Originally posted by Stejjie:
As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:For those who like legalese, the enrolled version of the law can be found here [PDF].
Rep. Valarie Hodges, R-Watson, says she had no idea that Gov. Bobby Jindal’s overhaul of the state’s educational system might mean taxpayer support of Muslim schools.
“I actually support funding for teaching the fundamentals of America’s Founding Fathers’ religion, which is Christianity, in public schools or private schools,” the District 64 Representative said Monday.
“I liked the idea of giving parents the option of sending their children to a public school or a Christian school,” Hodges said.
Hodges mistakenly assumed that “religious” meant “Christian.”
<snip>
Hodges, who represents District 64 on the northwest side of the parish, and another freshman lawmaker in the local delegation, Clay Schexnayder from Dist. 81 in the southwest, voted with the House majority in favor of HB976.
The school funding mechanism, however, did not come up for a vote until the end of the session. By then, a Muslim-based school had applied for support through the new voucher system.
During debate over the MFP (Minimum Foundation Program) funding formula, Hodges learned more about the consequences of the educational changes. She voted against the new MFP funding formula; Schexnayder voted for it.
“Unfortunately it will not be limited to the Founders’ religion,” Hodges said. “We need to insure that it does not open the door to fund radical Islam schools. There are a thousand Muslim schools that have sprung up recently. I do not support using public funds for teaching Islam anywhere here in Louisiana.”
quote:Exactly.
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
quote:Sadly I'd expect it to be the rule. People are often sufficiently self-centred in their own debate (a Christian-atheist/secular tug-of-war) that it doesn't occur to them that anyone might be outside that debate altogether.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Is this kind of expectation of religious favoritism on the part of the government the exception or the rule for those who want greater church-state interaction?
quote:The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Exactly.
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Pity the message hasn't got through to some of the logic-challenged "new atheists".
quote:I think it's suggesting that if Lennon's words were true, if there really were "no religion" then 9/11 wouldn't have happened and the Towers would still be standing. The point being that it's not just Islamic terrorism that's the problem, it's all religion, as it provides the ground for the more extremist tendencies to grow and flower in.
Originally posted by kankucho:
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?
quote:No that's not the argument being made. It's not claimed that moderate believers secretly agree with terrorists but that the source of an extremists motivation/argument is the same source for moderates. Verses in the bible or Quran, having an ultimate authority that can do no wrong, unquestionable dictates etc. The interpretation and actions that are taken may be different but the source is the same. But this is a big tangent and maybe worth a separate thread?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion)
quote:Well yeah. The U.S. government is not supposed to be in the business of subsidizing religion. For whatever reason, in the U.S. conservative Christians seem to equate "not getting a government subsidy/endorsement" with "oppression".
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists. In the US, OTOH, the fight is one of conservative Christians vs. everyone else.
quote:Even if subsidies were granted to Islamic schools, the law would still be blatantly unconstitutional.
Originally posted by Try:
Thus, when an Islamic school applies for vouchers it is an unintended consequence of a law intended to provide funding for Christian schools, and will result in attempts to deny the school funding without making the law blatantly unconstitutional.
quote:Apologies, that was rather a crude cariacture I drew - thanks for the correction. Though I'd guess for those of us who aren't extremists/fundamentalists, the questions of interpretation and actions are of crucial importance - though this may well be a topic for another thread.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:No that's not the argument being made. It's not claimed that moderate believers secretly agree with terrorists but that the source of an extremists motivation/argument is the same source for moderates. Verses in the bible or Quran, having an ultimate authority that can do no wrong, unquestionable dictates etc. The interpretation and actions that are taken may be different but the source is the same. But this is a big tangent and maybe worth a separate thread?
Originally posted by Stejjie:
As if everyone who was religious secretly, at heart, agrees with the extremeists (of any religious persuasion)
quote:Yes, I'm not sure the t-shirt is especially relevant to this discussion. It's condemning all religions; the OP is condemning all religions except my own. FWIW, my own view (as a Christian) is either government provides equal support for all religions or none - my preference is probably for none, otherwise it starts to get messy. This may be complicated over here though by the existence and status of the CofE.
