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