100 Million for Religious Schools

[JoeyKnothead]

Caviar - the article doesn't say exactly how much of this 100 M goes to purely religious schools, but judging by the uproar, it may be quite high.

From the article here.

In a 225 to 195 vote, the House approved H.R. 471, the Scholarships for Opportunity and Results Act. This legislation reauthorizes and expands the Washington, D.C. Federal private school voucher pilot program, under which millions of Federal taxpayer dollars — $100M per year over the next five years — are funneled into a voucher system which favors private religious schools over public and charter schools.

...religious schools, which, under this program, are allowed to discriminate in hiring and enrollment on the basis of religion.

...many schools that accepted voucher students did not meet accreditation and other quality education standards, and student achievement did not show statistically significant improvement.

For debate:

Is this a violation of church / state separation?

Could this money be better spent in improving the schools this program is designed to replace?

In a time when so many politicians, including the Speaker of the House, declare we must tighten the budget, is this a wise expenditure?

Is this just pandering to religious voters?

[East of Eden]

Yawn.

No different that the GI Bill, which could be used for theological training, or Medicare, much of which goes to religious health-care providers. There is no government establishment of religion here.

Considering how much better faith-based schools do in educating kids over the government monopoly/teacher's unions complex, I'm glad to see this.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

Yawn.

I don't doubt that questioning religious favoratism may result in a yawn from its benificiaries.

No different that the GI Bill, which could be used for theological training...

As I understand it, having lived through it, the GI Bill is awarded to those individuals who've served this country. It is not predicated on what the individual seeks to study, but that the individual has earned a certain right, given their sacrifice to this nation, to continue their studies.

This is not about folks who've served to protect us from our enemies. This is about those folks who've received benefits specifically because they attend religious schools.

...or Medicare, much of which goes to religious health-care providers.

I'd be interested to see data in this regard.

There is no government establishment of religion here.

The article doesn't say they're "establishing" religion, it says they're spending tax dollars in the promulgation of religious belief.

It is a rather well understood principle of the separation of church and state that taxes should not be used in support of the advancement of churches / religious belief. Granted - those who seek to promote such don't see a conflict.

Considering how much better faith-based schools do in educating kids over the government monopoly/teacher's unions complex, I'm glad to see this.

Please present supporting data in this regard.

1st challenge.

[East of Eden]

I don't doubt that questioning religious favoratism may result in a yawn from its benificiaries.

Neither myself or my kids would be a beneficiary of this policy, and my church doesn't run a school.

As I understand it, having lived through it, the GI Bill is awarded to those individuals who've served this country. It is not predicated on what the individual seeks to study, but that the individual has earned a certain right, given their sacrifice to this nation, to continue their studies.

This is not about folks who've served to protect us from our enemies. This is about those folks who've received benefits specifically because they attend religious schools.

But the GI Bill recipients received the same benefits as the kids do. Both groups are covered by the same Constitution.

I'd be interested to see data in this regard.

One sixth of health-are providers in the US are run by the Catholic Church, so there's a lot of Medicare money going to religious facilities right there. Many other Christian denominations run hospitals and clinics also.

The article doesn't say they're "establishing" religion, it says they're spending tax dollars in the promulgation of religious belief.

It is a rather well understood principle of the separation of church and state that taxes should not be used in support of the advancement of churches / religious belief. Granted - those who seek to promote such don't see a conflict.

When courts have discussed this issue in the past, the question has been what is the main purpose of the funding, and here it is education, a public concern.

BTW, Thomas Jefferson while president authorized the spending of federal money to fund Christian missionaries to the Indians in the Northwest Territories, so I doubt the Founders would be upset by this current issue.

Please present supporting data in this regard.

1st challenge.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Note public school SAT scores average 496 at a per pupil cost of $10,614, while Catholic schools (open to students of all faiths) average 533 at a cost of $8,182, and they do it in a violence-free environment. Who could be opposed to that?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 4:

Neither myself or my kids would be a beneficiary of this policy, and my church doesn't run a school.

Point taken. I will rephrase it to "I don't doubt that folks who are religious would consider this OP a 'yawner'".

But the GI Bill recipients received the same benefits as the kids do. Both groups are covered by the same Constitution.

But different laws under that Constitution.

Veterans are offered funds to attend schools as part of their pay package, for sacrificing so we all are just a bit more safe. Thus, they have contracted to receive funds for an education of their choosing, an education which is optional.

