School orders families to sign "biblical morality pledge".

[Vettrera]

Irrelevant.

Actually that is highly relevant.

As long as the funding goes to secular subjects there is no problem with a private school establishing its own criteria for admittance.

There actually is a problem with it...that's what the whole thread is about.
It's not about "is it legal/illegal"
It's about "should/shouldn't it be happening"
Legality =/= Right

[Timothia]

Irrelevant.

Actually that is highly relevant.

As long as the funding goes to secular subjects there is no problem with a private school establishing its own criteria for admittance.

Vazdania, I normally agree with you, but this is one case where you are just plain wrong. I'm sorry.

Public school dollars should not be going to a private school, religious or secular. Private schools are privately owned: if they get government funding, then the government could micromanage what they teach. From the government's standpoint, they shouldn't be funding a religious school in the first place. From the school's standpoint, they shouldn't want to owe the government anything. Finally, it violates a Supreme Court decision that states that government money cannot go to "religious instruction", something that I assure you takes place in math and PE at a private religious school.

[Timothia]

We're asserting that their views should disqualify them from getting money for anything, you're missing the point.

Just because they have views that aren't necessarily popular doesn't mean you should remove funding.

It's not even their views that disqualify them, it's their status as a private school - or more specifically, a religious school. They shouldn't be government money. Period.

[Zottistan]

We're asserting that their views should disqualify them from getting money for anything, you're missing the point.

Just because they have views that aren't necessarily popular doesn't mean you should remove funding.

The First Amendment to the Constitution begs to differ.

[Vazdania]

Just because they have views that aren't necessarily popular doesn't mean you should remove funding.

It's not even their views that disqualify them, it's their status as a private school - or more specifically, a religious school. They shouldn't be government money. Period.

The Mitchell v. Helms ruling pretty much allows the government to provide aid to religious groups as long as such aid advances some legitimate non-religious purpose and is granted in the same manner to non-religious groups.

[Vazdania]

Just because they have views that aren't necessarily popular doesn't mean you should remove funding.

The First Amendment to the Constitution begs to differ.

Excuse me?

[Greed and Death]

So? It's still private, the issue is one that should be directed at the government not the school. That's what I am trying to get at.

Whose "fault" it is that they get government funding is immaterial. The simple fact is that they do get it and thus should not be allowed to do this.

Very similar to planned parenthood receives government funding for women's health, thus should not be allowed to perform abortions.

[Vazdania]

Actually that is highly relevant.

As long as the funding goes to secular subjects there is no problem with a private school establishing its own criteria for admittance.

There actually is a problem with it...that's what the whole thread is about.
It's not about "is it legal/illegal"
It's about "should/shouldn't it be happening"
Legality =/= Right

Well fine. The government SHOULD be allowed to fund this private religious school, so long as that funding goes to secular subjects.

[Zottistan]

The First Amendment to the Constitution begs to differ.

Excuse me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

A religious school should not be receiving public funding.

[Vazdania]

Actually that is highly relevant.

As long as the funding goes to secular subjects there is no problem with a private school establishing its own criteria for admittance.

Vazdania, I normally agree with you, but this is one case where you are just plain wrong. I'm sorry.

Public school dollars should not be going to a private school, religious or secular. Private schools are privately owned: if they get government funding, then the government could micromanage what they teach. From the government's standpoint, they shouldn't be funding a religious school in the first place. From the school's standpoint, they shouldn't want to owe the government anything. Finally, it violates a Supreme Court decision that states that government money cannot go to "religious instruction", something that I assure you takes place in math and PE at a private religious school.

Well actually the government could only micromanage where the money goes to...Moreover the school is not required to accept this money.

The courts have ruled that so long as the money goes to secular subjects, its perfectly acceptable to fund private religious schools.

[Vazdania]

Excuse me?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

A religious school should not be receiving public funding.

Religious schools teach secular subjects.

its in the government's interest to promote these subjects.

[Dyakovo]

Show me where in the post I quoted that you stated that they should not receive funding.

Here's two of them, you can search my name if you need more. Why would you not believe me?

---

For the private school's sake, it shouldn't be taking any government money, that way it won't have to deal with all the hyped up people saying that it's a violation of the First Amendment. Besides, if government money was going to fund a Hindu religious school (even if it was going to the math and PE programs), I would have issues and I'm sure you would too.

I already said that they should not be getting taxpayer money when I was told that wouldn't be good enough. I agree that the government shouldn't fund that program.

