• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

SC to vote on public funding for religious schools

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Zorba

Diamond Member
Oct 22, 1999
7,828
1,721
136
Fucking REALLY? You're equating this to Hobby Lobby ?


One side of this (this with Private schools) is GOVERNMENT Public tax-payer funding of a religious institution. That means paying for their indoctrinating stupid beliefs, and paying for religious crap. There is no reason for this.

On the other side (Hobby Lobby) is a corporation run by some religious people who simply do not want to pay CERTAIN benefits to anyone that works for them. They could simply not offer benefits at all and we wouldn't have had any problems and no complaints from incompetent fools.


I mean hell - just based on laws and legalities - one is based on freedom of speech, the other one is related to government funding. These literally have nothing to do with each other.
Except the law required them provide benefits, so they couldn't just not provide benefits. They had also offered birth control coverage right up until the black guy told them they had to, then all of a sudden they found their "religion." Hobby Lobby was a terrible decision and started the slippery slope to where we are today where the USSC might demand that state provide EQUAL funding to private cult schools as they provide to public schools. But of course, those schools will roll out the Hobby lobby defense as soon as any standards are imposed on them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
Fucking REALLY? You're equating this to Hobby Lobby ?

One side of this (this with Private schools) is GOVERNMENT Public tax-payer funding of a religious institution. That means paying for their indoctrinating stupid beliefs, and paying for religious crap. There is no reason for this. I would argue get rid of any tax benefits of any religion - but that's a different argument.

On the other side (Hobby Lobby) is a corporation run by some religious people who simply do not want to pay CERTAIN benefits to anyone that works for them. They could simply not offer benefits at all and we wouldn't have had any problems and no complaints from incompetent fools. And hell - that's in all honesty what everyone should be lobbying for - scrap this stupid employer healthcare bullshit (and force passing on the actual costs to the employee) and letting people choose for themselves what they mean.
No, scrapping health benefits would also violate the law.


Before calling other people incompetent fools you should make sure you at least understand the very basics of what you're talking about. Since you didn't, who is really the incompetent here?

I mean hell - just based on laws and legalities - one is based on freedom of speech, the other one is related to government funding. These literally have nothing to do with each other.
No, they are both strongly related. Hobby Lobby as a decision basically said religious people can opt out of any laws they don't like, meaning the standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to them. In this case religious schools can similarly opt out of laws they don't like and now in addition to that can demand that the government fund them WHILE also opting out of any controls they don't feel like following.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
25,091
9,965
136
No, scrapping health benefits would also violate the law.


Before calling other people incompetent fools you should make sure you at least understand the very basics of what you're talking about. Since you didn't, who is really the incompetent here?



No, they are both strongly related. Hobby Lobby as a decision basically said religious people can opt out of any laws they don't like, meaning the standards that apply to everyone else don't apply to them. In this case religious schools can similarly opt out of laws they don't like and now in addition to that can demand that the government fund them WHILE also opting out of any controls they don't feel like following.
Also opting out of the Constitution
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
What the heck happened to the separation of state and church?! Lol.

Will they be okay with the public money going to Islamic schools? How about Scientology schools? :D
Sure, if the parents want that for their children.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
Sure, if the parents want that for their children.
But why should the government be paying for organizations that exist in large part to promote a religion? Alternatively, if religious schools are going to get government money then the government should exert more significant control over them.

It sounds like this could lead to a situation similar to New York's yeshiva problem, which is a total disaster. Basically these schools take tons of taxpayer money and while they are supposed to give an education that is substantially similar to what you can get in a public school they refuse and then use their religious nature as a shield against accountability. So basically in the end New York taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to teach kids the Torah.

If people want to teach their kids their religion more power to them, but we shouldn't have to pay for it.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
But why should the government be paying for organizations that exist in large part to promote a religion? Alternatively, if religious schools are going to get government money then the government should exert more significant control over them.
To your question: My answer is that if the parents want that for their children, they should be allowed the same public support as parents who don't. Parents should be allowed to send children to the schools that best align with their values. Atheists, Muslims, and Christians alike. I think the government has generally gone too far towards anti-religion than strict neutrality on it, and also has overblown the risk of theocracy. This country has been comprised primarily of Christians since the founding without too much issue.

Let's not forget who founded universities in the first place.

Regarding government control over content - sure, I think that's fair to an extent. Even though I detest the common core curriculum, I don't disagree with the idea behind it: a common base of competence that the country's children are expected to master.

It sounds like this could lead to a situation similar to New York's yeshiva problem, which is a total disaster. Basically these schools take tons of taxpayer money and while they are supposed to give an education that is substantially similar to what you can get in a public school they refuse and then use their religious nature as a shield against accountability. So basically in the end New York taxpayers are spending millions of dollars to teach kids the Torah.
If those are the facts then I concede that's not right. However it's wholly alien to my own experience in private Catholic school from K-12. Except for one religion class and mass once a week, our curriculum was substantially similar to what my own children are presently learning in public school. Science, Math, English - I credit my writing ability largely to English classes I took at St. Dominic.

