Religion ins schools; taxpayer money

[John Smith]

https://video.search.yahoo.com/searc...c&action=click


Any thoughts, other than this was wrong.

I expect that as soon as taxpayers pay money to any private school, that school will raise tuition

CAn we now force religious schools to teach evolution?

[Ian McColgin]

The Six for right wing theocracy.

[John Smith]

The Six for right wing theocracy.

Seems we are becoming a Christian nation whether we like it or not.

[Jim Bow]

I interpret it to mean that if your state gives monetary grants to private schools, it can’t say “No” based on religion.

[SKIP KILPATRICK]

[Too Little Time]

I interpret it to mean that if your state gives monetary grants to private schools, it can’t say “No” based on religion.

That is what the conservatives thought. Might not be my choice, but it is reasonable.

[Ian McColgin]

It was that a school eligible for federal money, in any form including tuition assistance, could not religiously indoctrinate or postalize the children. Now I suppose that any yeshiva school or madaris might join the line with the RCC and fundi protestants in seeking a tax payer subsidy

[skuthorp]

The same dispute has been rumbling on here for years, but politicians send their kids to private, but not necessarily religious schools.

[WI-Tom]

Not only a taxpayer subsidy for private (religious, mostly) schools, but also a decrease in funding to the public school system.

If "Defund the police" is deemed such a dumb tactic, why does "Defund the public schools" work so well?

Not that hard to figure out. Because Republicans and their base are anti-education. Elected Republicans (many of whom are highly educated, even Ivy Leaguers) are anti-education for purely pragmatic reasons--the more educated you are, the less likely it is you will vote Republican.

Republican voters are against education for tribal reasons--anti-intellectualism and a deep and abiding suspicion of "experts" of any kind, plus a generally accurate sense that education might erode the comfort they find in the unthinking acceptance of dogma and conventional religious doctrine that tells them what to believe and relieves them of the need to think and question.

Plus, if taxpayer money can be diverted away from public service, as it is by funneling it to religious schools, so much the better ideologically!

Tom

[Too Little Time]

Not only a taxpayer subsidy for private (religious, mostly) schools, but also a decrease in funding to the public school system.

Had you watched the video, you would have noticed that the state provides private school funding where there are no public schools. And you might have noticed that the parent wanted to money - not the school.

That may or not make a difference to you.

You might notice that religious schools have for a long time have received government money. With the requirement on the schools that the government money could not be used for the religious classes https://www.hhs.gov/answers/grants-a...ney/index.html

[Canoeyawl]

"What a difference five years makes. In 2017, I feared that the court was ‘lead[ing] us … to a place where separation of church and state is a constitutional slogan, not a constitutional commitment’.
“Today, the court leads us to a place where separation of church and state becomes a constitutional violation. If a state cannot offer subsidies to its citizens without being required to fund religious exercise, any state that values its historic antiestablishment interests more than this court does will have to curtail the support it offers to its citizens.
“With growing concern for where this court will lead us next, I respectfully dissent.”

[Breakaway]

Consider that the parents pf private school students pay school taxes in addition to paying the tuition of their own children.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[WI-Tom]

Consider that the parents pf private school students pay school taxes in addition to paying the tuition of their own children.

Kevin

Completely irrelevant. They choose to pay tuition, it's not required of them. Might as well give me a tax break because I spent a few thousand dollars on my boat, right?

Meanwhile, they benefit from a functional stable society that is enabled by public schools. So yes, they should pay taxes as well as tuition. I have no children, but I am quite happy to pay taxes to support my local public schools.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Had you watched the video, you would have noticed that the state provides private school funding where there are no public schools. And you might have noticed that the parent wanted to money - not the school.

Had you been aware of the bigger picture, you would have noticed that this ruling throws the door wide open (well, even wider open than it is now) to public school vouchers for religious schools--at the cost of reduced funding for public schools.

Your comment about the parent wanting the money? Sure. To pay tuition. Ultimately it's the private religious schools that benefit here, by increasing enrollments that result from tax-payer funded tuition.