The t-shirt is a very poor comparison. Isn't the statement that all religions are the same the oposit of the OP which was only my religion counts it's different from all the others?
quote:I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.
quote:It is a bit puzzling. I would point out that very few of America's Founders were actually deists, though the religious beliefs of the six most influential (George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin) didn't conform to any variety of Christian orthodoxy. Gregg Frazer has characterized their belief system with the term "theistic rationalism", which differs from deism in that it posits an active divine Providence rather than deism's hands-off watchmaker deity.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
I never got the reverence for the Founders among conservative American protestants. They were for the most part hypocritical slave-driving deists that despised traditional, historic Christianity.
quote:If I were king for a week, I would announce the return of school-prayer in the USA, watch the jubilation, then announce the next day that the recited prayer will be the Hail Mary.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Every time the "Let's put prayer in schools" debate flares up online, I always link to a YouTube video with an Imam's call to prayer and ask: "So, you're okay with that over your kid's school's loudspeaker, right?"
The sputtering and backtracking is always good for a laugher.
quote:The fact that some were deists isn't what made them hypocritical so much as their professed political beliefs did.
Originally posted by HCH:
I think the phrase "hypocritical slave-driving deists" is a bit odd. Are you saying that 18th-Century deists who owned slaves were hypocrites? What about deism suggests that a deist should not own slaves? Or are you saying they were hypocrites for some other reason and happened to be slave owners?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
quote:In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.
--Tom Clune
quote:It should be noted that three of the six key Founders mentioned in my previous post (Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin) were not just intellectually opposed to slavery but active in the abolition movements of the day.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they talked about the dignity of man, "life liberty and pursuit of happiness", Rights being inalienable, etc., all while holding other human beings in bondage.
quote:That's fair to note. But they still compromised with great evil for the sake of political expediency. William Lloyd Garrison kind of had a point when he said that the pre-Civil War Constitution was "a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell".
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It should be noted that three of the six key Founders mentioned in my previous post (Adams, Hamilton, and Franklin) were not just intellectually opposed to slavery but active in the abolition movements of the day.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
I think the hypocrisy comes from the fact that they talked about the dignity of man, "life liberty and pursuit of happiness", Rights being inalienable, etc., all while holding other human beings in bondage.
quote:My impression was that anti-Islamism in Europe was mostly coming from atheists who would be just as opposed to a Christian revival if there was any sign of one. Certainly Fr. Hunwicke feels that he has much more in common with the average Pakistani immigrant then he has in common with the average secular white Briton.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.
--Tom Clune
quote:That's true, as far as I can tell.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.
--Tom Clune
quote:I've always thought that the big reason for this is that American religious conservatives, like most conservatives everywhere, are essentially authoritarians at heart, and yet they belong predominantly to religious traditions that have rejected hierarchy of the type found in Roman Catholicism. That may explain part of the urge to transform America's Founders into a bunch of quasi-saints for the Protestant civic religion.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
My basic point that they should not be held up as saints, like many American con evos do, stands.
quote:Given that the Catholic Church is very good at adapting to local custom (within limits) and that the United States is very good at incorporating new traditions into its civic body, that development was almost inevitable.
Originally posted by Unreformed:
Sorry for the double post, but I also feel I need to add, lest I point out the splinter in other factions of Christendom without removing the plank from my own, that this kind of idolatrous American Exceptionalism is increasingly becoming common in the American Catholic Church, too. See: Rick Santorum and his nauseating statements on this topic.
quote:I forget the exact quote and who first said it, but there's a saying that when Catholic teaching is rejected it will still pop up, but in weird and disordered ways. I think this is a good example of that. Since they have spurned real saints and a real Magisterium, they ended up concocting a phony, counterfeit version.
yet they belong predominantly to religious traditions that have rejected hierarchy of the type found in Roman Catholicism. That may explain part of the urge to transform America's Founders into a bunch of quasi-saints for the Protestant civic religion.
quote:Indeed. I think the only thing that stopped this from happening earlier was our status in America, for a long time, as an "immigrant" or somewhat "foreign" Church. But IMHO American Exceptionalism (very distinct from American patriotism) is not within those acceptable limits.
