ObameconomyFollow

Funding for public schools is done a variety of ways, but it's usually decided at the state level. The "beauty" of democracy is that you get to vote for people who actually make the decision on how public schools are funded. It could be a property tax, a sales tax, portions of state lotteries, and/or any other combination of the above mentioned things as well as other forms of taxation.

I completely understand why someone would not want to pay for public schools if they aren't using them (be it they have no kids or are paying to send their kids to a private school), but because this is a democracy this does not mean they get to not pay said taxes.

I'm not arguing that it is wrong, I'm arguing that it is occurring. I'm fine with religious people paying money for public schools that they'd want to use for private religious schools, but it is happening.

Probably because I didn't conclude that schools were being targeted, exclusively. In that same post "I never, and don't believe gbaji ever, argued that the government was targeting religion exclusively." I haven't been suggesting intent. I don't care about intent. This is all about the functional result. It's not just a coincidence because there is no way for it to be any other way. You can not fund private schools without also not funding private religious schools. Discrimination against black people is discrimination against ethnic Nigerians, because ethnic Nigerians are all black. Just because I'm also discriminating against ethnic Ghanaians doesn't negate the discrimination against Nigerians.

Put the pieces together. All people who want to send their children to public school are taxed. All people who want to send their children to private school are taxed. That tax money only goes to public school. All religious schools are private schools.

Only nonreligious groups receive a benefit, though not all nonreligious groups receive a benefit. It's still discrimination against religious educational organizations. Discrimination doesn't require exclusivity. Discriminating against secular private organizations and religious private organizations doesn't negate each other out, because secular public organizations benefit while there are not religious public organizations that benefit.

Edited, Dec 11th 2009 12:01am by Allegory

Hi, welcome to the thread. We are discussing intent. If you want to go discuss something else, make your own thread. And probably avoid using words that imply malicious intent. I'm impressed by your ability to bold words and all, but you still appear to have missed the point.

Wish you had been paying attention to the last page or so. Intent has already been discussed and has been done and over with for a long time now. It's an irrelevant issue. What the government is trying to do is meaningless, what they are doing matters.

No, I'm really not. You're simultaneously hung up on insisting that religious institutions are being "attacked" and then insisting it's not about religion and you know that they are not being specifically targeted and then making sure we all know that religious institutions are being "attacked" and...

Really, you're just going round in circles.

I have a club at school where people dress up like clowns. At some point the school bans all non educational clubs. Obviously the school is attacking all clowns.

Sure, religious schools are affected, being private. But there is no reason aside from pushing peoples buttons to single them out. Obviously religion being a sensitive topic to some people, you can get them excited by saying every religious school is being attacked, or more accurately affected, but it's ultimately meaningless aside from a rhetorical tool.

I would say attack implies intent, and thus would be technically inaccurate. There is a difference between attacking Canadians and attacking French Canadians, but I'm not going to go beyond this post on that particular point, as we both understand each other on it, I simply disagree.

Edited, Dec 11th 2009 1:35am by Xsarus

It's not really "important", though. Unless you don't understand the principle of taxation, this is ridiculously basic stuff. You can make the exact same argument for everything the government pays for. I'm a pacifist, so I'm being "attacked" when the government spends money on defence. I'm a racist so I'm being attacked when the government spends money on international development. I'm Varrus so I'm being attacked when the government spends money on welfare for black kids. I'm an anarchist etc...

Fine, but so what? How is that "important"?

Yeah, but since "religion" falls under the umbrella of "everything", it's technically accurate (although absolutely meaningless) to say it's an attack/restriction/etc on religion. I mean, it's equally an attack on emu farms and on movie theaters and on hydroponic home farming kit manufacturers and private security firms and sustainable Earth ideologies and UFO research and Amish broom collectors and no-kill animal shelters. But it's still important to shoehorn "religion" in there and make it sound as though the word "religion" is somehow relevant and not just a buzzword to make what you're saying sound really important.

What should really be said is "public" and "private."

Any time the government runs anything with tax payer money, and there is a private version of it, then the government is "attacking" that private institution.

Which is ridiculous, really. The government owns these schools. They have to pay for the upkeep of them. No one is being attacked or infringed upon. It's like saying someone who works for the government and has a well manicured yard while his neighbor can't afford a lawn mower is the government infringing on the neighbor's lawn maintenance.

Edited, Dec 11th 2009 10:39am by Belkira

No, but it goes deeper than that. Because anytime the the government runs anything with taxpayer money, anything else that I could have done with that money is under attack. After all, the opportunity cost of me paying for A is that I won't have that money for B, right? My liberty to purchase B is now under assault.

War in Iraq? I could have used that money (my portion of it) to help buy an iPod. Now I can't. Apple Computers is under attack by the government.
Roadway restoration? I could have used that money to buy a monkey. Now I can't. Monkey farmers are under attack by the government.
Corn subsidies? I could have used that money to tunnel to the center of the Earth and open diplomatic relations with the Mole People. Now I can't. The Mole People Diplomatic Tunnel Project is under attack by the government.

It's an absurd argument in any but the most obvious, and meaningless, ways.