 The fact that Roe v. Wade might actually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court next year is truly horrifying to think about. And a lot of people are focused on this, but I would encourage you to look at the other cases that the Supreme Court is also reviewing, because it's not just Roe v. Wade where they're taking us backwards, because they might also, in 2022, further dismantle the separation between church and state. Now this is something that the evangelicals and conservatives have been working towards for decades in this country, but the Supreme Court is possibly going to hand them a huge victory here. Now this isn't as foregone of a conclusion as even Roe v. Wade. We don't know what's going to happen with that, but it seems likely. But here I'd say it's 50-50, but still it's cause for alarm because this would set a horrifying new precedent. So as Ian Milhauser of Vox explains, at an oral argument held Wednesday morning, all six members of the Supreme Court's Republican appointed majority appeared likely to blow a significant new hole in the wall separating church and state. The case is Carson V. Macon. The question is whether the state of Maine is required to subsidize religious education, and the majority's answer appears at least under certain circumstances to be yes. Under current law, as Justice Elena Kagan noted during Wednesday's argument, the question of whether to fund religious education is typically left up to elected officials. Maine's legislators decided not to do so when they drafted the state's unusual tuition voucher program that's at issue in Carson and is meant to ensure that children in sparsely populated areas still receive a free education. The overwhelming majority of Maine school children attend a school designated by their local school district, but a small minority, fewer than 5,000 students according to the state, live in rural areas where it is not cost effective for the state to either operate its own public school or contract with a nearby school to educate local students. In these areas, students are provided a subsidy, which helps them pay tuition at the private school of their family's choice. The issue in Carson is that only non-sectarian schools are eligible for this subsidy. Families may still send their children to religious schools, but the state will not pay for children to attend schools that seek to inculcate their students into a religious faith. All six of the court's Republican appointees appeared to think that this exclusion for religious schools is unconstitutional, meaning that Maine would be required to pay for tuition at pervasively religious schools, notably that could include schools that espouse hateful world views. According to the state, one of the plaintiff families in Carson wants the state to pay for a school that requires teachers to sign a contract stating that the Bible says that God recognizes homosexuals and other deviants as perverted, and that such deviation from scriptural standards is grounds for termination in the likely event that these plaintiffs families prevailed that will mark a significant escalation in the court's decisions benefiting from the religious right, even if the court limits the decision narrowly to Maine's situation. So just to reiterate here, the question here is, should Maine be required to subsidize religious schools that quite literally teach prejudice that discriminate against people on the basis of their sexual orientation? And the Supreme Court justices in the conservative majority are leaning towards, yes, Maine should have to do that. It's honestly insane. Now, we've already gone backwards in this case because of previous Supreme Courts that weren't arguably as extreme as this one. So think about it from Maine's perspective here. So if they fund a Christian school, what does that mean? Does that mean that Christianity is preferable to Islam or Judaism or even satanic schools? I mean, if you do this, if you give money to a religious institution, then presumably you're taking a side. So in previous Supreme Court cases, they ruled that states can just remain neutral. And before they were required to remain neutral. But because of different Supreme Court decisions, which we'll get to, they only have the choice to remain neutral. So we went from, OK, you're required to remain neutral, no funding religious institutions to you could fund religious institutions, but you can also choose not to. And now the change is you have to fund religious institutions. In the event the Supreme Court majority, the conservative majority, does what they're pointing to doing. Now, let's look at past cases here because the separation of church and state has already been eroded by previous Supreme Court precedent, and this just makes it obviously worse, as I just explained. So for many years, the Constitution was understood to require this kind of neutrality as the court held in Averston v Board of Education in 1947. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Averston was effectively abandoned by the court's decision in Zellman v Simmons v. Harris in 2002, in which a five to four court upheld a pilot program in Ohio that provided tuition vouchers, funding private education, including at religious schools. But Zellman, as Kagan pointed out today, merely held that states could fund religious education if they choose to do so. Nothing in that decision prevents states from adopting the same neutral posture toward religion that was once required by cases like Averston. On Wednesday, however, several members of the court's Republican-appointed majority question whether religious neutrality is even possible and suggest that Maine's efforts to remain neutral on questions of religion are themselves a form of discrimination against people of faith. So let me just rephrase that here. If Maine does not fund vehemently anti-gay religious schools, then they're the ones being discriminatory. I mean, it's truly preposterous, truly ridiculous. We live in the dumbest fucking timeline. And if the Supreme Court does indeed go in this direction, they're further confirming that they don't give a flying fuck about the U.S. Constitution. I mean, it's pretty clear the separation of church and state is very, very clear. And to do this, they're just totally disregarding it, enabling discrimination. Now, it's possible that all of this doesn't matter and it's moot and nothing bad will happen because Clarence Thomas is insinuating that they don't have jurisdiction, therefore the case might be dismissed altogether. But if it's not dismissed, I mean, judging by the oral arguments made by Kavanaugh and Alito, they seem to lean hard into this argument that Maine's law is discriminatory. If you don't give these brazenly discriminatory and homophobic schools state money, then you're discriminating against them. It's truly ridiculous. And in my opinion, the Zelman case was wrongfully decided because you should be required to remain neutral because by definition, if you give state funding to a religious institution, you're taking a side. You're taking a side. And if you don't believe me that that's tantamount to taking a side, flip it. Imagine what the reaction would be if a state government gave money to a Muslim institution, a Muslim school. Republicans would absolutely lose their fucking shit. They'd say, this is a Christian nation. How dare you? How dare my tax dollars go to a Muslim school where they're teaching our kids bad things that I don't agree with. They would be apoplectic. But here, when it comes to Christianity, well, that's where a Christian nation. So what are you going to do? Definitely not taking a side, though. It's ridiculous. So we don't know what's going to happen. I'd say it's a 50-50 chance that this actually goes in that bad direction. But just watch it because who knows it might be might be dismissed on grounds that they don't have jurisdiction. But still, if they go in this direction, I mean, it's another nail in the coffin of the separation between church and state. And that's just awful.