Children are "forced" to attend school (granted here there's choice). They are expected to receive a certain core education, and that is what the tax is for. That this tax would now include religious training is a violation of the principle of separation.

One sixth of health-are providers in the US are run by the Catholic Church, so there's a lot of Medicare money going to religious facilities right there. Many other Christian denominations run hospitals and clinics also.

These schools are actively teaching a religious message, as opposed to hospitals that don't typically ask folks to pray to god before entering the emergency room.

When courts have discussed this issue in the past, the question has been what is the main purpose of the funding, and here it is education, a public concern.

I don't doubt a court with a majority of religious members may justify spending on religious matters.

BTW, Thomas Jefferson...

Best I can tell, Thomas Jefferson's been dead for well over a decade. When we bind ourselves to the thoughts of ancients, we become ancients. Yours is an argument from tradition.

Considering how much better faith-based schools do in educating kids over the government monopoly/teacher's unions complex, I'm glad to see this.

Please present supporting data in this regard.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Fox News / Newscorp? I'll pass on their admittedly biased position. (Evidence)

Note public school SAT scores average 496 at a per pupil cost of $10,614, while Catholic schools (open to students of all faiths) average 533 at a cost of $8,182, and they do it in a violence-free environment. Who could be opposed to that?

Argument from consequences, with not a single reference to where these numbers come from. But I'll grant that Mr. Carlson accurately points out that the various factors involved in education can't allow us to reliably relate funds to education - either way.

There is no mention of class sizes in this video, which most professionals consider a very important part of a sound education. This then relates to spending tax dollars on religious schools that my have lower class sizes, where we could spend that money in our public schools to include more teachers, and thus reduce class sizes.

There is no mention of how large a population this study has examined. No mention of peer review or other supporting data - except the uncited study. No mention of whether poor districts were a disproportionately high number for a given "side" - where it is known that poorer districts tend to do worse - given all the factors involved, not just funding. There is no mention of special needs to advanced ratios within these student populations.

I'd really like to know where Fox, and now you, are getting this data.

[East of Eden]

Point taken. I will rephrase it to "I don't doubt that folks who are religious would consider this OP a 'yawner'".

Thank you. Can I also say, "Folks that are not religious would consider this a big deal"?

But different laws under that Constitution.

Veterans are offered funds to attend schools as part of their pay package, for sacrificing so we all are just a bit more safe. Thus, they have contracted to receive funds for an education of their choosing, an education which is optional.

Children are "forced" to attend school (granted here there's choice). They are expected to receive a certain core education, and that is what the tax is for. That this tax would now include religious training is a violation of the principle of separation.

In your opinion. If this would be unconstitutional, so would the GI Bill, the spin notwithstanding.

These schools are actively teaching a religious message, as opposed to hospitals that don't typically ask folks to pray to god before entering the emergency room.

So what? It doesn't constitute the federal government establishing a state religion. The schools could be Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. I thought diversity was good?

I don't doubt a court with a majority of religious members may justify spending on religious matters.

News flash: A nation with a majority of religious citizens is going to have a Supreme Court with a majority of religious members. Is that unconstitutional too?

Best I can tell, Thomas Jefferson's been dead for well over a decade. When we bind ourselves to the thoughts of ancients, we become ancients. Yours is an argument from tradition.

So you propose to ditch our system of government, for what? Mine is an argument for the rule of law, as opposed to chaos, or a nine-judge dictatorship. Since you don't think the Constitution should be binding, would it be OK if judges or politicians decided we really should have a state church after all?

Fox News / Newscorp? I'll pass on their admittedly biased position. (Evidence)

Talk about bias, your 'evidence' is a group run by this cast of liberals, who have worked for Howard Dean and written for Mother Jones, The New Republic, The Village Voice, The Nation, and The Advocate:

http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

Argument from consequences, with not a single reference to where these numbers come from. But I'll grant that Mr. Carlson accurately points out that the various factors involved in education can't allow us to reliably relate funds to education - either way.

There is no mention of class sizes in this video, which most professionals consider a very important part of a sound education. This then relates to spending tax dollars on religious schools that my have lower class sizes, where we could spend that money in our public schools to include more teachers, and thus reduce class sizes.

Yet another good thing about homeschooling, small class size.

There is no mention of how large a population this study has examined. No mention of peer review or other supporting data - except the uncited study. No mention of whether poor districts were a disproportionately high number for a given "side" - where it is known that poorer districts tend to do worse - given all the factors involved, not just funding. There is no mention of special needs to advanced ratios within these student populations.

