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.

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.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The easiest example really is when my boss pays me to ask the question of whether or not he is funding my extracurricular activities. He is paying me for the work I do. He is not sponsoring the charitable donation I might make with my earnings. There is no line of sponsorship from my boss giving me money to me giving money to a charity. We can follow the dollars, but my boss has no culpability in how I spend the money he pays for the work I do.

~Aldin, skinflint

Re: Decision 2016
 

OK Aldin, how about this: while you're watching the play at your local mosque, there's a box under your chair with a message from the hosts. You intend to read this note at the end of the play. The note contains some broad platitudes hoping you enjoyed the play.

However, also in the box is a radioactive atom, and a detector that can detect its decay. If it detects the decay, it activates a device that will add more text to the note, talking about all the different things the religious group will do with the money they raise from the play. Reading this note will make you realize that you gave to a religious group (and you will be OK with that).

Before you open the box, are you simultaneously giving to religion and not giving to religion? Is your status vis-a-vis religious donation currently subject to a wave equation?

- dok, who is glad that the Supreme Court didn't worry so much about intent when they ruled on this subject

Re: Decision 2016
 

😂 y'all are cracking me up. I don't have any idea where this conversation has gone, but I know I don't really like plays.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I remember hearing a dean of a university say one time that "not all dollars are green." In his case, he was remarking how some money is given and can be spent freely while other money is given and marked for specific projects. It was to explain to those upset over the seemingly wasteful expense of building a statue.

I think this concept partially extends to the argument you are having about money. Your boss, for instance, is essentially giving you "green" dollars that you can spend however you'd like and not necessarily sponsoring your hobbies. For vouchers, the dollars aren't quite "green" since they can only be spent in certain ways. Directly, the government is funding education. Now the effect in many areas is that this money supports religious schools at the expense of public schools. I can see how saying the government is establishing a religion in this case is up for philosophical debate.

However, I only put so much stock in intention over effect. In effect, government programs are causing secular schools to lose funds and religious schools to grow in some areas. That alone suggests that there are consequences for this program that need to be more closely addressed (although I'd say the education system has far more systemic problems).

Re: Decision 2016
 

Oh, if we are just making examples up freely, then two can play. Here's my new "easiest example": I give 100 people money to buy a pair of shoes, one for each. Each person must buy a pair. They can buy whichever color they want, between black and white, and some people will buy each. If they buy black shoes, they are funding a religious institution. I am therefore funding a religious institution.

I mean, if you want to walk back the whole hair-splitting about the definition of "funding," we can do that.

Re: Decision 2016
 

@dok I apologize for my inability to understand what you are asking, but I truly don't get it.

@Swamper Heresy! The play's the thing!*

@Ixe Good points. I would say, however, that what it does is force education to be competitive. In theory, if purely secular institutions always offered a better education than an institution with religious affiliations then you would have more kids at secular institutions than there are today since I would argue that much of the draw to religious affiliated schools today is not the religious affiliation, but the higher standard of education provided.

Are there some who would force their kid to get a substandard education just so they could have Bibles in the classroom? Sure. I wouldn't do it though, and anecdotally most religious folks I know wouldn't either. Doesn't mean I'm right, but it does mean it isn't exactly a slam dunk in my mind.

@Dad_Scaper Okay... So...? How is this relevant?

~Aldin, feeling very confused by dok and DS

ETA Sorry... forgot to attribute
*Shakespeare (from Hamlet)

Re: Decision 2016
 

Sorry, I must not have been very clear. My point was that the "he will surround himself with experienced and competent professionals" line was something I heard a lot from his supporters during the weeks leading up to the election as a way to counter the argument against his lack of experience. I totally agree with you--an EPA head that denies climate change and a secretary of education that has no experience performing any job related to education are terrible choices. Appointments like that make it clear that he has no intention of trying to address his shortcomings.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Aldin, I thought we were working through whether a person purchasing a ticket for a play at a house of worship was funding that institution. And I thought that because, in fact, it's what we were doing. It was a fair hypothetical, I thought, exploring the way in which you were using the word "funding."

For reasons you do not explain, and one is left to guess, you walked away from that example and wrote about how you get paid for a service (work) that you provide. That's almost wholly unrelated to what we were talking about before, and not really helpful to the larger discussion of school vouchers. But if we're going to retreat to *other* hypotheticals, then there's no reason why I can't retreat to my hypothetical about shoes. Paraphrasing what I said earlier, our readers can decide whose example is more persuasive.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ah - I thought we were done with the play example since you left it for the reader to decide and I moved on to something that I felt was even better at describing the type of relationship I see involved with a voucher system. Namely, that it is the government paying the school for work done in providing an education. I'm fine with going back to the play example, but the idea that it is being advertised as a fundraiser does tend to make it less good as an example (since presumably schools will still actually have fundraisers to which the government would not be contributing and which have nothing to do with the tuition). Just trying to be as clear as possible.