Tom

[Breakaway]

They pay double. Their kids are as much a part of the stable society you speak of as public school kids. So if Uncle Sam provides them a little give back, why is that an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[skuthorp]

Completely agree Tom, it's their choice. And like you I am more than happy my taxes support public schools, but not religious establishments of any complexion.

[WI-Tom]

They pay double. Their kids are as much a part of the stable society you speak of as public school kids. So if Uncle Sam provides them a little give back, why is that an issue?

Because it is direct government support of religion, which is prohibited in the Constitution. It effectively forces me to pay for a religion I do not support or endorse. And it's a very very bad idea purely on the political side besides (e.g. Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.).

That's why it's an issue. It's not difficult to understand.

[WI-Tom]

Their kids are as much a part of the stable society you speak of as public school kids.

If the schools are fundamentalist Christian/protestant (as many are), their kids are part of the problem, not the solution. They make things worse, not better.

At least, worse for you if you're non-Christian, or a woman, or a member of the LGBTQ+ community, or transgender, or poor.

Tom

[Too Little Time]

Had you been aware of the bigger picture, you would have noticed that this ruling throws the door wide open (well, even wider open than it is now) to public school vouchers for religious schools--at the cost of reduced funding for public schools.

Your comment about the parent wanting the money? Sure. To pay tuition. Ultimately it's the private religious schools that benefit here, by increasing enrollments that result from tax-payer funded tuition.

The situation is the same as before: non religious education is as entitled to public funding as it always was.

You might ask why so many people are unhappy with public schools. Even in areas where Democrats control the school systems. You might look consider the differences among the schools for New York City. There are great differences based on race.

[John Smith]

They pay double. Their kids are as much a part of the stable society you speak of as public school kids. So if Uncle Sam provides them a little give back, why is that an issue?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Stay tuned. If the government gives any private school, let's say $2000 per child, I'm betting tuition at that school goes up $2000 per child. Private schools are in business to make money.

[Breakaway]

f the schools are fundamentalist Christian/protestant (as many are), their kids are part of the problem, not the solution. They make things worse, not better.

Do you have data to support this assertion?

But that is thread drift.
The thread is about govt money for private schools. Private school parents pay taxes just like public school parents do and so should be eligible for similar benefits that result from those payments.

Kevin

[Osborne Russell]

Discrimination is warranted because separation is a fundamental human right and a positive civic good.

[WI-Tom]

f the schools are fundamentalist Christian/protestant (as many are), their kids are part of the problem, not the solution. They make things worse, not better.

Do you have data to support this assertion?

Yes, sure do. For one thing, they have a significant effect on election results:

They [white evangelical Christians] make up a little over a third of Republicans, Jones says, and have an outsized impact on elections, making up about a quarter of voters. That's right—15% of Americans account for around 25% of those who turn out to vote.

And what do they do with their power to influence elections?

Now, it was notable that [white evangelical support of Trump] reached 81 percent in the exit polls in 2016, which was even higher than what George W. Bush got.

Source

The thread is about govt money for private schools. Private school parents pay taxes just like public school parents do and so should be eligible for similar benefits that result from those payments.

No, the thread is about a recent Supreme Court decision that requires states to provide taxpayer money to religious schools--schools that routinely and intentionally include religious indoctrination as part of the curriculum.

Parents who choose to send children to religious schools--or any private school, for that matter--generally do so because of their own personal choice. The "similar benefits" you are asking for them to receive? They already have them. All parents are entitled to a free and appropriate public education for their children, in a public school. Just because they are choosing not to use that benefit does not mean that the benefit does not exist.

This is nothing less than taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination.

Tom

[Too Little Time]

Stay tuned. If the government gives any private school, let's say $2000 per child, I'm betting tuition at that school goes up $2000 per child. Private schools are in business to make money.

Are you aware of PTA groups in public schools? Rich public schools raise millions to aid the pupils. Poor public schools raise thousands. Big difference.

My daughters would send thousands of dollars of school supplies to the public schools their kids attended. And like most parents with an excess of money would provide a good deal of enrichment for their kids. Something the poor cannot do.

