalf of the parents is the Institute for Justice, where I work, though I’m not directly involved with the lawsuit.)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/espinoza-montana-bigoted-laws/604756/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=yahoo&utm_campaign=yahoo-non-hosted&yptr=yahoo

Bonaventure · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2020, 01:09:25 PM »

Great article, Poche. Thanks for sharing. You truly are a "hero member" here at CathInfo.

2Vermont · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2020, 03:57:14 PM »

Quote from: Bonaventure on January 13, 2020, 01:09:25 PM

Great article, Poche. Thanks for sharing. You truly are a "hero member" here at CathInfo.

Poche is like the Energizer Bunny. I think he'll always be at CathInfo no matter what.

PS...I can't *wait* to see his responses.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2020, 05:38:26 PM »

You know how Ann Barnhard uses the following tagline to close every single post of hers: "Furthermore, I consider that Islam must be destroyed." Even if she's talking about her favorite recipe for apple pie.

Mark should have just put that on his signature line: "Furthermore, I consider that poche must be banned."

Jaynek · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2020, 06:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on January 13, 2020, 05:38:26 PM

You know how Ann Barnhard uses the following tagline to close every single post of hers: "Furthermore, I consider that Islam must be destroyed." Even if she's talking about her favorite recipe for apple pie.

Mark should have just put that on his signature line: "Furthermore, I consider that poche must be banned."

Our very own "Cartago delenda est".

Ladislaus · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2020, 06:17:46 PM »

Quote from: Jaynek on January 13, 2020, 06:08:57 PM

Our very own "Cartago delenda est".

LOL, yes, "poche delendus est"

or

"Ceterum censeo poche delendum esse"

claudel · « **Reply #6 on:** January 14, 2020, 04:22:13 AM »

The attacks on poche have long since ceased to be amusing or even remotely proportionate to the charges brought against him. The absence of proportionality calls into question the very Catholicity of poche's attackers, in that we Catholics are called upon to demonstrate temperance even in righteous anger—and the present anger slid from righteous to redundant several weeks ago.

Even in the Jєω-corrupted criminal "justice" system, the defendant still has the right to object to being browbeaten, and the court is obliged to sustain the objection. Similarly, it's well past time that poche's attackers, instead of ceaselessly rehashing old charges, presented some fresh ones* before they returned to pummeling the guy about the head and shoulders.

I am willing to bet that before much longer, this nonstop piling-on will begin to win poche a considerable number of sympathizers. Even pagan hearts can be touched by disproportionate abuse, and the many commenters here who are anything but pagan can't be expected to stay silent indefinitely.**

Finally, with reference to the widespread clamor for poche's banning, a tip of the hat to Matthew for refusing to bend the knee to one of modernity's leading false gods, appeal to the will of the people. Agree with him or not—it's hardly a secret that I frequently don't—he owns the site, and we who comment can do so solely because he lets us. No one is denied the courtesy of expressing a respectful wish, but enlightened self-interest suggests that it is unwise to strain courtesy to the breaking point.
________________________________________
*Apropos which, I understand that reports of poche's dining habits have driven the leading association of French chefs to petition the World Court to imprison poche for life in Fortress McDonald.
**I plead guilty as charged to giving him a very rare up-thumb for this interesting OP.

2Vermont · « **Reply #7 on:** January 14, 2020, 04:52:35 AM »

Quote from: claudel on January 14, 2020, 04:22:13 AM

The attacks on poche have long since ceased to be amusing or even remotely proportionate to the charges brought against him. The absence of proportionality calls into question the very Catholicity of poche's attackers, in that we Catholics are called upon to demonstrate temperance even in righteous anger—and the present anger slid from righteous to redundant several weeks ago.

Even in the Jєω-corrupted criminal "justice" system, the defendant still has the right to object to being browbeaten, and the court is obliged to sustain the objection. Similarly, it's well past time that poche's attackers, instead of ceaselessly rehashing old charges, presented some fresh ones* before they returned to pummeling the guy about the head and shoulders.

I am willing to bet that before much longer, this nonstop piling-on will begin to win poche a considerable number of sympathizers. Even pagan hearts can be touched by disproportionate abuse, and the many commenters here who are anything but pagan can't be expected to stay silent indefinitely.**

Finally, with reference to the widespread clamor for poche's banning, a tip of the hat to Matthew for refusing to bend the knee to one of modernity's leading false gods, appeal to the will of the people. Agree with him or not—it's hardly a secret that I frequently don't—he owns the site, and we who comment can do so solely because he lets us. No one is denied the courtesy of expressing a respectful wish, but enlightened self-interest suggests that it is unwise to strain courtesy to the breaking point.
________________________________________
*Apropos which, I understand that reports of poche's dining habits have driven the leading association of French chefs to petition the World Court to imprison poche for life in Fortress McDonald.
**I plead guilty as charged to giving him a very rare up-thumb for this interesting OP.