I think there's a balance between the two extremes that would make everyone happy. We ought not be subsidizing strictly religious instruction. On the other hand, we ought not be outrightly hostile towards any religious instruction at all.

If people want to teach their kids their religion more power to them, but we shouldn't have to pay for it.
I'll trade you: You give me this and I'll give you the Hyde amendment.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,121
977
126
If those are the facts then I concede that's not right. However it's wholly alien to my own experience in private Catholic school from K-12. Except for one religion class and mass once a week, our curriculum was substantially similar to what my own children are presently learning in public school. Science, Math, English - I credit my writing ability largely to English classes I took at St. Dominic.
On the curriculum, fine, but what about schools that discriminate about who they let in and/or kick out? Case in point the rainbow sweater thread.

I wouldn't want my taxpayer dollars to go to a school that discriminates based on sexual orientation, race, class, etc. Considering other rulings, and if this goes through, those schools are taking public money but also have the freedom to not let in whoever they want. That's not right.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,177
18,977
136
To your question: My answer is that if the parents want that for their children, they should be allowed the same public support as parents who don't. Parents should be allowed to send children to the schools that best align with their values. Atheists, Muslims, and Christians alike. I think the government has generally gone too far towards anti-religion than strict neutrality on it, and also has overblown the risk of theocracy. This country has been comprised primarily of Christians since the founding without too much issue.

Let's not forget who founded universities in the first place.
I simply don't agree that the government should pay money to promote religions. I don't think it's anti-religious to do that, I think that if religions don't want the government meddling in their affairs they should not take money from the government. I don't want the government meddling in peoples' religions either so why not just keep the two separate?

Regarding government control over content - sure, I think that's fair to an extent. Even though I detest the common core curriculum, I don't disagree with the idea behind it: a common base of competence that the country's children are expected to master.
Common core is not a curriculum, it is a set of standards that schools look to meet when developing their curriculum.

I've never gotten the hostility towards it - people seem to think it is responsible for certain types of teaching or whatever that they don't like but common core has nothing to do with that. All it says is what skills students should have mastered by what age, it doesn't say anything about how they learn them.

If those are the facts then I concede that's not right. However it's wholly alien to my own experience in private Catholic school from K-12. Except for one religion class and mass once a week, our curriculum was substantially similar to what my own children are presently learning in public school. Science, Math, English - I credit my writing ability largely to English classes I took at St. Dominic.

I think there's a balance between the two extremes that would make everyone happy. We ought not be subsidizing strictly religious instruction. On the other hand, we ought not be outrightly hostile towards any religious instruction at all.

I'll trade you: You give me this and I'll give you the Hyde amendment.
I'm not hostile towards religious instruction, I just don't think the government should subsidize it.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
15,281
3,497
136
It amazing how much the conservative Christians are bent on destroying one of the main doctrines of our republic on an apparently regular basis. It's all gone crazy because queers have rights now I guess. Lets throw another log on the religious war on America. Abortions, gays, dogs living with cats......
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,660
7,734
126
It amazing how much the conservative Christians are bent on destroying one of the main doctrines of our republic on an apparently regular basis. It's all gone crazy because queers have rights now I guess. Lets throw another log on the religious war on America. Abortions, gays, dogs living with cats......
Abomination!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: jman19

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
60,256
12,771
136
It amazing how much the conservative Christians are bent on destroying one of the main doctrines of our republic on an apparently regular basis. It's all gone crazy because queers have rights now I guess. Lets throw another log on the religious war on America. Abortions, gays, dogs living with cats......
They forget that the doctrine of separation wasn't based on atheism; it was based on Christians, just like themselves, using government to beat the snot out of each other over trivial differences of theological opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sandorski

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
I simply don't agree that the government should pay money to promote religions. I don't think it's anti-religious to do that, I think that if religions don't want the government meddling in their affairs they should not take money from the government. I don't want the government meddling in peoples' religions either so why not just keep the two separate?

Common core is not a curriculum, it is a set of standards that schools look to meet when developing their curriculum.

I've never gotten the hostility towards it - people seem to think it is responsible for certain types of teaching or whatever that they don't like but common core has nothing to do with that. All it says is what skills students should have mastered by what age, it doesn't say anything about how they learn them.

I'm not hostile towards religious instruction, I just don't think the government should subsidize it.
To me it's not that the government is straighforwardly subsidizing religion. It's subsidizing education. Some educational institutions (some of the best of them) have a religious orientation. I don't deny that the government should keep an eye on it to ensure that the interests of religion and education are appropriately balanced, such as your Yeshiva example shows.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,017
571
126
They forget that the doctrine of separation wasn't based on atheism; it was based on Christians, just like themselves, using government to beat the snot out of each other over trivial differences of theological opinion.
What do you suppose the origin of the Blaine amendments were?
 

