Liberals- Any of soceietys problems, we arent spending enough money on!!

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

The program didn't send kids to creationist schools. The parents chose those schools.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Why would there be anything wrong with that?

BMD004

Parents are more then welcome to send their kids to schools where they'll be lied to by relgious folk.  The problem here being that the government can't fund such an action.  Creation has shown to be illegal to promote in public education.  

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

The program didn't send kids to creationist schools. The parents chose those schools.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Why would there be anything wrong with that?

BMD004

Parents are more then welcome to send their kids to schools where they'll be lied to by relgious folk.  The problem here being that the government can't fund such an action.  Creation has shown to be illegal to promote in public education.  

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

Separation of church and state. No creationism in public schools.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

The program didn't send kids to creationist schools. The parents chose those schools.

 

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Why would there be anything wrong with that?

BMD004

Parents are more then welcome to send their kids to schools where they'll be lied to by relgious folk.  The problem here being that the government can't fund such an action.  Creation has shown to be illegal to promote in public education.  

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

The reason creationism isn't promoted in public schools is because people of all different beliefs are at those schools, and that is the only public school there is to attend.

 

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

jimkabrhel

Separation of church and state. No creationism in public schools.

This thread is awful.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="Aljosa23"]"The Fort Wayne Journal Gazette reports in the programs first year $15.5 million in taxpayer funds were sent to largely religious-affiliated private schools rather than public schools."

lol damn. You really can't see why people would be against this implementation? good grief

 

 

thebest31406

It was their CHOICE.

LMAO the whole time I read your post I'm just laughing. Open your eyes and explain to me, after seeing this graph, that more money will help better educatie our young persons? We have been throwing money at eduction for years and it hasnt helped test scores one iota. Kids are doign just the same on tests as they used to, but o yeah we are spending 2.5x to do it

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

The reason creationism isn't promoted in public schools is because people of all different beliefs are at those schools, and that is the only public school there is to attend.

 

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

LOXO7

Separation of church and state. No creationism in public schools.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Parents are more then welcome to send their kids to schools where they'll be lied to by relgious folk.  The problem here being that the government can't fund such an action.  Creation has shown to be illegal to promote in public education.  

HoolaHoopMan

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="BMD004"]The reason creationism isn't promoted in public schools is because people of all different beliefs are at those schools, and that is the only public school there is to attend.

 

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

BMD004

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] No, its not allowed because its a violation of the establishment clause per Edwards v. Aguillard (Also in the Dover Kitzmiller trial as well). It would still be illegal if all the kids were of the same religion. The problem here is that the government can't promote religion, and by paying for a private education where this is done it is seen as a violation of that principle. Simply put, the government can't pay for a private school where something like creation is taught. (Although is shouldn't be paying for private schools at all)Person0

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

What you are basically saying is that for people on food stamps, the government promotes everything they buy with their food stamps. The government gives you money to eat. They aren't promoting JIF peanut butter.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="BMD004"]I am saying the reason there is separation of church and state in public schools is because public institutions cannot promote religion because it isn't fair to students who may not believe in that religion. I get that.

 

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

BMD004

What you are basically saying is that for people on food stamps, the government promotes everything they buy with their food stamps. The government gives you money to eat. They aren't promoting JIF peanut butter.

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

BMD004

It doesn't matter if the parents are making the choice.  At its core the government would be paying for a child learning creationism which is highly unconstitutional.  The government would be funding it, what is so hard to understand about that? 

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Separation of church and state. No creationism in public schools.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

HoolaHoopMan

It doesn't matter if the parents are making the choice.  At its core the government would be paying for a child learning creationism which is highly unconstitutional.  The government would be funding it, what is so hard to understand about that? 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

LOXO7

It doesn't matter if the parents are making the choice.  At its core the government would be paying for a child learning creationism which is highly unconstitutional.  The government would be funding it, what is so hard to understand about that? 

seriously?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="BMD004"]

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

LOXO7

It doesn't matter if the parents are making the choice.  At its core the government would be paying for a child learning creationism which is highly unconstitutional.  The government would be funding it, what is so hard to understand about that? 