But if you are correct, you should be opposed to college debt forgiveness and free college. I don't think you are.

But it is really frightening to have read in online versions of liberal newspapers about good private schools. And to realize all of those who think they are well read have not even seen them.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Said Theocracy sure as hell doesn't include the Muslims, eh?

The Six for right wing theocracy.

[Nicholas Scheuer]

Even Liberal Catholics who favor Vatican II will be highly suspect. (my methodist wife says I'm the most liberal catholic she's ever met)

[Breakaway]

Yes, sure do. For one thing, they have a significant effect on election results:



And what do they do with their power to influence elections?



Source



No, the thread is about a recent Supreme Court decision that requires states to provide taxpayer money to religious schools--schools that routinely and intentionally include religious indoctrination as part of the curriculum.

Parents who choose to send children to religious schools--or any private school, for that matter--generally do so because of their own personal choice. The "similar benefits" you are asking for them to receive? They already have them. All parents are entitled to a free and appropriate public education for their children, in a public school. Just because they are choosing not to use that benefit does not mean that the benefit does not exist.

This is nothing less than taxpayer-funded religious indoctrination.

Tom

Unless you can provide data to show how the average private school student ends up voting AND how the average public school student ends up voting, your argument is just your opinion.

Furthermore, your assumption about fundamentalist protestant schools being most prevalent is incorrect, according to several sources. Heres a quick Google:



Its taxpayer funds so ALL taxpayers should benefit as equally as is reasonably possible.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Peerie Maa]

Unless you can provide data to show how the average private school student ends up voting AND how the average public school student ends up voting, your argument is just your opinion.

Furthermore, your assumption about fundamentalist protestant schools being most prevalent is incorrect, according to several sources. Heres a quick Google:



Its taxpayer funds so ALL taxpayers should benefit as equally as is reasonably possible.

Kevin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I suppose that depends on whether you are talking about all the Earth, or just the US of A?

[WI-Tom]

Unless you can provide data to show how the average private school student ends up voting AND how the average public school student ends up voting, your argument is just your opinion.

Nope. You asked for data--I provided it. And please do recall that I didn't say anything about "the average private school student" whatsoever. To leave out the crucial qualifier I used is dishonest in the extreme:

If the schools are fundamentalist Christian/protestant (as many are), their kids are part of the problem, not the solution. They make things worse, not better.

Now, my conclusion that students enrolled in fundamentalist schools are likely (when old enough) to vote for Republicans seems plausible, does it not? Since 81% of white evangelical Christians voted for Trump in 2016? And thus, it follows that it's also quite plausible that such voters will support:

1. Restrictions on abortion rights
2. Restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights
3. Restrictions on immigrant rights
4. Restrictions on voting rights
5. Restrictions on women's rights

Furthermore, your assumption about fundamentalist protestant schools being most prevalent is incorrect

Had I actually made such an assumption, you'd be correct. But what I said was not that such schools are the "most prevalent"--I said this:

If the schools are fundamentalist Christian/protestant (as many are)

It does pay to read carefully, and make sure you understand what a poster has actually said before criticizing them for something they didn't say.

Edit to add: Sources from around 2015 suggest that there are about 745,000 students in evangelical schools. I think that qualifies as "many" schools, eh?

Now this:

Its taxpayer funds so ALL taxpayers should benefit as equally as is reasonably possible.

Kevin

has been discussed already. The benefit is, ALL parents (religious or not) are entitled to a "free and appropriate public education." That right exists already, and (in theory) is equally available to all.

Why should taxpayers fund religious indoctrination for some parents, which would be an additional benefit that other taxpayers do NOT get?

Unless you want to hand out taxpayer money to ALL parents to use as they see fit. Otherwise, only religious parents benefit, which is unjust. And, as I pointed out with the voting record of evangelicals, actually harmful to society.

Tom

[Breakaway]

I suppose that depends on whether you are talking about all the Earth, or just the US of A?