I'd really like to know where Fox, and now you, are getting this data.

Oh, I'm sure they just make it up. I would find some peer review studies, but from past experience I don't think it would do any good.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

Thank you. Can I also say, "Folks that are not religious would consider this a big deal"?

EoE ducks the punch and lands a kidney shot

Veterans are offered funds to attend schools as part of their pay package, for sacrificing so we all are just a bit more safe. Thus, they have contracted to receive funds for an education of their choosing, an education which is optional.

Children are "forced" to attend school (granted here there's choice). They are expected to receive a certain core education, and that is what the tax is for. That this tax would now include religious training is a violation of the principle of separation.

In your opinion. If this would be unconstitutional, so would the GI Bill, the spin notwithstanding.

I see no spin.

Do you deny that GIs have a contract? Do you deny that children are forced to attend school?

These schools are actively teaching a religious message, as opposed to hospitals that don't typically ask folks to pray to god before entering the emergency room.

So what? It doesn't constitute the federal government establishing a state religion...

I'm not saying it's establishing a religion. I'm saying it's using tax dollars to support religious proselytizing.

The schools could be Baptist, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, or atheist. I thought diversity was good?

Diversion.

I'm trying to stick strictly with the constitutionality of using tax dollars to support religious proselytizing.

I don't doubt a court with a majority of religious members may justify spending on religious matters.

News flash: A nation with a majority of religious citizens is going to have a Supreme Court with a majority of religious members. Is that unconstitutional too?

Not necessarily. What is unconstitutional is using taxes to support religious proselytizing.

So you propose to ditch our system of government, for what?...

For the one we have. The one that says the government needs to stay out of the religious proselytizing business.

Mine is an argument for the rule of law, as opposed to chaos, or a nine-judge dictatorship. Since you don't think the Constitution should be binding, would it be OK if judges or politicians decided we really should have a state church after all?

Obviously not.

What I'm against is the use of taxes to promulgate a belief system that can't be shown to be accurate, truthful, etc.

Fox News / Newscorp? I'll pass on their admittedly biased position. (Evidence)

Talk about bias, your 'evidence' is a group run by this cast of liberals, who have worked for Howard Dean and written for Mother Jones, The New Republic, The Village Voice, The Nation, and The Advocate:

http://blogs.alternet.org/staff/

Again, you present claims while offering no means of confirming such.

Yet another good thing about homeschooling, small class size.

Another diversion.

Nowhere have I advocated against such.

The point was made though - Fox News, and now your claim have no supporting data. Your link says nothing about how this data was obtained, or by whom.

It's your assertion. If you don't feel like actually trying to support it, that's your deal.

Oh, I'm sure they just make it up. d'oh! I would find some peer review studies, but from past experience I don't think it would do any good.

Nice slam against folks' character. I propose if you really wish to engage in incivility, you may do well to insult our mothers.

It is my contention that it is quite difficult to consider data one has yet to present.

Where's this study these folks got these numbers from?

Who's behind this study?

How old is this study?

What range of dates is involved in this study?

Was this study even done in the US?

How many people does this study present?

What schools were used in comparisons regarding this study?

Was this study performed by folks qualified to do such a study?

It's your claim, not mine.

If you wish to continue disregarding attempts to get you to present a study you cite, that's on you.

Why are you, or Fox News in the referenced clip, so adamant about not presenting this study for examination?

Do some folks just not care about their own credibility?

[East of Eden]

Do you deny that GIs have a contract? Do you deny that children are forced to attend school?

And many who used the GI Bill to go to seminary were forced to enter the military back in the draft days. Nobody said that was unconstitutional.

I'm not saying it's establishing a religion. I'm saying it's using tax dollars to support religious proselytizing.

As the courts have said, that isn't the main focus of the schools.

What I'm against is the use of taxes to promulgate a belief system that can't be shown to be accurate, truthful, etc.

As has been said before, the taxes are mainly used to educate children. What someone else chooses to believe is none of your business.

Side issue here, but I find it hypocritical for others on the left to object to this program because they may be forced to pay for beliefs they disagree with, while supporting forced unionization, whereby union members are forced to pay for politicians and positions they disagree with.

Nice slam against folks' character. I propose if you really wish to engage in incivility, you may do well to insult our mothers.

Sorry, just my way of saying people on both sides tend to have hardened attitudes.

It is my contention that it is quite difficult to consider data one has yet to present.

Where's this study these folks got these numbers from?

Who's behind this study?