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,210
456
126
So if the SCOTUS forces states to fund religious schools, won't that bring those private religious schools under the same standards as state public schools? Thus won't those religious schools now have to teach mandated science such as evolution, sex education involving LGBT, and be subject to punishment for discrimination against LGBT? I hope the more liberal states do this to make the alt right theocratic fascists regret their choices.
Sounds good to me, how about liberal new york city and state lead the way, that way they can show they truly believe in separation of all religion from state not just some religions and we will see if de blasio's and Cuomo's political spines are stronger than their campaign funding,

but for all the complaining many phony liberals like in new york would be more than happy to let the supreme court rule in favor of funding religious schools so they can point the finger at republicans while their favorite religious schools continue to get funding.




NYC yeshivas collect more than $100M a year in public funds

New York City yeshivas collect more than $100 million a year in taxpayer funds — a lot to lose if the religious schools are found to deny students basic instruction in English, math and science.

State Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia released new guidelines in November that give her the power to yank funding from yeshivas and other private institutions that fail to provide a “substantially equivalent” education to public schools.

Much is at stake. The city Department of Education gave Jewish day schools $97 million for teachers, books and afternoon busing last fiscal year, the DOE told The Post. But that’s only a partial accounting of the largesse, officials acknowledged.

The yeshivas — like other non-public schools — get millions more for pre-K programs, special-ed, food, child-care, security, technology and record-keeping on immunizations, attendance and state exams.

“If you add all the state and federal funding, it would be at least twice as much,” said Naftuli Moster, the founder of YAFFED, a group seeking enforcement of state standards. It spurred a probe, which has dragged on for 3 ¹/₂ years, of 39 yeshivas accused of skimping on secular education.

The DOE has yet to comply with The Post’s Freedom of Information Law request for funding data on the 39 schools — a request filed 22 months ago.

Four Brooklyn yeshivas, all high schools, have refused to let DOE inspectors inside to review their curricula, Chancellor Richard Carranza has told the state.



“For those yeshivas that refuse inspection, their funding should be shut out of any DOE contract,” said Patrick Sullivan, a former member of the city’s Panel for Educational Policy, which approves school contracts.




State budget allows yeshivas to skip teaching secular skills: critics




Avi Greenstein, leader of a group formed to defend the yeshivas, has said the schools want clarification on the state guidelines. Greenstein did not return messages last week.

Of $84 million in federal aid for academic instruction in non-public schools with low-income kids last year, the DOE funneled $36 million to 103 yeshivas, said DOE spokesman Will Mantell.

The DOE also distributed $7 million in state funds to 201 Jewish schools for books, and $54 million in state and city cash to 133 yeshivas for busing after 4 p.m., Mantell said. He did not give a figure for busing earlier in the day or list all funding for other services.

Some ultra-Orthodox parents have transferred their kids to more progressive yeshivas to give them a better secular education, or they pay for extra tutoring.

“I don’t care about the taxpayers,” one mom told The Post. “I care about having to pay $300 for a math class my 12-year-old son has to take at 6 to 7 p.m. after a long day of Jewish studies.”

Meanwhile, some yeshivas have been accused of ripping off taxpayer funds or have come under FBI investigation. Last March, two former staffers of the Williamsburg-based Central United Talmudical Academy pleaded guilty in Brooklyn federal court to stealing $3.2 million that the state Health Department paid to feed needy kids.

Overall, the city spends at least $255 million a year for non-public schools, including $151 million for transportation, according to Doug Turetsky, a spokesman for the Independent Budget Office.
 
Last edited:

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,761
3,749
126
To me it's not that the government is straighforwardly subsidizing religion. It's subsidizing education. Some educational institutions (some of the best of them) have a religious orientation. I don't deny that the government should keep an eye on it to ensure that the interests of religion and education are appropriately balanced, such as your Yeshiva example shows.
Why do you need a certain religion pushed in school? Thats an "In the privacy of your own home" thing.

I'm OK with lessons about theology in school, but religious people hate those lessons when all religions are given the same level of importance.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
50,259
2,925
126
To your question: My answer is that if the parents want that for their children, they should be allowed the same public support as parents who don't. Parents should be allowed to send children to the schools that best align with their values. Atheists, Muslims, and Christians alike. I think the government has generally gone too far towards anti-religion than strict neutrality on it, and also has overblown the risk of theocracy. This country has been comprised primarily of Christians since the founding without too much issue.
I can guess how a Christian might think the government has gone towards anti-religion, but as a non-Christian, I think there's still quite a bit of progress to be made.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,761
3,749
126
I can guess how a Christian might think the government has gone towards anti-religion, but as a non-Christian, I think there's still quite a bit of progress to be made.
Yeah. America from the outside is scary religious!
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
47,660
7,734
126
Why do you need a certain religion pushed in school? Thats an "In the privacy of your own home" thing.

I'm OK with lessons about theology in school, but religious people hate those lessons when all religions are given the same level of importance.
Because they want their religion (and only their religion) pushed on children even (especially) if the children's parents don't.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
26,761
3,749
126
Because they want their religion (and only their religion) pushed on children even (especially) if the children's parents don't.
See, what happens if the only school in your area is run by religious idiots? If they are getting funded by the state there probably isn't going to be an alternative. This is where that illusion of choice falls down.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY