Re: Decision 2016
 

I guess that depends on where you are at. We don't have private sports schools around me. Though there are Catholic schools in the Chicago area that are usually good sports schools, but then again they are private schools.

There are some shools maybe in some areas that have open enrollment so kids don't have to live in their district to go there, and they do that for sports. Even at regular public schools, some parents start their kids in grade school older than they should, in order for that kid to have an advantage in sports because they will be older and more physically mature than other kids in their grade.

Re: Decision 2016
 

There was actually a cover story in the Denver Post sports section this Sunday about fairness in athletics with private schools recruiting athletes. (Valor Christian has won the top tier football title 6 of the last 7 years in Colorado.)

It's different than the government running a Christian school, sure. But it is a government funding a Christian school. To argue otherwise is pretty plainly ridiculous.

If you consider Obamacare to be government-funded healthcare, then I don't see how you could possibly consider this sort of voucher system to not be government funding of religious institutions.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Fair point. Upon further reflection, I think the difference for me lies in sponsorship. Just because government dollars are going to a religious school doesn't mean the government is sponsoring that school. The government gives the money to the parents, and that's as far as the government involvement goes.

I wouldn't say that Obamacare sponsors private health insurance companies, and I wouldn't say that school vouchers sponsor private religious schools.

Re: Decision 2016
 

It really just seems like you're making up new words to describe things in order to avoid recognizing the obvious truth.

• Obamacare directs government funding to private healthcare companies. It is government funding of healthcare.
  
• The voucher system you suggest would direct government funding to private religious organizations. It is government funding of religious institutions.

You can talk about "sponsorship" or whatever other meaningless term you like, but it doesn't change these very obvious, self-evident facts.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yes, I agree that government dollars (whether we're talking about the healthcare or school vouchers) is going to the organization.

I don't think that fact violates the separation of church and state as long as the government is not choosing which religious schools get the money. The separation of church and state is all about government sponsorship (approval, sanction, whatever term you want to use) of religion. The government is not choosing to send money to Christian schools or Muslim schools or whatever other type of religious school. The parents are. There's a big difference there.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Wait, so giving money to something doesn't count as supporting it?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Wow. That is some irritating stuff. Cowardly? I can just as easily say the same. I imagine that if one is a liberal, and feels fairly confident that a popular vote system would likely, more often than not, put a Democrat in office, then sure, a popular vote system would seem like the only reasonable way to go. Sure a popular vote sounds good and fair on the surface, but that is an illusion. We are a country of united, but very diverse states. We over here in Missouri think, live, act, and feel much different than folks in California. Texans are far different than people in Washington, etc. Do you think that we Missourians are going to feel like our votes count when the election is decided by the voters of California, Washington, and Texas? Hell no. Because essentially they won't.

Is the electoral college perfect? No, it isn't, but to me it is a more fair way for the populaces of the individual states to have a fair say in who their President is rather than letting a horde of like-minded Californians decide for the rest of us. Cowardly? Pfft... You say "Hogwash", and to you, I say Horse ****!

I have learned through this thread, and a different one, that I am far more conservative than most of you, and therefore realize that I'll not get much support in this, but I can't seem to help myself when it comes to looking at this thread, and then posting, even though I know I shouldn't. Why can't I stop!

Re: Decision 2016
 

Again, I think the big, big difference is that the parents are choosing where to put the money. For school vouchers, the government is giving the money to the parents. The government is supporting the parents. The parents then take that money and give it to whichever school they choose. Then the parents are supporting the school. That's the way I see it.

Stated Difference
 

keglo, the states are diverse in and among themselves. Oregon has a stereotype, but it's pretty firmly a stereotype of Western Oregonians. Eastern Oregonians have different concerns than Western Oregonians. Austin, Texas and my original hometown of Flagstaff, Arizona are two other places I'm aware of where there's a not insubstantial number of people who have a different view than the state lean. I'm not sure it's any more or less correct to say that the states make decisions than the individual voters.

~Dysole, noting that in America we've been tangling with the tension between the benefits of individualistic and collectivist societies in many ways and the EC is another one

Re: Decision 2016
 

I realize that one of her goals was to promote Christianity, but the idea was to give the parents a choice, right? They can choose a religious private school, or a secular one, correct? If that is the case then I don't see the problem. I completely agree with Swamper.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If food stamps could be used to buy beer, you would not have any trouble seeing it for what it is. It would mean government funds were being used to buy beer for people. The fact that someone was given a voucher that bought the beer, and chose beer over milk, wouldn't change that.