What part of "in the post I quoted" did you not understand?

[Dyakovo]

Irrelevant.

Actually that is highly relevant.

Wrong.

[Timothia]

Vazdania, I normally agree with you, but this is one case where you are just plain wrong. I'm sorry.

Public school dollars should not be going to a private school, religious or secular. Private schools are privately owned: if they get government funding, then the government could micromanage what they teach. From the government's standpoint, they shouldn't be funding a religious school in the first place. From the school's standpoint, they shouldn't want to owe the government anything. Finally, it violates a Supreme Court decision that states that government money cannot go to "religious instruction", something that I assure you takes place in math and PE at a private religious school.

Well actually the government could only micromanage where the money goes to...Moreover the school is not required to accept this money.

The courts have ruled that so long as the money goes to secular subjects, its perfectly acceptable to fund private religious schools.

From the governments point of view, why would you do that?

From the school's point of view, why would you do that?

Cutting funds is actually a win-win because the school will be free from entanglement with the government. If the school can't afford it's bills after this, then they can accept openly gay students again. If they don't need funds, then can continue providing over-priced religious education to the students in the area.

[Vazdania]

Actually that is highly relevant.

Wrong.

Right.

And instead of playing this game..... why shouldn't they?

[Dyakovo]

Whose "fault" it is that they get government funding is immaterial. The simple fact is that they do get it and thus should not be allowed to do this.

Very similar to planned parenthood receives government funding for women's health, thus should not be allowed to perform abortions.

Abortions do not violate the constitution, so no.

[Vazdania]

Well actually the government could only micromanage where the money goes to...Moreover the school is not required to accept this money.

The courts have ruled that so long as the money goes to secular subjects, its perfectly acceptable to fund private religious schools.

From the governments point of view, why would you do that?

From the school's point of view, why would you do that?

Cutting funds is actually a win-win because the school will be free from entanglement with the government. If the school can't afford it's bills after this, then they can accept openly gay students again. If they don't need funds, then can continue providing over-priced religious education to the students in the area.

Government point of view: We're helping students learn about math english and other subjects
Schools view: It removes the burden off of parents for tuition fees.

[Timothia]

Here's two of them, you can search my name if you need more. Why would you not believe me?

---

What part of "in the post I quoted" did you not understand?

You quoted my whole post already! What would be the point of re-quoting it for you?

What are you trying to achieve through this? Do you really want to butt heads so bad that you will argue even when I agree with you?

[Vazdania]

Very similar to planned parenthood receives government funding for women's health, thus should not be allowed to perform abortions.

Abortions do not violate the constitution, so no.

Neither does funding secular subjects in private religious schools.

[Dyakovo]

What part of "in the post I quoted" did you not understand?

You quoted my whole post already! What would be the point of re-quoting it for you?

What are you trying to achieve through this? Do you really want to butt heads so bad that you will argue even when I agree with you?

I corrected an error you made, the fact that you had already been corrected (something I didn't know at the time I made my post) is irrelevant.
Also, yes.

[Dyakovo]

Abortions do not violate the constitution, so no.

Neither does funding secular subjects in private religious schools.

Exclusionary admission at a publicly funded school does.

[Zottistan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

A religious school should not be receiving public funding.

Religious schools teach secular subjects.

its in the government's interest to promote these subjects.

On further research, yep, I was wrong.

Which is not to say they should be receiving funding, if they're going to behave like that. Just that it's constitutionally permissible.

[Vazdania]

Neither does funding secular subjects in private religious schools.

Exclusionary admission at a publicly funded school does.

False. As its a private school, it has a wide variety of criteria it can use for admittance, like GPA.

[The United Colonies of Earth]

Everyone is screaming about the funding the private school receives it is indirect and perfectly constitutional.

But that does not necessarily make it a good idea. Why I think funding via vouchers or secular only aid (such as text books in secular subjects) is a good idea, is because if you do not it creates a situation where the incentive is for religious parents to vote as a block take over the school board and cut public school funding as much as possible in order to reduce school taxes.

And this is not a hypothetical it happens in New York. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

New York specifically forbids funding of private schools, so the only solution a religious parent has to recoup cost of sending their children to school is to gut the public school system in order to achieve tax cuts.

The obvious solution is to ban private schools.

YES!!!!

[Vazdania]

The obvious solution is to ban private schools.

YES!!!!

No. I'd rather not step foot into a disgusting secular public school.