• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

SC to vote on public funding for religious schools

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
JEDIYoda said:
It would matter because if there are no such schools then what he claimed has no bearingb on the subject....
In fact it could be considered a strawman argument...notice i said could be...
Click to expand...

Just because there aren't schools like that now doesn't means there won't be after religion starts to infiltrate government even more than it has now.

And little foresight goes a long way.
 
JEDIYoda said:
I think this the first time I agree with you on anything!!
ch33sy is one of those to jump and holler and cry and stammer what about the separation of church and state?
In this case this will eventually be decided by the courts and if the courts decide to allow this then...well I am soory -- thta the way the cookie crumbles!!
Click to expand...

Sure am. If you think I'm going to be ashamed because I fully support our founders setting up the government to try and prevent theocracy, you're wrong.

Theocracies have shown us for centuries how they operate.

The irony here is that your posts are often unintelligible, hollering and stammering, lol.

@pmv - This is a great example of how religion can make people of opposite ideologies put aside they're differences for a common purpose. Here you have a poster that's as anti trump as it gets, going all in in a SCOTUS case that goes against a long standing precedent, even when the SCOTUS was hi jacked by the GOP said poster claims to despise. Just consider how easy it is for people of similar ideologies to join together.

The GOP in the US is majority Evangelicals, which are essentially zealots that want to impose their ideology and morality on others via legislation. And here you have a member of the forum jumping on board in spite of his professed political preference
 
Last edited:
Starbuck1975 said:
Churches fall under tax code Section 501(c)(3). They are classified as charitable organizations.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that the concept of 'charitable' gets abused so frequently that it may do more harm than good. Maybe the concept needs to be dropped?

Isn't the Falwells' (highly political and very profitable) university classed as 'charitable'?

I'm not of the Dawkins/Hitchens school of full-on anti-theism. Religion exists for a reason, it meets a human need, and it's never going away entirely, though it can take more-or-less damaging forms. But I don't like religion getting special state privileges - one thing I think the US does better than the UK is that whole 'separation of church and state' thing. Britain doesn't do that at all, quite the reverse, the state is immersed in religion and vice-versa.

This story seems to suggest a shift in the US attitude that I find surprising.

Yet the paradox seems to be that the British state almost neuters belief, by holding it so close. While in the US, having the state so separate from religion goes hand-in-hand with religion being very politically-aggressive. Half-inclined to wonder if you are going to start down this route, you should just go the whole 9 yards and nationalise the churches. (I _think_ I'm joking....but I do wonder if having the state support religion might have downsides that the religious haven't anticipated).
 
UNCjigga said:
LOL, from that photo collage—one I haven’t seen before.

Since when does SUCKS need an apostrophe?
c78f8b22cbd004d871811d34cdadcc68.jpg
Click to expand...

Well apparently sleeves and literacy also suck's

I'm sure all the Christian Madrassas will fix that education gap. Bc Jebus.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Just because there aren't schools like that now doesn't means there won't be after religion starts to infiltrate government even more than it has now.

And little foresight goes a long way.
Click to expand...
ohh another talking point with based on NO facts! All it is based on is a hatred of religious schools....hmmm
 
JEDIYoda said:
ohh another talking point with based on NO facts! All it is based on is a hatred of religious schools....hmmm
Click to expand...

Not even close. If religious people were even concerned with facts, they wouldn't be religious, so spare us the tangible reality whining.

Our country was founded with the principle that religion should not have an influence in the government, and that's for a reason. Now, we can debate how much influence religious culture already has in our society, because it's obvious it does, but what's not up for debate is whether or not our government should be funneling funds to religious organizations. It shouldn't be. Deal with it.
 
Starbuck1975 said:
The chain of events that let the elimination of subsidies was motivated by religion. Just because the government said, “fvck it this is too hard we’ll just get rid of all the subsidies” doesn’t change the discriminatory origin.
Click to expand...

Oh ok, kinda like “fuck it we’ll just eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood”?
 
Seems to me that the solution here is for States to yank all public funding to all private schools, religious or otherwise. Then however SCOTUS decides here would be irrelevant.
 
ch33zw1z said:
Not even close. If religious people were even concerned with facts, they wouldn't be religious, so spare us the tangible reality whining.