Money is support. The fact that the money goes through an intermediary does not change how this is working. The government would be supporting religious institutions.

Random Thought
 

Huh.

Now I may just be horribly misinformed here, but doesn't that happen on some level in higher education with like school loans for private institutions with a religious background and whatnot? Am I just completely misunderstanding everything or is there a difference in how it works or is there no difference and we should be looking into this?

~Dysole, who has a degree from a school with a religious background

Re: Decision 2016
 

I do not think that your analogy works at all. It is not a choice of milk vs. beer. The government is giving vouchers for beer. It is ok if they spend that voucher on Budweiser. They just damn well better not spend it on Amish beer.

Re: Decision 2016
 

For those more intimately familiar with the vouchers, do they pay all the costs of that student at either type of school, or are they only a partial subsidy. Meaning, would the parents still have to pay the balance of a tuition to the Christian school, and would the state still pay a portion of the public school for that student?

Re: Decision 2016
 

There is a shoe store that sells only white shoes and black shoes. The government is barred from interfering with the market for white shoes. If the government gives people money to go into that store to buy whatever shoes they want, the government is meddling in the market for white shoes.

If you'd like, you can just pronounce that you are ok with government support for religious schools, despite the constitution. Then we can agree to disagree. But your current position does not appear supportable.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The way I see it, the government is not responsible for choosing to buy the beer. The individual is. There's personal choice and responsibility there, and that's what matters. If the government is giving the same amount of money (based on protocol and what not) to each person, then the government is within their bounds and acting fairly. What the people then decide to do with that money is completely on them.

Again, personal choice. I don't think the freedom of religion clause works as a reason against school vouchers as long as the government isn't placing restrictions on what religious schools the vouchers can be used at.

Re: Decision 2016
 

From my understanding, students would get a voucher worth, say, 500 dollars. They can take that 500 bucks to whichever school they want. If they go to a public school, the 500 dollars is added to the budget. If they go to a religious school, the 500 goes towards tuition. If tuition is 1000 dollars, the parents are still responsible for 500 dollars of tuition.

There's lots of different voucher ideas out there, but that's the one I support and think makes the most sense.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You've said yourself, Swamper, that the community you're in is homogenous in some ways. I wonder how many faiths would support schools in your neighborhood? How many elementary schools, other than the public ones, might we see? And what religion would each be associated with?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking. In my town in particular, we have a private christian school and a catholic school in the next town over. If we had vouchers, I imagine that there wouldn't be any new religious schools built. The existing ones might expand though.

I know every place is different though, so I figure each area will have a unique mix of schools.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok. So in your town, parents could send their kids to the public school(s) (the red shoes) or to the one Christian school. Not to a Jewish school or a Hindu school, or to a Lutheran or Mormon or whatever school, but to the one school of the one denomination in your town. Or, assuming they could arrange transportation, they might also choose the Catholic school in a town nearby, but let's not assume that transportation is easy for everybody. I know it isn't for me, and my kids take the bus. So transportation is not a gimme, but let's say those are the two schools.

Would you agree that as a practical matter, in your community, the choice would be between (1) a public school and (2) one or, at a stretch, two Christian schools?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Right. In my town, speaking practically, those are the choices available.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Back to that Carrier deal on Indiana for a second. As it was, it didn't seem like a great precedent to set with paying our tax dollars. But my buddy at work just told me something more troubling.

He said his dad read it in the paper, and his wife, who is a school superintendent just got back from a conference in Indianapolis. Apparently, the money to keep some jobs at Carrier will come from the school budget. That's something that was being discussed at the conference, though certainly not the reason for the conference as that was planned well ahead.

Indiana is one of the worst states in the country for nee teachers and teacher retention. Pence didn't want to join with federal school requirements and spent millions to get another system in place and it was screwed up. It also screwed up the school grading system, the one that grades schools for funding. He pretty much has been bad for education in Indiana.

So, I'm really not impressed by the Carrier deal, and certainly nervous for education in general.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok. White shoes or black shoes, two choices. I think we understand each other.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't see how that disqualifies vouchers. More choice is a good thing. Even in my specific town, speaking practically for some families (like mine) there's only one choice. At least with vouchers there's two choices.

What if my town gets an influx of Muslims? With the voucher system, they could theoretically set up a Muslim school and have their kid's education money follow them there.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The problem, as I see it, is that *as a practical matter*, vouchers would lead in many communities to endorsements of one religion or another. I understand the reasoning of your argument: it is religion-neutral when a voucher can be used for anything. I disagree with you, but that's a trickier discussion and I don't think we have to go there. After all, in this world, in the real world, *as applied* these vouchers would very very often advance one or possibly two faiths in any given community.

That violates the Constitution. Not because vouchers say, on their faces, that they are for one faith or another, but because *as applied* they will be precisely that. What if, you say, a second faith becomes prominent in your community? It's a good question, and it happens. The answer is the same: vouchers that go to your local (Protestant?) school and to that other school - Muslims, in your example - fund the interests of those faiths above others, and thus it remains unconstitutional.

Re: Decision 2016
 

As much as I'd like to agree with you on all of this, you may be surprised to find the supreme court has effectively already ruled on this.

The court ruled that the Cleveland school voucher program was constitutional as it offered true choice between private religion, secular private, or public schools. Now in Cleveland there was actually a secular private school as an option though, so I'm not so sure how that would be ruled for communities where vouchers could only be used on a religious school or the public one.

Overall it's a sticky issue. Frankly I wish no government money would go to religious schools, but I have a hard time deciding where personal beliefs compared to what the law should be are interacting here. I personally think that public dollars should be used to support secular education as that is in the interest of the state, where as funding religion is not. But should it strictly be against the law for public dollars to go to support religious schools? I'd like to think so but I frankly do not know enough about how all those programs work and what should or shouldn't be allowed based on the current laws.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm not sure you know how food stamps work in the modern day?

His analogy works just fine. For at least the last decade, anyone that gets benefits through SNAP (which we commonly call food stamps) gets money loaded onto a debit card and they can use those funds at most grocery stores and some other places such as farmers markets and what not. The items they can purchase with those funds are typically limited to food items. Household products, pet foods, alcohol, and tobacco are generally prohibited.

The point being though is if for some reason Beer were allowed, say person X gets 100 dollars a month loaded onto their card. If they go to the store and spend that money that is supposed to be for food and purchases beer there would be no difficulty in seeing it as government money buying this person alcohol.

From what I understand of vouchers, they basically would be government funding of religious schools. I don't actually know the laws that well, but it seems like this is actually legal. But either way as others have pointed out clearly it is government funding of religious schools. I personally feel that shouldn't be legal, but others probably do think it should be and it perhaps may actually be legal. I really don't know nor do I know how to really figure this stuff out. My cursory google searches aren't helping find any good article to actually lay out what I'm looking for.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Hmm. Well, Cleveland - or Baltimore, or San Antonio, or whatever - would be a much more interesting example, for Swamper's purposes. There a parent might have real choice. It's one thing to have such a program there, and another to have something universal, where a great many (most?) students would have none. "When to choose, there is but one, 'tis Hobson's Choice: Take that, or none."

That case brings up another thing, which is part of the reason why I'm not really worked up about the selection of Devos. Schools are controlled by local and state authorities, so I'm not really expecting a big sea change when it comes to vouchers. Like I've said earlier, I'm more concerned that Trump is appointing people who lack management & administrative experience, and (as some of you, I'm sure, know) that is a separate skill that

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't know why I can't stop either haha. I mean discussion is good though, even if it gets frustrating a times. Still I said I'd at least stop discussing the EC stuff, but I so want to continue replying to the rest of your points, but alas. I said I was going to leave it alone, and I should, so I'll resist the urge to reply to the rest of your post.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yeah, it seems like a "true choice" is the operative thing there. In a small community there simply isn't a true choice.

If Swamper or keglo would just say "I'm OK with the government funding religious schools", I'd simply point to these rulings, and we could agree to disagree about whether the ruling is a good one and/or what constitutes a "true choice". What's been frustrating is these arguments that a voucher program is *not* government funding of those schools, when it very plainly is.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Why shouldn't a person want to participate? I don't think anyone's been abusive. I mean, if this thread is adding stress to your life, then put it down and walk away, but if not, then read and/or participate if you are moved to do so.

The stress is real, and this election was not easy for anybody, regardless of a person's beliefs. The transition continues to be divisive, with a parade of controversial characters on the main stage. Don't add to your stress load if you don't have to. But if we're not bothering you, and you are reading things here that interest you, then there's no need to stop. My 2 cents.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Okay, I'll bite.

With schooling, government is collecting money from everyone and redistributing it with the idea that it allows everyone's kids to get a fair shake educationally. Government isn't funding things so much as it is telling everyone that their contribution, whatever it may be, guarantees their kids an education that meets certain standards. Within that, choice is good. As long as a school meets the education standards there is no reason it should only be available to kids whose parents are sufficiently wealthy to not only chip in to the general system but to also fund a separate education for their kids.

Heck, I personally know dozens of people who went to religious private schools whose parents had no interest in the religious part of it being a private school but sent the kids there for the better education (and in some cases, additional structure). Why should we reserve those opportunities for only those with sufficient extra funds?

Essentially allowing people to "keep their kids' education money" and use it as they see fit within methods that satisfy national standards is most emphatically NOT government funding of religion.

~Aldin, choosingly

Re: Decision 2016
 

Well you won't be getting me to say that because I completely disagree with you. You say it very plainly is the government funding those schools and I say it very clearly is not.

@Aldin said it better than I can. I agree with him.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't see how choosing between a private Christian school and a public school with vouchers is not a "true" choice. It's more choice than a lot of people currently have. If I;m poor and can't afford to send my kids to a private school, then I really have no choice. With vouchers, at least I have more choice than I did before.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Aldin, you are mostly making an argument for why government funding of religious schools can be a good thing, in that it provides more, sometimes (subjectively) better educational opportunities. That's a totally reasonable argument, and as I said, we could agree, or agree to disagree, or argue about whether this situation is qualitatively different when parents have a range of religious and non-religious options to choose from.

That's all good. There's an interesting discussion to be had there. (FWIW, a secular family that we are close with sent both of their daughters to preschool at the Jewish Community Center, because it was a good school. I get what you're saying.)

What that is not, though, is an argument that this does not constitute government funding of religious schools. I appreciate that you put "keep their kids' education money" in quotes, because it's, at best, a symbolic way of thinking about it. It's not your money, broadly speaking, that you are distributing. It's mostly the property taxes of a whole bunch of people who have no school-aged children. Those people don't get the choice to opt out of taxes and give their money to religious charities or whatever. Neither do parents.

As I noted with repeated analogies, we have no difficulty recognizing government funding of private enterprises for what it is when it's done in other contexts - including indirect ones like healthcare subsidies or food stamps. This is no different.

If the government gave all parents of school-aged children cash back, charged tuition for public schools, and said "you don't have to educate your kids - you can pay for public school, pay for private school, home school, or put your kids to work, your choice"... then that would be different. But that's not what they do. Childhood education is still a public good that you are guaranteed access to and cannot opt out of paying your share of, in the form of general taxation.

When you allow vouchers to be used for religious schools, then you are requiring all those parents of people who don't want to send their kids to a religious school, or indeed those who don't even have children, to pay taxes that end up funding religious schools. We can talk about whether that's a good thing or not, and that's all fine and good, but what it is is government funding of religious schools.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't see the correlation between having a religious private school operating in a town and the town "endorsing" or advancing that particular religion. If there is enough demand for a Muslim or Hindu or even secular private school, it'll get built regardless of whether the town approves of it or not.

Re: Decision 2016
 

So if I don't have kids, none of my taxes are going to a religious school?

Re: Decision 2016
 

[quote=Ranior;2124368][quote=keglo;2124337] No I completely understand how the food stamp system works. I also understand what you and @dok are trying to say. But I stand by my original statement that it is a bad analogy.

@Dad_Scaper was closer to it but I completely disagree with his conclusion that it is government funding religion.

Re: Decision 2016
 

OK, but you said "The government is giving vouchers for beer" in that case. But they wouldn't be doing that literally. They'd just be loading up a debit card that can be used for bread, or milk... or beer. And people could decide they preferred beer to milk, and buy the beer.

This is exactly the same as the government giving you a debit card that can only be used for education, and some people deciding that they'd rather buy catholic school than public school.

So if "the government is giving vouchers for beer" in the first case, "the government is giving vouchers for catholic school" in the second case. It's just as you said.

Re: Decision 2016
 

dok,

The public good is satisfied when kids get an education that satisfies government-defined educational standards. That's why it is possible to send a kid to a religious private school instead of sending them to a public school - it satisfies that standard. Public schools are the lowest common denominator. They are the minimum which is necessary to satisfy the public good.

School vouchers would be used to pay to fund that public good. If they are used at a religious private school, then they are being used to fund the public good. If the amount used is what the government has determined is the basic stipend for ensuring the public good, and the school satisfies it, that's all that matters.

Just clarifying that last point, the government determines that the amount of the voucher is the minimum amount required to satisfy the public good (and would presumably be the exact amount all public schools charged). Therefore, from a bureaucratic standpoint, the voucher cannot provide religious instruction as it is paying the exact amount, and not a penny more, as the minimum required to satisfy the public good.

~Aldin, soloing

Re: Decision 2016
 

I wonder how the vouchers would be dispersed? Would everyone across the board get the same amount, or would it be based on what town you live in?

Is the money going to be based off your property taxes, or some other formula?

Education is kind of messed up in general IMO. While I know it would be difficult to give all students in the country the same education, I don't see why a state couldn't have the exact same opportunities for every one of its students. It kind of frosts my ass when politicians talk about improving education, because it's still going to end up being mostly a matter of where a child is born or how wealthy the parents are that will often determine the educational opportunities for that child.

I don't believe there should be a need for private schools to to a better education. If it's a matter of it being faith based, then that's different. But I think it's sad that we are having a hard time keeping up with other countries.

Re: Decision 2016
 

@Hahma The government already has an amount per child which goes to schools. I imagine any voucher would be based on that number in any given area.

~Aldin, guessingly

Re: Decision 2016
 

Sure, I get that. This is the reasonable debate, like I said before. You're saying your OK with funding religious schools with government money, and hey, a choice between two schools is better than no choice.

One issue is that, in a small community, it may not be realistic to support multiple options. What happens if in a tiny, homogenous town (which there are many of in this nation), 95% of the families opt for the Protestant/Mormon/Catholic/whatever private school? Do you keep a public school open for the remaining tiny sliver of kids? Many small communities already struggle to support local schools. What if you're told that you can go to the community Christian school, or drive your kid to the public school 35 miles down the road? Is that still a "true" choice? Or at that point is the local community, effectively, endorsing Christianity as its official religion?

I'm not saying I think the Supreme Court's ruling is necessarily perfect, but you can see the concerns they were trying to weigh.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I don't see how any of this even tangentially counters my argument that this amounts to the government funding the religious school. If you are willing to stipulate that that's true, then I have no further disagreement with you on any of the things you're talking about here.

Yes, they are funding a religious institution in order for it to provide education. That's still funding a religious institution. It's not like a Catholic school says "welp, they funded us at 'the minimum'. Looks like we'll have to take down the crucifixes, no money for them in the budget." It's still a religious education.

Re: Decision 2016
 

True Aldin, but that changes. Our district went from getting X $ per student to Y $ per student for no apparent reason. We dropped to one of the least amount of $ per student in the state. So then teachers get laid off, aides get laid off, larger number of students in each class, etc.

So I guess my point, is the rich may get richer based on where you live.

Sorry, didn't mean to get off track here. I just have a sore spot when it comes to education, and the voucher talk kind of brought that out.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Using your argument the government 'funds' a variety of things I am not pleased with. Such is life in the wide and varied society to which most of us belong. Given that, what is the point here again?

Unless I misunderstood you and you are really arguing that 'funding' is the same as 'endorsing'.

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

@dok I think we see this in a fundamentally different way. I see the vouchers as funding the education and you see them as funding the schools. Meh. I see your point. I just don't agree with you. Schools, in and of themselves, don't satisfy the "basic good" requirement of providing an education whereas a satisfactory education, however derived, automatically does. Therefore, the funding must be to provide the education and not to pay for a delivery platform since one satisfies the requirement and one does not.

@Hahma Fair enough. My wife is in education as well and I've seen how crazy government funding can be (I imagine we could tell one another some "fun" stories). It's one of the reasons I'm looking for a fix. The current system is not functioning as it should.

~Aldin, who wants to use some smart sounding latin phrase here but can't think of any that apply at the moment

Bumpy
 

Asked this last night while everyone was asleep. Anyone want to enlighten me?

~Dysole, looking for answers