Given that the Catholic Church is very good at adapting to local custom (within limits) and that the United States is very good at incorporating new traditions into its civic body, that development was almost inevitable.
quote:I agree with Unreformed in that it's a bit of both racism and opposition to overt religiosity. Much of continental Europe has horrific attitudes to race/ethnicity, even in less atheistic countries (Italy for example). However, the French attitude of atheism = rationalism = automatic opposition to open religiosity is reproduced to some extent in Turkey (where wearing the veil is banned in public buildings like universities, despite a Muslim majority) where racism isn't playing a part - it's wanting to seem like a rational, modern country.
Originally posted by Stetson:
quote:That's true, as far as I can tell.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:In France the anti-Islamic stuff is definitely from an atheist viewpoint, France may be culturally Catholic but is religiously atheist. It's less viewing Muslims as heathen so much as viewing them as primitive/uncultured/oppressive of women etc.
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:I don't think so. The European flirtation with anti-Islamic laws recently has a real Bible-belt flavor of xenophobia about it AFAICS.
Originally posted by Try:
I think that this is a pond difference. In Europe and Australia/New Zealand the fight about religion in public life takes the form of believers (of any stripe) vs. militant atheists.
--Tom Clune
But something I've wondered: Assuming France is like everywhere else in the world, there are probably a hefty number of people who just don't like immigrants, full stop, and are jumping on the anti-Islamic bandwagon simply because it's the trendy prejudice of the moment.
So, when Gaullists, Socialists, and Communists come together in the National Assembly to ban the burqa, what percentage of the French public would be cheering it on out of sheer dislike of foreigners, without really caring much about women's rights and secularism?
The reason I'm wondering is because I know a fair number of Canadian anti-Islamic bigots of the hate-em-because-they're-brown-and-heathen school of thought. But even they will nod assent to pseudo-feminist arguments against veiling and whatnot, because they've just picked it up from more respectable opinion makers.
Phrased another way, I guess I'm wondering to what extent "laicite" and "the Enlightenment" are being used as a dog-whistle for the kind of French voter who don't otherwise care about the concepts.
quote:The insinuation is that all so called "religious" people are somehow implicated in 9/11, and, of course, in the minds of those who refer to religion in such an unqualified way, that would include Christians.
Originally posted by kankucho
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?
quote:It's nothing about mathematics, spelling, grammar physics or chemistry that requires a religious school, those disciplines require a teacher who is well educated in the discipline. It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour. A religious school's values and approach can be unequivocal in everything from how the maths/English etc classroom operates (does it foster co-operation or competition, help for the weak or bullying) to nurturing the spirit through liturgical practice. THat's not to say that secular schools are all homes to competition and bullying and these never exist in Christian schools but my experience of the secular system is that its values are shallow and behaviour is rules based rather than ethics based.
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Can someone please answer the obvious. What about mathematics, spelling, grammar, physics, chemistry etc requires a religious school? I'd say there should be no religious schools whatsoever, or failing that, God help us all, that there can be special optional classes for various religions to teach their take on 1+1=2, and why the letter Q is evil.
quote:It must depend on where you live and what the school system is required to teach. There is a provincial requirement for curriculum that all schools must teach, and 'values education' is one thing that is required here. The tax-funded schools my children went to had specific student-teacher-parent led programs including Just Say No [to drugs], anti-racism, gay-straight alliance, paired able students with those of low intellect as 'care partners', and made those interested high school athletics take music (band, choir) or drama. The boys tended to go into the 'men's choir'. Maybe we were just lucky with our local schools, the School Board runs about 40 elementary schools (grades 1-8), and about 15 high schools. There are some middle schools in some places. There are some neighbourhoods with 'community schools' which means that nurse practitioners, pædiatricians, social workers and psychologists are readily available.
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It's nothing about mathematics, spelling, grammar physics or chemistry that requires a religious school, those disciplines require a teacher who is well educated in the discipline. It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour. A religious school's values and approach can be unequivocal in everything from how the maths/English etc classroom operates (does it foster co-operation or competition, help for the weak or bullying) to nurturing the spirit through liturgical practice. THat's not to say that secular schools are all homes to competition and bullying and these never exist in Christian schools but my experience of the secular system is that its values are shallow and behaviour is rules based rather than ethics based.
The mileage of others will vary of course in terms of what they believe is required of a school, but in my local area, more than 50% of the total population of school students are enrolled in religious schools and it's about values and ethics for most people, not about teaching a particular academic discipline in a particular way (this is almost impossible in any case because schools have to be licensed by the Board of Studies and this will only be granted if they are following the curriculum).
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Exactly.
"Religious" is not a synonym for "Christian"
Pity the message hasn't got through to some of the logic-challenged "new atheists".
quote:Wait a sec. First you're upset that atheists use "religion" as a synonym for "Christianity", and then you're upset that atheists don't consider them synonyms by including non-Christian religions? That's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure you're advancing any argument more coherent than "atheists are meanies".
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:The insinuation is that all so called "religious" people are somehow implicated in 9/11, and, of course, in the minds of those who refer to religion in such an unqualified way, that would include Christians.
Originally posted by kankucho
The linked t-shirt appears to be a statement about Islamic terrorism. Am I missing something?
I am not aware that 9/11 was perpetrated by Christians - or indeed by adherents of any religion other than Islam.
quote:I guess the sticking point, at least in the minds of folks like Rep. Hodges, is what happens when the school is promoting the love of a "false" God? Or promoting the love of those who aren't really neighbors (infidels, homosexuals, communists, the left handed, etc.).
Originally posted by Evangeline:
It is children who IMO require an educational environment that is based on love of God and love of our neighbour.
quote:If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?
Originally posted by no_prophet:
Can someone please answer the obvious. What about mathematics, spelling, grammar, physics, chemistry etc requires a religious school? I'd say there should be no religious schools whatsoever, or failing that, God help us all, that there can be special optional classes for various religions to teach their take on 1+1=2, and why the letter Q is evil.
quote:The hijackers were not devout Muslims. At least one of them used to drink in bars and frequent strip clubs.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am not aware that 9/11 was perpetrated by Christians - or indeed by adherents of any religion other than Islam.
quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
Hehehe. The Faculty of Theology of the University of Toronto, aka Toronto School of Theology is a mish-mash of denominations: Two Anglican schools, the United Church, the Presbyterians and three Catholic schools (Augustinians, Basilians and Jesuits). With Canada's changing immigration patterns, it was decided at an Islamic school would be appropriate and needed. The University of Toronto is a public university and its Theology department has always tried to reflect Ontario and Canada in religious choices.
The problem was that Academic Islamic Theology is the new kid on the block, all the existing faculty that could give the new Muslim programme imprimatur are Christian. So now Emmanuel College, the United Church's divinity school in Toronto, has the Dawn Programme (the Islamic Theology programme for aspiring immams) under its wing, they share facilities and the United Church faculty give the program the stamp of quality.
Give it twenty years and TST will have a full-grown Islamic Theology School.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:And how many homeless and hungry people will they have to ignore?
Originally posted by orfeo:
If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?
quote:No. What I am "upset" about is the fact that atheists play fast and loose with the terms "religion" and "Christianity", and then they get upset when Christians do the same thing, as in the example you gave in the OP.
Originally posted by Croesos
Wait a sec. First you're upset that atheists use "religion" as a synonym for "Christianity", and then you're upset that atheists don't consider them synonyms by including non-Christian religions? That's a huge contradiction. I'm not sure you're advancing any argument more coherent than "atheists are meanies".
quote:I'd say it depends on the Quaker. Have you ever heard of a man named Richard Milhous Nixon? He was quite big in the news a while back.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I can just imagine a Quaker (for example) feeling quite incensed at being accused - by implication - of fomenting wars.
quote:Of course! Your particular relgious belief is so totally different and unique from everyone else's that it feels dirty just to put it in the same category with those heathens!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
FWIW, I think the word "religion" is highly misleading anyway. I would say that faith in Jesus Christ goes way beyond mere "religion" - i.e. way beyond doctrinal formulations and institutional expression.
quote:So there's no way to judge between, for example, a viewpoint that the Earth is flat and the immobile center of the Universe and the viewpoint that it's roughly spherical and revolves around the sun? It's all just a matter of opinion and there's no neutral arbiter to say which is right!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace.
quote:Given that the underlying question was why things like maths should be taught in a religious context, there's a glorious irony in the unreasoning nature of that response.
Originally posted by no_prophet:
quote:And how many homeless and hungry people will they have to ignore?