Oh, claudel, no need to worry. Poche won another round with his most vicious attacker banned....again. He clearly doesn't need your defense. His subterfuge will continue.

claudel · « **Reply #8 on:** January 14, 2020, 06:23:48 AM »

Quote from: 2Vermont on January 14, 2020, 04:52:35 AM

Oh, claudel, no need to worry. Poche won another round with his most vicious attacker banned....again. He clearly doesn't need your defense. His subterfuge will continue.

I was not defending poche, 2Vermont. Rather, I was defending what I construe as a Catholic principle. I didn't expect universal applause for so doing.

It is true, however, that I don't consider poche a threat to the Faith in any way. Look at it thus: How many people who come to this site, whether as regular or occasional commenters or as interested lurkers, are likely to be so young or so immature as to be scandalized by anything he writes? I think that it is hardly likely that he is in proximate danger of having to consider a millstone around his neck accompanied by a drop to the bottom of the Mariana Trench in preference to the most extreme torments on hell's bill of fare.

As for the banning, I am surprised to learn of it. Thank you for the information. For the record, I thought well of Mark 79 from the get-go, and I told him so on several occasions. I sincerely regret his banning. Nor would I ever call his attacks on poche vicious. Instead, I would say that they were forthright and honestly meant but, as my earlier comment suggested, perhaps pressed too long.

Surely one man can disagree somewhat with another about such a minor matter and still characterize himself as an admirer!

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** January 17, 2020, 12:18:52 AM »

Another attack on freedom of religion and the seal of the confession;
As religious opposition both in and out of Utah mounts against a proposed bill that would require all allegations of child abuse to be reported to authorities — including those stated in religious confessionals — a powerful legislative leader has opposed the bill.
House Speaker Brad Wilson won’t support the bill in its current form, according to a statement he sent to the national Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
“I have serious concerns about this bill and the effects it could have on religious leaders as well as their ability to counsel members of their congregation,” Wilson, R-Kaysville, said in the statement circulated by the Catholic League Tuesday. “I do not support this bill in its current form, and unless significant changes are made to ensure the protection of religious liberties, I will be voting against this bill.”

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/1/14/21065579/utah-bill-clergy-report-child-abuse-confessions-house-speaker-catholic-church-mormon-lds-diocese

poche · « **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2020, 04:11:51 AM »

On January 22, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant education cases in decades, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The outcome could change the landscape of schooling in America as we know it.
We have filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of a dozen organizations and civil rights leaders who believe that protecting the constitutional rights of parents like Kendra Espinoza, the lead plaintiff, to direct the education of their children is essential to student success and our nation.
Espinoza is a single mother who had been working three jobs to send her daughters to a private religious school. She was precisely who Montana lawmakers had in mind when the state enacted a new scholarship program. But even though the legislature made the scholarships available to all, Montana officials told Espinoza she could not use the funds at a religious school, citing the state’s so-called “Blaine Amendment.” The provision, currently part of 37 state constitutions, originated with Rep. James G. Blaine of Maine, who in 1875 attempted to pass a federal constitutional amendment providing:
“[N]o money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefor, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect, nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.”
As widely docuмented, by “sect” and “sectarian,” the amendment (and its later incarnations) meant “Catholic,” as its target was mid-19th-century Catholic immigrants, who challenged the era’s Protestant-dominated public education system. Its introduction was mainly a result of the prejudice stirred by the aptly named Know-Nothing movement. The amendment narrowly failed at the federal level, but it spread in the states and continues to foster present-day animosity toward religion.
Modern-day supporters of the Blaine Amendment – including groups like the American Federation of Teachers and the American Civil Liberties Union – argue that Blaine Amendments protect schools from religious indoctrination and public funds from “advancing” religion. But Espinoza did not seek to advance religion. She sought to advance the education of her daughters and thought religious schools are the best fit.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/laws-across-country-keeping-parents-154650762.html

Author Topic: The Anti-Catholic Law (Read 685 times)

poche

The Anti-Catholic Law

Bonaventure

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

2Vermont

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

Ladislaus

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

Jaynek

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

Ladislaus

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

claudel

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

2Vermont

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

claudel

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

poche

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law

poche

Re: The Anti-Catholic Law