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] To add to the list of good reasons not to have anyone you know attend a public school. The public school doesn't teach liberty.LOXO7

Following a label is as a dumb as following a brand.

Not pertinent to the point I was making. HoolaHoopMan

Because it comes before your point in the first place. "At it's core" the government pays for the common defense, general welfare, and current debts. Where in that is public education?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Where in our Constitution allows public education in the first place?lostrib

seriously?

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

Because it comes before your point in the first place. "At it's core" the government pays for the common defense, general welfare, and current debts. Where in that is public education?

[QUOTE="lostrib"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]Where in our Constitution allows public education in the first place?LOXO7

seriously?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

seriously?

HoolaHoopMan

General welfare. What is welfare? What is biology? Biology is the study of food and sex and sometimes shelter to sustain life. The purpose of welfare is to sustain life. Government education is not needed for food or shelter.

And general means everyone. Yes. Very vague indeed.

General welfare. What is welfare? What is biology? Biology is the study of food and sex and sometimes shelter to sustain life. The purpose of welfare is to sustain life. Government education is not needed for food or shelter.

And general means everyone. Yes. Very vague indeed.

LOXO7

This may surprise you, but the consitution has implied powers as the document has different ways of being interpreted.  If it didn't we wouldn't need things like the supreme court in the first place.  

With that being said, education is essential to the welfare of ANY society.  Education is the foundation of any advanced society or country.  There is a directly proporional correlation between one's level of education and standard of living across the globe.  

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="BMD004"]The reason creationism isn't promoted in public schools is because people of all different beliefs are at those schools, and that is the only public school there is to attend.

 

But when parents can send their child to whatever school they want, this issue is avoided.

BMD004

But in the case of vouchers, the government is not promoting religion. The government is giving vouchers to put towards education. Where the student goes to school is up to the parent. The government isn't promoting anything. It's the parent's choice.

No, the reason is because the government cannot endorse a religion, period. Using public funds to pay for religious schools is an endorsement.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

General welfare. What is welfare? What is biology? Biology is the study of food and sex and sometimes shelter to sustain life. The purpose of welfare is to sustain life. Government education is not needed for food or shelter.

And general means everyone. Yes. Very vague indeed.

HoolaHoopMan

This may surprise you, but the consitution has implied powers as the document has different ways of being interpreted.  If it didn't we wouldn't need things like the supreme court in the first place.  

With that being said, education is essential to the welfare of ANY society.  Education is the foundation of any advanced society or country.  There is a directly proporional correlation between one's level of education and standard of living across the globe.  

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"]

General welfare. What is welfare? What is biology? Biology is the study of food and sex and sometimes shelter to sustain life. The purpose of welfare is to sustain life. Government education is not needed for food or shelter.

And general means everyone. Yes. Very vague indeed.

LOXO7

This may surprise you, but the consitution has implied powers as the document has different ways of being interpreted.  If it didn't we wouldn't need things like the supreme court in the first place.  

With that being said, education is essential to the welfare of ANY society.  Education is the foundation of any advanced society or country.  There is a directly proporional correlation between one's level of education and standard of living across the globe.  

No, the reason is because the government cannot endorse a religion, period. Using public funds to pay for religious schools is an endorsement.

worlock77

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

This may surprise you, but the consitution has implied powers as the document has different ways of being interpreted.  If it didn't we wouldn't need things like the supreme court in the first place.  

With that being said, education is essential to the welfare of ANY society.  Education is the foundation of any advanced society or country.  There is a directly proporional correlation between one's level of education and standard of living across the globe.  

Person0

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, the reason is because the government cannot endorse a religion, period. Using public funds to pay for religious schools is an endorsement.