Originally posted by orfeo:
If abortion clinic A can perform 3 abortions per hour, and abortion clinic B can perform 5 abortions per hour, how long will Johnny and Mary have to picket both clinics to save 22 babies?
quote:You're absolutely right: it does indeed depend on the Quaker. Which is exactly the point I was making. You can't blame "religion" for wars. It's about people driven by all sorts of different motives. So I am glad we agree on something!
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:I'd say it depends on the Quaker. Have you ever heard of a man named Richard Milhous Nixon? He was quite big in the news a while back.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I can just imagine a Quaker (for example) feeling quite incensed at being accused - by implication - of fomenting wars.
quote:Well misunderstood. So typical of an atheist. I was not talking about competing religious beliefs, but the reality of God as against mere doctrinal formulations and institutional expression. Please note that I wrote that "faith in Jesus goes way beyond mere "religion". In other words, it may include "religion", but it goes beyond it, just in the same way that my relationship with my human father goes way beyond merely knowing his name, where he was born and what he did for a living before he retired. But, of course, an atheist will reject such an analogy, because for him God is not real anyway. I'm afraid I can't do anything about that particular error of yours.
quote:Of course! Your particular relgious belief is so totally different and unique from everyone else's that it feels dirty just to put it in the same category with those heathens!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
FWIW, I think the word "religion" is highly misleading anyway. I would say that faith in Jesus Christ goes way beyond mere "religion" - i.e. way beyond doctrinal formulations and institutional expression.
quote:Of course there is a way to judge between the ideas you mention. It's called the empirical scientific method. What the hell has this got to do with the point I made about world views? Are you suggesting that the existence of God is dependent on the earth being flat? Wow, I've never heard that one before.
quote:So there's no way to judge between, for example, a viewpoint that the Earth is flat and the immobile center of the Universe and the viewpoint that it's roughly spherical and revolves around the sun? It's all just a matter of opinion and there's no neutral arbiter to say which is right!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:Really? That sounds an awful lot like a "neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints". I though you said there was no such thing.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:Of course there is a way to judge between the ideas you mention. It's called the empirical scientific method.
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:So there's no way to judge between, for example, a viewpoint that the Earth is flat and the immobile center of the Universe and the viewpoint that it's roughly spherical and revolves around the sun? It's all just a matter of opinion and there's no neutral arbiter to say which is right!
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
With reference to the OP, I don't think that we should even think in terms of "religion" versus "non-religion". I think this is a false dichotomy so beloved of atheists. What we have are world views. End of. There is no neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints, which society should embrace.
quote:"World view" tends to be one of those squishy terms beloved by religious conservatives, impressive sounding but so vaguely defined someone can go off in a huff about what the world has to do with a world view.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
What the hell has this got to do with the point I made about world views?
quote:Oh for goodness sake, get the context right! You were talking about the shape and position of planet earth. Hardly the sort of issue in the same category as morality, political theories, metaphysical concepts etc, is it (for which the empirical scientific method can contribute very little)?
Originally posted by Croesos
quote:Really? That sounds an awful lot like a "neutral secular philosophy that can act as an arbiter between different viewpoints". I though you said there was no such thing.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
Of course there is a way to judge between the ideas you mention. It's called the empirical scientific method.
quote:Then shall we use the term "philosophy"? Is that less phonetically offensive to you?
"World view" tends to be one of those squishy terms beloved by religious conservatives, impressive sounding but so vaguely defined someone can go off in a huff about what the world has to do with a world view.
quote:The maintaining of standards means that the state isn't agreeing to fund any private-sector alternative. It is, by definition, picking and choosing. And, of course, American constitutional law is littered with rules and restrictions that are facially neutral, but biased in application. For example, a dress code forbidding the wearing of yarmulkes is applied equally to Jews and non-Jews, yet is truly only burdensome to the former.
Originally posted by Alogon:
On the other hand, I don't understand how the state, having agreed to fund any private-sector alternative at all to the public school system, can categorically exclude those that teach religion. There must be a way to exclude the most irresponsible or abusive ones (of whatever faith or none) with minimal standards of treatment, and a minimum of general competency as shown by standardized tests, to qualify for funds.
quote:Because the American system of government forbids the state from subsidizing religion.
Originally posted by Alogon:
If these criteria are met (which sometimes the public schools themselves fail to do), why should it be the government's concern if religious instruction is given in addition?
