Public Funds for Islamic Education
-
Here's an even more telling analysis. First amendment violation.
"When state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools". Says nothing about federal funds.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Well, the Supreme Court now says it's OK to use public funds to subsidize religious education. Now it's only a matter of time before your tax money is used to pay for someone else's Islamic education or Wiccan education or Satanic education or whatever.
No it didn't.
The supreme court said you can't exclude a school from getting public funds simply because it is a religious school. It didn't say a damned thing about subsidizing religion. Moron.
@Larry said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Well, the Supreme Court now says it's OK to use public funds to subsidize religious education. Now it's only a matter of time before your tax money is used to pay for someone else's Islamic education or Wiccan education or Satanic education or whatever.
No it didn't.
The supreme court said you can't exclude a school from getting public funds simply because it is a religious school. It didn't say a damned thing about subsidizing religion.
No, the Supreme Court says you cannot exclude public funds from schools that offers religious instructions. I didn’t say “subsidizing religion,” I wrote “subsidizing religious education.” Yes, it does mean that public funds can be used to subsidize religious education. That’s what the lawsuit is about: whether to allow the use of public funds to pay for religious education.
-
@Larry said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Well, the Supreme Court now says it's OK to use public funds to subsidize religious education. Now it's only a matter of time before your tax money is used to pay for someone else's Islamic education or Wiccan education or Satanic education or whatever.
No it didn't.
The supreme court said you can't exclude a school from getting public funds simply because it is a religious school. It didn't say a damned thing about subsidizing religion.
No, the Supreme Court says you cannot exclude public funds from schools that offers religious instructions. I didn’t say “subsidizing religion,” I wrote “subsidizing religious education.” Yes, it does mean that public funds can be used to subsidize religious education. That’s what the lawsuit is about: whether to allow the use of public funds to pay for religious education.
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Larry said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Axtremus said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Well, the Supreme Court now says it's OK to use public funds to subsidize religious education. Now it's only a matter of time before your tax money is used to pay for someone else's Islamic education or Wiccan education or Satanic education or whatever.
No it didn't.
The supreme court said you can't exclude a school from getting public funds simply because it is a religious school. It didn't say a damned thing about subsidizing religion.
No, the Supreme Court says you cannot exclude public funds from schools that offers religious instructions. I didn’t say “subsidizing religion,” I wrote “subsidizing religious education.” Yes, it does mean that public funds can be used to subsidize religious education. That’s what the lawsuit is about: whether to allow the use of public funds to pay for religious education.
Everything that goes into your little pea brain comes out so twisted it just boggles the mind. Fuck off.
-
Here's an even more telling analysis. First amendment violation.
"When state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools". Says nothing about federal funds.
@Mik said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Here's an even more telling analysis. First amendment violation.
"When state and local governments choose to subsidize private schools, they must allow families to use taxpayer funds to pay for religious schools". Says nothing about federal funds.
Yeah, it says nothing about federal funds. Neither have I in my opening post.
Also, do not overlook the “states rights” and “local control of education” aspects of thus ruling.
Maine, as a state, have set a rule that says that Maine wants to exclude Maine’s tax payer money from getting used to pay for religious education. Now you have the federal Supreme Court saying Maine cannot have this rule about how Maine’s public fund can or cannot be used for education.
Don’t know if any of you still hold that the state or local government, not the federal government, should get to decide how they want to do education. If you still so hold, tell me how you feel about the federal government now telling a state it can or cannot use its tax payer money to do education this way or that way.
-
Fossil records have indicated that the Ax species sometimes interacts with its environment, rather than just dropping turds, but this behavior is rarely captured in the wild. Please don't make sudden movements or loud noises that might startle the Ax, as we observe and document this behavior for science.
-
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
-
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
Education is extremely important.
-
I wonder whether the Supreme Court would have ruled differently if the intent of the law in question, was to exclude Islam schools. Presumably the law was intended, in practice, to exclude Christian schools. Was this decision based on constitutional principles (which don't name Christianity), or was it a tribal decision mean to defend Christianity? The dissenters apparently believe the latter.
-
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
@Horace said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
It’s not that simple because they get dependent on it and their student body does too. Plus the conditions come slowly over time, no single one of which will seem worth the turmoil of losing so much money and so many existing students. Boiling the frog slowly.
-
@Horace said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
It’s not that simple because they get dependent on it and their student body does too. Plus the conditions come slowly over time, no single one of which will seem worth the turmoil of losing so much money and so many existing students. Boiling the frog slowly.
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Horace said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
It’s not that simple because they get dependent on it and their student body does too. Plus the conditions come slowly over time, no single one of which will seem worth the turmoil of losing so much money and so many existing students. Boiling the frog slowly.
A religious school could be pre-emptively choosing to self-marginalize in their ability to provide a formal education, if they forego public money in anticipation of strings eventually being attached. "We're poor and we can't afford teachers or equipment, but at least we have the Bible", isn't going to fly to very many parents. So what good would the school be, then?