LOXO7

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

If you can interpret the law what good is it calling it law? What is the definition of this "law"? Education is important of course, but it is none of the governments concern. We don't need the Supreme Court to interpret the law for us. It is very plainly written in English. You'd have to be a dolt to believe that we need government to decipher what the thing that created government says. The Supreme Court rules what government can do. It doesn't have open ended ruling, like say a king would have. If the law doesn't say something. It is not law.LOXO7

:lol:

Are you seriously trying to argue that language can't be interpreted differently through time and due to syntax? 

EL OH FVCKING EL. 

I guess we really don't need the judicial branch at all!!!  We've got constitutional experts like you who think an entire branch of government isn't needed.  

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

No, the reason is because the government cannot endorse a religion, period. Using public funds to pay for religious schools is an endorsement.

worlock77

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] And in that act ravaging the first because the people who have the vouchers use them to whatever school they wish, freedom. As you put it the government is endorsing freedom with vouchers.LOXO7

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] And in that act ravaging the first because the people who have the vouchers use them to whatever school they wish, freedom. As you put it the government is endorsing freedom with vouchers.LOXO7

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

You're not real sharp are you?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="Person0"] Missing the entire point of the Supreme Court.....GOOD JOB. And then pretend to know anything about the constitution or American govt.Person0

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="LOXO7"] Please point out to where our Constitution applies to you?LOXO7

God you are stupid

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

worlock77

You're not real sharp are you?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="LOXO7"] But they can't do it with government money because government does prohibit the free exercise of religion. Got it. The exact opposite of what the first amendment says.LOXO7

You're not real sharp are you?

You can reset yourself?  In that case, could you perhaps shutdown?

[QUOTE="LOXO7"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

People already have the freedom to enroll their children in whatever school they wish, or even to school them from home.

HoolaHoopMan

Your oversimplifiying of issues shows that you're very politicized and thus blind and too stupid to actually see what is going on.

What the hell happened to critical reading and thinking? This thread is a mess.

What the hell happened to critical reading and thinking? This thread is a mess.

jimkabrhel

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What the hell happened to critical reading and thinking? This thread is a mess.

Nibroc420

WE need MOAR money sckools r underfunds

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What the hell happened to critical reading and thinking? This thread is a mess.

AdamPA1006

WE need MOAR money sckools r underfunds

Are you incapable of producing information from an unbiased source?

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] In American Schools? :lol:jimkabrhel

WE need MOAR money sckools r underfunds

Are you incapable of producing information from an unbiased source?

Look at any single source you want. Public school funding has exploded over the past 30-40 years, and test scores have stayed the same. Do you really disagree with this?

And US Dept. of energy, National Center for Education statistics, National assesment of educational progress? all bias?

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

 

WE need MOAR money sckools r underfunds

 

AdamPA1006

Are you incapable of producing information from an unbiased source?

Look at any single source you want. Public school funding has exploded over the past 30-40 years, and test scores have stayed the same. Do you really disagree with this?

And US Dept. of energy, National Center for Education statistics, National assesment of educational progress? all bias?

Looking at funding in absolute dollars should be considered in terms of inflation.

Look at public revenues compared to %GDP:

http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/graph_topic.asp?INDEX=11

Not very different between 1970 and 2008.

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

What the hell happened to critical reading and thinking? This thread is a mess.

AdamPA1006

WE need MOAR money sckools r underfunds

[QUOTE="AdamPA1006"]

[QUOTE="jimkabrhel"]

Are you incapable of producing information from an unbiased source?

jimkabrhel

Look at any single source you want. Public school funding has exploded over the past 30-40 years, and test scores have stayed the same. Do you really disagree with this?

And US Dept. of energy, National Center for Education statistics, National assesment of educational progress? all bias?

Looking at funding in absolute dollars should be considered in terms of inflation.

Look at public revenues compared to %GDP:

http://nces.ed.gov/edfin/graph_topic.asp?INDEX=11

Not very different between 1970 and 2008.

Not to mention that funding is hardly equal among schools. Some schools recieve a glut of funding year after year while others stay chronically underfunded.