How old is this study?

What range of dates is involved in this study?

Was this study even done in the US?

How many people does this study present?

What schools were used in comparisons regarding this study?

Was this study performed by folks qualified to do such a study?

It's your claim, not mine.

If you wish to continue disregarding attempts to get you to present a study you cite, that's on you.

Why are you, or Fox News in the referenced clip, so adamant about not presenting this study for examination?

Do some folks just not care about their own credibility?

That is a legitimate request, unlike asking for 'proof' of my metaphysical opinions. Here is a study you can chew on:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf

Note table 11, and figures 9, 10, and 13.

There's a reason 40% of Chicago Public School teachers send their kids to private schools, and many others struggle to pay private tuition on top of their taxes that support public schools.

[flitzerbiest]

Please present supporting data in this regard.

1st challenge.

Ask and ye shall receive.

Note public school SAT scores average 496 at a per pupil cost of $10,614, while Catholic schools (open to students of all faiths) average 533 at a cost of $8,182, and they do it in a violence-free environment. Who could be opposed to that?

East,

I don't dispute the fact that students in private religious schools perform better on educational metrics than students in public schools. Of course it is just as true that students in private secular schools perform better than students in public schools. In other words, the apparent benefit derives from the private part, not the religious part.

One can easily imagine why this might be the case. Parents willing to fork out $10,000 per year for a product that they can already receive for free are likely to demand return on their investment and maintain a high level of engagement in their child's education.

By the way, a couple more quibbles with your post:

1. Don't assume that religious schools are "violence free". I work at the Catholic hospital across the street from the Catholic K-8 (which my son attends--surprised?). I get to sew up and otherwise mend the wounds from that conflict free environment.

2. Those parents who opt for religious schools tend to do so less to protect their children from violence than to protect them from teen pregnancy. It doesn't work, unfortunately. Abstinence-only education is associated with higher rates of teen pregnancy.

3. I predict that your enthusiasm for government support of religious schools stops at the boundaries of your theology. Would you yawn with the same degree of disinterest about Islamic schools teaching Sharia in the US with public funding? If you fund the Christian schools, you have to fund schools of other religions as well, or the establishment clause will be judged to be violated. There is ample precedent for this sort of judicial reasoning.

FB

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 8:

And many who used the GI Bill to go to seminary were forced to enter the military back in the draft days. Nobody said that was unconstitutional.

But they are not typically forced to attend seminary, unless I guess if they went into the preaching corps.

I'm not saying it's establishing a religion. I'm saying it's using tax dollars to support religious proselytizing.

As the courts have said, that isn't the main focus of the schools.

Main focus or not, religious instruction is occurring, typically with religious texts that can't be shown to be true and factual.

As has been said before, the taxes are mainly used to educate children. What someone else chooses to believe is none of your business.

The point being that these religious schools make their beliefs "everybody's business".

>snip side issues<

That is a legitimate request, unlike asking for 'proof' of my metaphysical opinions.

I propose if one wouldn't state their metaphysical opinions as fact, in a debate, there'd be no need to challenge such.

Here is a study you can chew on:

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002013.pdf

Note table 11, and figures 9, 10, and 13.

I'll note the conclusions:

...Private schools overall have fewer students than public schools, and minoruties are a lower percentage of the student population. Catholic schools tend to be larger and have greater diversity in enrollment than other types of private schools. Teachers in private schools report that they have wide latitude in deciding how and what to teach, as well as a fairly strong influence on many school policies. Nonsectarian schools, in particular, may give teachers greater influence in shaping their school’s activities. In contrast, though the majority of teachers in each private school type agreed with positive statements about staff cooperation and the school’s management, teachers at other religious schools were more likely than other private school teachers to agree strongly with many of these statements. Teachers at other religious schools were particularly likely to give their administrators high marks, and to report that their colleagues shared similar beliefs about their school’s central mission and that rules were enforced consistently. Principals at the three types of private schools had different top priorities for their schools, but at least 60 percent in each school type included academic excellence...

^my emboldening

It's rather well understood that minorities are typically poorer, typically less able to perform well in tests. I contend this is compelling evidence that private schools, by having fewer minorities / poor, are at an advantage when comparing results.

I also contend these result reflect more on the matter of methodology. By all means, let's adopt smaller class sizes and some of the other methods used by private schools.

What we shouldn't be doing is defunding public education in order to fund religious proselytizing.

Now, back to the original "study" East of Eden and Fox News presented...

I'm still waiting on that'n.