Education is extremely important.
-
I’m sure there are any number of criteria to meet to be turned down for public funds. But now religion is not one of them. We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
“I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.” ~Winston S. Churchill
-
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
-
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
@Copper said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
Brings up an interesting point...Should we discriminate with public dollars in order to promote a certain viewpoint in education, such as Judeo-Christian? If you wish to open a Muslim school, more power to you, but you don't get public money. Jewish or Christian schools, you do.
Would this eventually make the Melting Pot more homogeneous?
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Horace said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems to me a strategic error for a religious school to take state funds. If history is any guide it’s just a matter of time until they make receipt contingent on following certain orthodoxies.
It's only a strategic error if you sacrifice your principles in order to follow those orthodoxies. Until then, it's free money, which is not a strategic error.
It’s not that simple because they get dependent on it and their student body does too. Plus the conditions come slowly over time, no single one of which will seem worth the turmoil of losing so much money and so many existing students. Boiling the frog slowly.
A religious school could be pre-emptively choosing to self-marginalize in their ability to provide a formal education, if they forego public money in anticipation of strings eventually being attached. "We're poor and we can't afford teachers or equipment, but at least we have the Bible", isn't going to fly to very many parents. So what good would the school be, then?
Seems like you need to decide if forgoing public funds is something they can do on a whim to follow their principles or if it means they can’t afford teachers or equipment. Because you’re saying both and it’s a bit inconsistent.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@Copper said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
Brings up an interesting point...Should we discriminate with public dollars in order to promote a certain viewpoint in education, such as Judeo-Christian? If you wish to open a Muslim school, more power to you, but you don't get public money. Jewish or Christian schools, you do.
Would this eventually make the Melting Pot more homogeneous?
@Jolly said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Copper said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
Brings up an interesting point...Should we discriminate with public dollars in order to promote a certain viewpoint in education, such as Judeo-Christian? If you wish to open a Muslim school, more power to you, but you don't get public money. Jewish or Christian schools, you do.
Would this eventually make the Melting Pot more homogeneous?
Good luck getting that constitutional amendment passed.
-
@Jolly said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
@Copper said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Neither religion nor education are sacred if they are also evil.
Let's say that a religion inspired the 9/11 attacks or called it's adherents to war against the Great Satan or it's leaders called for death to Israel, this might be considered evil. In which case it would probably be best if we didn't fund this sort of religion or education.
Brings up an interesting point...Should we discriminate with public dollars in order to promote a certain viewpoint in education, such as Judeo-Christian? If you wish to open a Muslim school, more power to you, but you don't get public money. Jewish or Christian schools, you do.
Would this eventually make the Melting Pot more homogeneous?
Good luck getting that constitutional amendment passed.
-
Seems like you need to decide if forgoing public funds is something they can do on a whim to follow their principles or if it means they can’t afford teachers or equipment. Because you’re saying both and it’s a bit inconsistent.
@jon-nyc said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
Seems like you need to decide if forgoing public funds is something they can do on a whim to follow their principles or if it means they can’t afford teachers or equipment. Because you’re saying both and it’s a bit inconsistent.
There is no inconsistency. I am saying the school can take the hit if and when they need to, but not earlier. I make no claims about the pain of the hit. I understand you’d like Christian schools to self-flagellate, but they are under no obligation to do so. I think you mostly want to imply that it’s unprincipled for them to take public money to begin with.
-
I’m sure there are any number of criteria to meet to be turned down for public funds. But now religion is not one of them. We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
@Mik said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
True, not to mention charity, shelter, counseling, assisting new mothers, etc.
BTW - I only scanned it but it seems the ruling is about how citizens USE the taxpayer money, which I think is different from "give tax dollars directly to a religious schools". It (correctly, IMO) says that citizens can use the money for schools, regardless if the school is religion-based. Seems fair to me.
Also the separation of church and state is one of those over-used phrases that doesn't even appear in the Constitution IIRC. Now, if they are talking about the establishment clause (government shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or free exercise thereof), then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct. Shocker.
-
@Mik said in Public Funds for Islamic Education:
We forget how much the various churches have done and still do to build education and healthcare in this country.
True, not to mention charity, shelter, counseling, assisting new mothers, etc.
BTW - I only scanned it but it seems the ruling is about how citizens USE the taxpayer money, which I think is different from "give tax dollars directly to a religious schools". It (correctly, IMO) says that citizens can use the money for schools, regardless if the school is religion-based. Seems fair to me.
Also the separation of church and state is one of those over-used phrases that doesn't even appear in the Constitution IIRC. Now, if they are talking about the establishment clause (government shall make no law regarding the establishment of a religion or free exercise thereof), then this SCOTUS decision is pretty constitutionally correct. Shocker.
