Money to religious schools

[juber3]

government grants were being made to religious educational institutions ...

Do you think bush should give government grants to religious educational institutions

[otseng]

I don't think the government should give grants to anyone.

[perspective]

Do you think bush should give government grants to religious educational institutions

No.

Tax payers do not wish to fund religious endeavors that are counter to their own religious beliefs. No religious belief is more valid than any other religious belief.

If tax payer money were to go to religious causes, equal amounts of money would have to go to ALL religious causes, no matter what the moral or belief system of the cause.

Tax payers would have a problem with financially subsidizing beliefs contrary to their own.

Therefore, no tax payers should be required to fund any religious endeavors.

[Archangel__7]

Hello, Ma'am

Your last response in a different thread had much depth.
It no doubt has real potential to create "in-house" debates among believers concerning predestination.

I'm just curious though... what attributes of belief make it "religious"? =)
Does it have to involve a deity or can a belief be "religious" without one?

[cookiesusedunderprotest]

Tax payers would have a problem with financially subsidizing beliefs contrary to their own.

Therefore, no tax payers should be required to fund any religious endeavors.

True. And by the same logic, no tax payers should be required to fund any atheistic endeavors. As a Christian, I am not any happier about having to pay for schools to teach that my ancestors were amoebas than a non-Christian should be about paying for schools to teach that there is a God who loves us.

That is one of the reasons (others include those that are strictly political or economical in nature) why I agree with otseng that the government shouldn't give out grants. However, if the government is going to give grants, or any type of financial aid, to private educational institutions, then to be fair, in my opinion, it must must not make a distinction based on religious affiliation.

[adherent]

I think the government should give money to all schools, because education has become quite lax in some parts (cough... alabama...cough). I do not think the government should specifically choose to give to either christian or generic schools.

[perspective]

True. And by the same logic, no tax payers should be required to fund any atheistic endeavors. As a Christian, I am not any happier about having to pay for schools to teach that my ancestors were amoebas than a non-Christian should be about paying for schools to teach that there is a God who loves us.

There has been scientific evidence that evolution actually does occur. In science classes, we teach with scientific evidence. Any teachings that offer no scientific evidence are not part of the curriculums of our science curriculums because there would be no place to draw the line - we'd have to teach about endless theories that also contain no verifiable evidence. The schools would break down and there would be no point of going to school. We have to have some standards - and evidence is where the buck stops. If there is no evidence, there is no standard.

That is one of the reasons (others include those that are strictly political or economical in nature) why I agree with otseng that the government shouldn't give out grants.

Perhaps not. Let me keep more of my tax dollars so I can choose to pay for what my kid learns.

However, if the government is going to give grants, or any type of financial aid, to private educational institutions, then to be fair, in my opinion, it must must not make a distinction based on religious affiliation.

So we'll be funding Christians and Muslims and Wiccans and Satanists and Mormons and everyone else in equal parts (we'd have to fund in equal parts or else we'd be breaking the first amendment). In the end, the money would be so spread out that there would be no point to public education. Again, like above - funding endless theories that contain no scientific evidence. We must have some standards. Otherwise, there is no point to public education. If the government wants to let everyone keep their own money and set up education on a community level, that's fine with me. This country would spiral into economic despair if that ever happened, but that would be fine with me. It would offer more evidence to the religious folks that god hasn't blessed America, we've blessed ourselves.

[otseng]

There has been scientific evidence that evolution actually does occur. In science classes, we teach with scientific evidence. Any teachings that offer no scientific evidence are not part of the curriculums of our science curriculums because there would be no place to draw the line - we'd have to teach about endless theories that also contain no verifiable evidence. The schools would break down and there would be no point of going to school. We have to have some standards - and evidence is where the buck stops. If there is no evidence, there is no standard.

But there is also scientific evidence that creation occured. Therefore, creationism should also be taught.

[perspective]

There has been scientific evidence that evolution actually does occur. In science classes, we teach with scientific evidence. Any teachings that offer no scientific evidence are not part of the curriculums of our science curriculums because there would be no place to draw the line - we'd have to teach about endless theories that also contain no verifiable evidence. The schools would break down and there would be no point of going to school. We have to have some standards - and evidence is where the buck stops. If there is no evidence, there is no standard.

But there is also scientific evidence that creation occured. Therefore, creationism should also be taught.

In this entire forum, there has not been presented any scientific evidence (reproducible testing) that has supported creationism. I won't ask you to elaborate here, because it is off topic, but I just wanted to point out, you should link to any thread that provides scientific evidence of creationism. Creationism should not be taught, because my children won't be going to any school that teaches fairy tale as fact.

[otseng]

In this entire forum, there has not been presented any scientific evidence (reproducible testing) that has supported creationism.

There hasn't been any reproducible evidence supporting evolution either.

Creationism should not be taught, because my children won't be going to any school that teaches fairy tale as fact.

No, creationism should not be taught as a fact, but as a theory. As for it being a fairy tale, as long as there's scientific evidence for it, there's no reason why it should not be taught.