Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Supreme Court Takes Up Publicly Funded Religious Schools

  1. Top | #1
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    2,287
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    6,396
    Rep Power
    75

    Supreme Court Takes Up Publicly Funded Religious Schools

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...-case-n1117006

    Soon you will have to fund your local evangelical school with taxpayer school because otherwise your discriminating against religion. What if that religion preaches death to Jews and blacks? What if it just discriminated against atheists?

    SLD

  2. Top | #2
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,163
    Rep Power
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...-case-n1117006

    Soon you will have to fund your local evangelical school with taxpayer school because otherwise your discriminating against religion. What if that religion preaches death to Jews and blacks? What if it just discriminated against atheists?

    SLD
    It is funding parents through financial aid to send their children to any private school they want, religiously oriented ones inclusive.
    The article correctly refers to a past case where government money went to all schools that had paved playgrounds to upgrade them to safer rubberized ones. The supreme court ruled that the separation clauses did not apply since it was a provision for all schools, and to deny the benefit to schools that happen to be religious would not be inline with the spirit of the law.
    The funds here for financial aid are neither exclusively for, nor prohibited to be for, any particular type of private school.

  3. Top | #3
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Whale's Vagina
    Posts
    5,397
    Rep Power
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Gun Nut View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...-case-n1117006

    Soon you will have to fund your local evangelical school with taxpayer school because otherwise your discriminating against religion. What if that religion preaches death to Jews and blacks? What if it just discriminated against atheists?

    SLD
    It is funding parents through financial aid to send their children to any private school they want, religiously oriented ones inclusive.
    The article correctly refers to a past case where government money went to all schools that had paved playgrounds to upgrade them to safer rubberized ones. The supreme court ruled that the separation clauses did not apply since it was a provision for all schools, and to deny the benefit to schools that happen to be religious would not be inline with the spirit of the law.
    The funds here for financial aid are neither exclusively for, nor prohibited to be for, any particular type of private school.
    Secular and religious schools are fundamentally different institutions with opposing objectives. Secular schools are to provide children with factual knowledge and encourage reasoned evidence based thinking. Religious schools have no principled commitment to accepted facts or reason and regularly promote belief in known falsehoods and encourage active suppression of reasoned thought (which is the inherent psychological nature of "faith").
    They are both "schools" only in the same way that a public hospital and a new age "healing center" that used crystals, etc., are both "medical centers".

    The sound justification for public funding for schools applies only to the schools that serve the former secular function, which is of general benefit to society and commerce.

    And note that standardized testing only reflects whether a student is capable of executing such skills when required, not whether they have developed a disposition to do so. The former is of limited benefit without the latter.

    If a private school explicitly teaches false pseudoscience to promote white supremacist ideology, should they be supported with tax dollars just b/c they also teach math and other subjects that are the focus of public education?

  4. Top | #4
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,766
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,742
    Rep Power
    67
    The problem is that government funding means that everyone is eligible. For the government to be able choose which 'group' is to be rewarded with funds and which denied gives the government undue power. The constitutional method of denying government funds to religious schools is for the government to not fund any schools. Otherwise, the religious would have the power to deny funds to non-religious schools if they are in power.

    It is pretty much like if the government is allowed the power to deny the right to stage a protest to groups that is determined to be undesirable means that the government has been given the power to deny anyone's right to protest, even when (or if) that undesirable group is in power.

  5. Top | #5
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,024
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,501
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The problem is that government funding means that everyone is eligible. For the government to be able choose which 'group' is to be rewarded with funds and which denied gives the government undue power. The constitutional method of denying government funds to religious schools is for the government to not fund any schools. Otherwise, the religious would have the power to deny funds to non-religious schools if they are in power.

    It is pretty much like if the government is allowed the power to deny the right to stage a protest to groups that is determined to be undesirable means that the government has been given the power to deny anyone's right to protest, even when (or if) that undesirable group is in power.
    That's errant nonsense.

    The underlying premise - that matters of opinion cannot ever be chosen between by government - is tripe.

    There are facts. That some people want their counterfactual opinions to be given equal weight with factual opinions is no cause to actually do so. Any school that makes the teaching of fictional claims the centrepiece of its efforts can and should be excluded from government funding.

    Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one, and mostly they're full of shit. But the premise that all opinions are of equal quality or validity, or that government must not, should not, or cannot discriminate between fact based and fiction based opinions, is post modernist horseshit.

    It's neither necessary nor reasonable to let the stupid and ignorant have an equal say with the intelligent and educated in how society is run.

    We can actually determine objectively whether or not plants crave the electrolytes in Brawndo, so asking for public opinion on the question is neither useful nor wise.

  6. Top | #6
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,766
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,742
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The problem is that government funding means that everyone is eligible. For the government to be able choose which 'group' is to be rewarded with funds and which denied gives the government undue power. The constitutional method of denying government funds to religious schools is for the government to not fund any schools. Otherwise, the religious would have the power to deny funds to non-religious schools if they are in power.

    It is pretty much like if the government is allowed the power to deny the right to stage a protest to groups that is determined to be undesirable means that the government has been given the power to deny anyone's right to protest, even when (or if) that undesirable group is in power.
    That's errant nonsense.
    And you would think that because you ignored what I actually wrote.

    In the U.S. the federal government does not run the schools. The local government does. A central concept in the U.S. is that everyone is treated equally, even if a group has contrary beliefs to those who happen to be in power in Washington at that particular time.

    In the scary event that evangelical christians happen to be elected to power in Washington, I certainly wouldn't want them to have the power to decide to only supply funds to religious schools but not the non-religious schools.

  7. Top | #7
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,024
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,501
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    The problem is that government funding means that everyone is eligible. For the government to be able choose which 'group' is to be rewarded with funds and which denied gives the government undue power. The constitutional method of denying government funds to religious schools is for the government to not fund any schools. Otherwise, the religious would have the power to deny funds to non-religious schools if they are in power.

    It is pretty much like if the government is allowed the power to deny the right to stage a protest to groups that is determined to be undesirable means that the government has been given the power to deny anyone's right to protest, even when (or if) that undesirable group is in power.
    That's errant nonsense.
    And you would think that because you ignored what I actually wrote.

    ... A central concept in the U.S. is that everyone is treated equally, even if a group has contrary beliefs to those who happen to be in power in Washington at that particular time...
    Which is both a) what I was responding to, and b) bloody stupid.

    Beliefs are subordinate to facts. That your nation elevates them to supreme importance is beyond stupid.

  8. Top | #8
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,766
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,742
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    And you would think that because you ignored what I actually wrote.

    ... A central concept in the U.S. is that everyone is treated equally, even if a group has contrary beliefs to those who happen to be in power in Washington at that particular time...
    Which is both a) what I was responding to, and b) bloody stupid.

    Beliefs are subordinate to facts. That your nation elevates them to supreme importance is beyond stupid.
    Again, you ignore the point...
    In the scary event that evangelical christians happen to be elected to power in Washington, I certainly wouldn't want them to have the power to decide to only supply funds to religious schools but not the non-religious schools.
    If the government is given the power to treat groups differently, favoring those they agree with, then they certainly will if or when the fucking evangelicals take power in Washington.

  9. Top | #9
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    23,024
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    33,501
    Rep Power
    90
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Again, you ignore the point...
    In the scary event that evangelical christians happen to be elected to power in Washington, I certainly wouldn't want them to have the power to decide to only supply funds to religious schools but not the non-religious schools.
    If the government is given the power to treat groups differently, favoring those they agree with, then they certainly will if or when the fucking evangelicals take power in Washington.
    The government already has that power.

  10. Top | #10
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,766
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,742
    Rep Power
    67
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticalbip View Post
    Again, you ignore the point...
    In the scary event that evangelical christians happen to be elected to power in Washington, I certainly wouldn't want them to have the power to decide to only supply funds to religious schools but not the non-religious schools.
    If the government is given the power to treat groups differently, favoring those they agree with, then they certainly will if or when the fucking evangelicals take power in Washington.
    The government already has that power.
    It doesn't have the power to do such things but it does it anyway (people, especially politicians, like to assume authority that is denied to them by the Constitution)... until they are taken to court. As in this case, the court slaps their hand and reasserts the limitation on their power.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •