Re: Decision 2016
 

What?? That is SO not exactly the same. Seriously, am I the only one who has a problem with that analogy?

Look, I don't know what else to say on the subject. Unless I am just completely dense, which I admit is totally possible, then your arguments do not make sense. They certainly do not make sense to me. I'll just have to leave it at, I do not agree with you guys.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Like how a voucher system isn't state funding of religion? :mrgreen:

~Aldin, amusedly

Re: Decision 2016
 

Aldin, are you saying that funding a religious institution isn't funding a religion?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm saying that if there is a play at the local mosque, that my paying to go see it is me paying to see a play, not me funding the mosque.

~Aldin, secularly

ETA Let me expand with another example that might seem better to some:

Let's say my kid wants to go to a movie and I give them $20 to buy a $9 matinee and $11 small drink/popcorn combo. When they get there, they see that there is a special for $17 to get all three. They then use the $3 for another purchase - coffee after the show. I don't see myself as funding the coffee. I gave them $20 for a specific purpose and they accomplished the purpose. If they were able to accomplish the same purpose and salvage sufficient funds to do something else with them, I see that as their funds earned through luck or ingenuity and have no reason to see them as my contribution.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Does it make a difference if the money goes to the same place, but they call the play a "fundraiser"?

Re: Decision 2016
 

Absolutely. Purpose matters. In fact, it is the defining point in this case.

~Aldin, saying "check out my edit above, too"

Re: Decision 2016
 

Interesting. So if I go to a play at the local mosque, and I don't know whether it's called a "fundraiser" or not, then either I am funding the mosque or just going to see a play, depending on what the mosque calls the event. I, as the person giving the money, don't know whether it is funding the recipient or simply buying a ticket for a play. Is that correct?

Re: Decision 2016
 

More depending on your purpose in going. If I help my wife put away groceries I might be doing it to ease her day or I might be doing it to see what the treats are so I can eat them before anyone else finds them. In the first case, I am helping my family and in the second I am sabotaging them. It is the same action in each case, but the purpose gives the action meaning.

If the government is providing an education voucher in the amount it already pays to fund a kid's education, they are helping citizens to have a choice about their kid's education. If they are secretly trying to find a way to funnel money into Christian institutions in order to start a new Christian society led by the ghost of Billy Graham, well that would be another thing entirely.

~Aldin, purposefully

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok. So if the mosque calls the event a fundraiser, and there are fliers before the event and banners all over the event calling it a "fundraiser," and before the curtain goes up a series of speakers comes out and thank us for our contributions making it possible for the mosque to provide young people a proper education in the ways of Islam, if I'm only going because I wanted to see Guys and Dolls, then I am not funding the mosque.

I believe that this is a correct application of your use of the words in question, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Life is complicated and so are people. The problem with the above example is that it would be hard to imagine the human being going to that show that didn't at least consider the thought that their ticket was more than just going to see a show. But let's say my kid is in the show, to add a dimension that makes our theatergoer into a believable human being again. Now I can happily say that I am not funding the mosque, but paying to see my kid act - something I would do no matter where they were performing.

~Aldin, who watched Hairspray Live last night with the kid in question

Re: Decision 2016
 

I have to cut in here- I strongly disagree with the notion that the president-elect's cabinet runneth over with experienced and competent professionals. His top candidate for the head of the EPA is a climate change denier- pretty much the opposite of an experienced and competent professional for that position. He's picked lobbyists and magnates for key, important positions in government, and a doctor-turned-second-tier-Fox-voice for Sec. of Housing and Urban Development. Trump said he would "drain the swamp," and now he's doing the opposite.

That part in bold- that's the part that worries me. We always knew Trump wasn't humble by any standard, but forcing a government agency to give him business in return for doing their job- which is to keep him safe- is a conflict of interest.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Aldin, obviously a person who likes to support local theater and wants to see Guys and Dolls might go to this mosque to see this show, without regard for whether it's a "fundraiser." Such people exist.

Regardless, I am not going to quibble with you about whether you are "funding" an institution when you give it money. If that's how you want your definitions to work, that's fine. We can agree to disagree, and our readers can decide for themselves.