Here is some US-specific data. More numbers than you probably care to crunch here: https://nces.ed.gov/programs/schoolchoice/ind_03.asp

Screen Shot 2022-06-23 at 2.20.58 PM.jpg

Kevin

[Breakaway]

Nope. You asked for data--I provided it. And please do recall that I didn't say anything about "the average private school student" whatsoever. To leave out the crucial qualifier I used is dishonest in the extreme:

Your premise is that students at certain schools turn out a certain way: you have not shown evidence of that.

Further, stating that private school students are, "part of the problem" is useless unless we know how they are part of the problem and how students at other schools are not part of the same problem. What is your control group or standard?

It does pay to read carefully, and make sure you understand what a poster has actually said before criticizing them for something they didn't say

Calling out one type of private school is a big tell. It shows your bias more clearly than any demonstrative statement.

Why should taxpayers fund religious indoctrination for some parents, which would be an additional benefit that other taxpayers do NOT get?

So, taxpayers who believe as you do should get benefits, but taxpayers with different views should not. Got it.

Unless you want to hand out taxpayer money to ALL parents to use as they see fit. Otherwise, only religious parents benefit, which is unjust. And, as I pointed out with the voting record of evangelicals, actually harmful to society.

Now who is failing to read the posts? I posted ( or stated, not, "said," by the way; this is not a verbal format, FYI) that taxpayers should have access to equivalent benefit. Please indicate where I posted the statement that taxpayer funds should be used as parents see fit.

Kevin

[Keith Wilson]

So, taxpayers who believe as you do should get benefits, but taxpayers with different views should not. Got it.

No. I am every bit as opposed to taxes funding a Unitarian school as a Catholic one, as opposed to tax subsidies for a UCC-run school as a fundamentalist Baptist one, or a Muslim one, or anything else. Tax money should NEVER, EVER be used in support of religious institutions of any type.

[Dan McCosh]

It's an old issue, which used to be called "parochiaid" around here. Local schools mainly consisted of Catholic, public, and public schools in Jewish neighborhoods. Today, many so-called "charter" schools occupy former Catholic school buildings. There persistent effort is to get students into "good" schools, which often means getting them away from bad students. All of these involve some kind of public support, tax breaks, or direct public funding.

[WI-Tom]

Your premise is that students at certain schools turn out a certain way: you have not shown evidence of that.

First, this isn't science or mathematics. There's no proof or equation that can offer perfect certainty. But you are certainly tying yourself into knots trying to deny that my conclusions are plausible. Consider these survey results from 2005 if common sense and experience doesn't help you:

7 in 10 teens (71%) say their social and political ideology is about the same as mom and dad's.

Source

Further, stating that private school students are, "part of the problem" is useless unless we know how they are part of the problem and how students at other schools are not part of the same problem. What is your control group or standard?

First, you are once again ignoring all-important qualifiers. It's not "private school students" that are part of the problem, but "evangelical/fundamentalist students." As I already explained in previous posts (which you apparently missed), they are part of the problem because, as evangelicals, they are likely to support Trump and Trumpism at far higher rates than any other group (81% in 2016). And Trumpism poses an existential threat to democracy, and also a threat to the rights (and lives) of various marginalized groups.

Tom

[WI-Tom]

Calling out one type of private school is a big tell. It shows your bias more clearly than any demonstrative statement.

Nope. What it shows is that I have been thoughtful enough to understand where the problem lies, and to direct my criticisms there.

Now, where on earth did you get this?

So, taxpayers who believe as you do should get benefits, but taxpayers with different views should not. Got it.

If I've argued anything, it's that NO group of taxpayers should get benefits that are not offered to all. Belief doesn't enter into it--believe what you want. But don't use taxpayer money to indoctrinate others into your beliefs, which are largely harmful to democracy, particularly the rights of marginalized groups who religious groups do not approve of.

As for the benefits received for the taxes we pay: a free an appropriate public education is available to all, by law (if not always managed in practice). A free bout of religious indoctrination has NOT been offered up as a right anywhere in U.S. law. Until now.

Tom