Re: Decision 2016
 

Is the government prohibited from funding any of those things you're not pleased with, by the Constitution? Without the separation of Church and State, this conversation doesn't happen, after all.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That some people here are denying that it's government funding of a religious institution at all, which is just silly.

That's a separate argument that I haven't gotten into except a bit on the edges, although as you can see, D_S has.

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are creating a distinction without a difference. Nobody gets into the weeds about whether food stamps pay for food or whether they are giving money to supermarkets which then provide food.

Schools are entities that provide a service, and we call that service education.

Nevertheless, they are a religious institution, and they do mix religion into their product.

Again, everything you are saying here is very clearly true. But none of it runs counter to the obvious fact that such a voucher system means that a religious institution is being funded by the government.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Which is why I added the rest of my post...

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

- Raider30

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok. In that case I don't understand. I don't need to understand, though. That's fine.

Re: Bumpy
 

I got a Pell Grant and I'm at a private religious college, so I reckon so.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If it were a distinction without a difference we wouldn't be having this conversation :rofl:

~Aldin, agreeing to disagree

Re: Decision 2016
 

I guess I don't even understand what you're disagreeing about. You've said a whole lot but you've never flatly disagreed with my point, as far as I can tell. You still haven't said that you don't think a voucher system that can be used towards religious schools doesn't amount to government funding religious institutions.

-dok, agreeing to agree

Re: Decision 2016
 

How did the 'stimulus' package work for distributing government funds to the public? If someone received money in that manner and donated it all to a church would this be the same correlation as the current discussion?

Or is there a major difference between these government funded vouchers and whatever the stimulus package from some odd years ago were?

Re: Decision 2016
 

The primary methods the stimulus used to put money in pockets was an increase in unemployment insurance and a reduction in payroll taxes. Neither of those required the granted (or retained) funds to be directed to any purpose. Funds which are not earmarked for anything are indeed different than a voucher, as I touched on at the end of my initial response to Aldin:

I believe the stimulus also extended SNAP benefits, but I think we've covered that analogy plenty.

Re: Decision 2016
 

And I'm not going to because I'm struggling to parse the phrasing. To be clear, I do not think a voucher system which allowed religious schools to accept the voucher amounts to the government funding religious institutions.

If it is the "voucher" part of it that is troubling you, however, I would instead be fine with a pre-paid annual tax credit being assigned to the taxpayer which could only be redeemed for qualified educational expenses. Does that solve the problem?

Surely if I can take a charitable deduction on my tax return for gifts to my church without it constituting state-sponsored religion, and I can get an education credit on my tax return for attending a religiously affiliated university without it constituting state-sponsored religion, and I can get a child and dependant care credit on my tax return for sending my kid to a religiously affiliated daycare without it constituting state-sponsored religion, then it MUST be possible to figure out some system whereby the government allows me to choose where my kid goes to school while they pay for it without it constituting state-sponsored religion.

If the only thing bothering you is the word "voucher" then let's lose the word and talk about the goal we are trying to accomplish and whether or not it can be accomplished without violating the constituion by establishing religion.

~Aldin, runonsentanceishly

Re: Decision 2016
 

Maybe the difficulty you're having is that you believe that if you admit it amounts to the government funding a religious institution, that automatically makes it unconstitutional? Because the Supreme Court found that it was the former, but granted that in some cases it's not unconstitutional. (Not saying you have to accept the court's logic, just that it's entirely possible to accept the first but not the second part of that statement.)

Relax, Aldin. It's OK to admit the obvious.