Our country was founded with the principle that religion should not have an influence in the government, and that's for a reason. Now, we can debate how much influence religious culture already has in our society, because it's obvious it does, but what's not up for debate is whether or not our government should be funneling funds to religious organizations. It shouldn't be. Deal with it.
Click to expand...
Deal with what? The fact that our government is funneling funds to Islamic schools? To Schools that teach children Scientology? To schools that teach veganism? You do see how rediculous your statement was??
Why use a bogus, idiotic example......why not just cut to the heart of the matter and post what you just posted?
YES, it is now in the Supreme courts hands qand I have a feeling they will uphold the seperation of church and state!
 
JEDIYoda said:
Deal with what? The fact that our government is funneling funds to Islamic schools? To Schools that teach children Scientology? To schools that teach veganism? You do see how rediculous your statement was??
Why use a bogus, idiotic example......why not just cut to the heart of the matter and post what you just posted?
YES, it is now in the Supreme courts hands qand I have a feeling they will uphold the seperation of church and state!
Click to expand...

I have to assume you are OK with the government also giving money to Islamic schools, Scientology schools, Veganism (haha, whatever) schools instead of funding public schools? I mean, that's what you're supporting here, right? Unless, of course, you only want Christians of any genre to receive the benefits? In that case, have you reviewed world history at all?

I won't support our government funneling money to ANY religious schools, at all. Not only that, but private schools in general. Yes, I include tax credits in that.

You can't see a ruling from the SCOTUS for the plaintiff, and support separation of church and state. Those are opposite things.
 
Last edited:
You have to shake your head and laugh at the level of indoctrination it takes for a group to say "Hell no we won't let our tax dollars go to healthcare for other Americans!" and then follow it with "American taxpayers must subsidize the religion and indoctrination efforts of their neighbors, because feelings"

This is what religion does to your brain. You end up thinking like a hypocritical asshole like Alito, where people's actual lives take a distant second place to sky fairy mythology and brainwashing children with it.

Repugs are a disease on this country, and they keep proving it.
 
Last edited:
pmv said:
Seems to me that the concept of 'charitable' gets abused so frequently that it may do more harm than good. Maybe the concept needs to be dropped?

Isn't the Falwells' (highly political and very profitable) university classed as 'charitable'?
Click to expand...
Basically any religious organization in the US is considered ‘charitable’. This is one reason why it’s frequently said that conservatives are more charitable than liberals - donations for church operations and evangelism are considered charity which is...dubious.

I'm not of the Dawkins/Hitchens school of full-on anti-theism. Religion exists for a reason, it meets a human need, and it's never going away entirely, though it can take more-or-less damaging forms. But I don't like religion getting special state privileges - one thing I think the US does better than the UK is that whole 'separation of church and state' thing. Britain doesn't do that at all, quite the reverse, the state is immersed in religion and vice-versa.

This story seems to suggest a shift in the US attitude that I find surprising.

Yet the paradox seems to be that the British state almost neuters belief, by holding it so close. While in the US, having the state so separate from religion goes hand-in-hand with religion being very politically-aggressive. Half-inclined to wonder if you are going to start down this route, you should just go the whole 9 yards and nationalise the churches. (I _think_ I'm joking....but I do wonder if having the state support religion might have downsides that the religious haven't anticipated).
Click to expand...

It’s interesting to see that as fewer and fewer Americans go to church the religious right has become more powerful by aligning closely with one political party.

As it stands now the state is effectively barred from regulating almost any aspects of what churches do. They are also barred from levying basically any taxes on them. At the same time though SCOTUS appears close to mandating that they be given public money as well.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
But then how else can white middle class America bring back segregation?
Click to expand...
Yep. Prayer in school and the other religious bullshit wasn't a thing (except for the Catholics and they weren't asking for public money) until the public schools were integrated. The Catholics put their money behind their convictions.
 
IronWing said:
Yep. Prayer in school and the other religious bullshit wasn't a thing (except for the Catholics and they weren't asking for public money) until the public schools were integrated. The Catholics put their money behind their convictions.
Click to expand...
Poor working class Catholics fled cultural and economic segregation to build communities for themselves in America, faced persecution and discrimination from those already here and slowly built communities and political power, all anchored to the church. Can’t imagine why they would fight to protect it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top