~Aldin, whose last post double-posted with weird formatting for some bizarre reason

Re: Decision 2016
 

Very well. I think the metaphor of someone paying you for the service you provide isn't helpful for several reasons, the most obvious of which is that there no strings attached and no purpose - not a subjective purpose, or an objective one - for the money other than payment for services rendered.

In a voucher program, there is an objective purpose in the giving of the vouchers: the compensation to a service provider for the provision of an education. You took issue with whether that was "funding" the service provider, which it is. That's how the service provider makes money (or one of the ways it makes money).

Re: Decision 2016
 

Aldin, briefly, my post was mostly a joke reference to Schrodinger's classic physics thought experiment. You can google it if you care.

More seriously, it was my way of making the point of how it's a terrible idea for any legal or policy definition to hinge on the "intent" behind a payment. If that's how you want to think about things in your personal life, or as a moral question, that's fine, knock yourself out. But it has no real practical application from a policy perspective, which is what I thought we were talking about.

Re: Decision 2016
 

https://i.imgflip.com/3eopb.jpg

Being Ignored Is Fun
 

I'm admittedly leery of the voucher system, but I would like someone (preferably dok or Dad Scaper but Ranior is a part of the system and might have some unique insight) to explain the difference to me. I'm having a hard time seeing it.

~Dysole, gathering all the information she can

Re: Decision 2016
 

Meh. "Funding" is a word I associate with "supporting". If all you mean by it is "giving money to" then I concede the point. If the government is giving money to a school it is giving money to the school, regardless of affiliation. I don't happen to think that says anything worth saying, but I'm coming to suspect we are looking at this particular piece in very different ways.

~Aldin, for whom the ethics are by far and away the most important bit since good policy derives from good ethics

Re: Decision 2016
 

Baltimore City has a few charter schools. A student may attend his or her local school, or may seek entrance to one of the charter schools. A student admitted to a charter school - privately run, funded through some complicated math by the school board - may attend that school or his or her local school. Thus there is a measure of school choice.

A voucher system is more open-ended. There is some kind of voucher available for reimbursing an educational facility of the parents' choice, to provide for the young person's education. So the kid can go to public school, or the kid can go to *any* school that accepts these vouchers, and get an education. This voucher program is superficially religion-neutral.

There is tension, though, when it's applied to voucher support for a religious school. It is reasonable to argue that *any* such program will lead to government funding of religious institutions, though the Supreme Court (narrowly) rejected that reading. There remains an important second question, though, which is whether in *specific* cases a voucher program might be government support of a religion. The Supreme Court left open the question of what happens when there isn't true choice in schools, for instance in Swamper's community, where there is only public school and one private, religious school.

I don't know what the Supreme Court would do in such a case, though I struggle to see how it could justify ruling that, when all the voucher money is going to a single religious institution, that the voucher program isn't funding a religious institution. Still, sometimes the Supremes surprise me, and sometimes they are (IMHO) wrong. So I won't hazard a guess; I am content only to lay out the issue as I see it.

School loans for post-secondary education are completely different. There, you are dealing with a young adult, who (presumably) may go where he or she chooses and apply the loan to the institution of his or her choice. In that context, there is no question that the loan or scholarship is religion-neutral.

Does that help?

Re: Decision 2016
 

The education system really is a hot mess. Like just about everything else, it has been cobbled together over the foundations of the past regardless of the problems those systems had.

Probably the biggest factor for a good school system is money. It attracts and retains good teachers, provides good equipment, good facilities, and so on. Public schools are payed for from the tax base and part of what can drive up property value (and therefore increased taxes to fund schools) is a good school system. Private schools are instead funded through tuition and endowments and can, depending on the area, have far more money available than the public school. For a variety of historical reasons, 79% of private schools in the U.S. are religiously affiliated.

From what I understand about money vouchers, taxes that would normally go to public schools (whether or not you sent your child there) can now be redirected to the tuition of a likely religious private school. Even if no additional people decided to send their children to this private school, it still draws from the money of the public school and makes the public school worse.

Of course this seems like a great deal to many of our parents in this hypothetical town where the private school is the better option. They are either getting a break on the tuition costs they were already paying or can finally afford to send their child to this school. Even barring religious objections, the many parents who still can't afford to send their child to private school will be forced to send their child to a now even worse public school. How, in this scenario, is the public school even able to compete? It has no other avenues for getting more money and money that it did have is being taken from it and funneled to a religiously affiliated institution.

Honestly I think the whole problem comes from how the education system is funded in the first place but resolving that is a Herculean task to begin with. Given what we do have, I'd probably take exception to a voucher system being tacked on even if we were only talking about secular private schools. The religious affiliation pushes it over the top since families that take religious exception to these schools do not have a viable alternative in so many areas.

Thanks
 

That certainly clears up most of my fogginess. Appreciated.

~Dysole, who'll still hear other opinions. She did say gathering information was what she was doing.

Re: Decision 2016
 

@Ixe Proponents of the voucher system will argue that the public schools are terribly top-heavy with administration and mismanaged in terms of prioritizing basic education. I don't have the numbers anymore, but when I lived in California I remember seeing an article showing how much of the education budget actually made it down to the classroom level and being shocked at how little it was. So one of the goals of vouchers would be to force public schools to compete with private schools by doing better by the kids with the money they do receive.

~Aldin, wondering how economy of scale went so drastically wrong with public schools

Re: Decision 2016
 

Hmm, now I'm curious how those numbers boil down between public and private schools. I'm sure that public schools need an overhaul, I'm just not convinced taking their money away and shouting "compete" will get anything done. I can see how taking students away from a public school can improve it by making it a more manageable scale but I'd imagine that the numbers would have to be just right. It seems like a system that will lead to few winners and a heck of a lot of losers.

I think market competition necessitates that there is the potential for failure. For public schools and mandated education, this isn't really an option.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Dysole, I don't really know a whole lot about the rules for how students can get loans or what schools are eligible. I know a bit (well probably more than most still), but specifically the interaction between religion and loans? Really no clue. Best I can tell you is that federal student aid gets approved for almost any educational institution and it really is only in the last few years that the department of education has been doing anything to shut down federal aid to the for profit schools that are abusing it. (Corinthian, ITT Tech, etc.)

Else I have seen students with loans for all sorts of heavily religious schools, including seminaries even I believe. I agree with Dad Scaper that it's a much different situation though with adults (pretty sure you have to be 18 to get a federal student loan, although this is an interesting question to me now as I'm not sure) making choices about what college they want to go to and having true choice. Not to mention the government is just providing loans, so it's still really the students burden. The government just makes sure that the school actually exists to educate its students. I suppose in some cases the government is giving grants which is essentially free money to some of these students to spend on religious colleges, but once again the student has true choice about where to go to college.

Plus as I said, I'm not even exactly sure how I feel legally about whether the government should be funding say a private religious high school. I know that personally I don't like it, but I'm not sure how strong a legal case there would be against it.


At the heart of this discussion lies the idea that more choices and competition makes schools better also, but I'm not even sure that is something I believe. If I live in a community with two schools that are competing, then it stands to reason that one is probably truly better. It's not a stretch to imagine a scenario where one school is clearly better--it has better funding and attracts better educators and can spend more to get students better instructional materials. In this community presumably richer parents will be able to pay to get their kids into the better school. It would seem that almost inevitably the poorer parents who cannot transport their children as easily to the better school or pay their way to get into the better school, etc, etc will be left behind. I suppose if a voucher system was created where every school had to accept a student who had a voucher was enacted perhaps that would alleviate my concern, but I'm still not sure how that would work. How do you determine who gets to go to the better school?

I'm sure many of these issues already exist though. I know parents certainly decide where they want to live partially on the perceived strength of the local school district. I'm just not so sure I'm quick to rush to the idea that more schools and more choices equates to a better public education system. But I don't really know enough about this all, but I'm just genuinely curious if there is good evidence that would suggest competition and choices actually leads to better educational outcomes for all.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's really distressing, Hahma, and it turns out the Carrier deal was not (prepare to be stunned) precisely what the President Elect told us it was.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Just curious, where does everyone get their news from?

I read CNN and Fox News, watch the Nightly News with Lester Holt, and read the local paper and the Greenville News. Whenever I'm browsing the web and I see something interesting, I'll usually click on it. those one-off articles are from all sorts of places, but the others I mentioned by name are what I read daily.

Re: Decision 2016
 

My primary sources of news are NPR and Reuters, but if I see or hear something interesting, I'll dive in and read things from pretty much anywhere.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I frequent NPR, fivethirtyeight, occasionally watch the Daily Show, always watch Last Week Tonight (the last two are certainly comedy programs, but also inform me of some events and stories). If there is a topic I want to know more in a quick google search brings up plenty of articles. Oh, and I suppose I also sometimes just go into google news and see what articles look interesting, so that can pull stuff from almost anywhere.