home

Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based Groups

The Bush Administration gave $1.7 billion to groups it considers "faith-based" in 2003. Some of the groups say they are not religious, but others are groups to whom prayer and spirituality are central to their existence.

Other grant recipients are religious, offering social service programs that the government may have deemed too religious to receive money before President Bush took office.

Visitors to TMM Family Services in Tucson, Ariz., which received $25,000 for housing counseling, are greeted by a photo of Jesus and quotes from the Bible.

"We believe that people being connected to the faith of their choice is important to them having a productive life," said Don Strauch, an ordained minister and executive director of the group, which offers a variety of social services. "Just because we take government money doesn't mean we back down on that philosophy."

....Elected with strong support of religious conservatives, Bush came to office promising to open government's checkbook to religious groups that provide social services. Often, Bush says, religious groups do a better job serving the poor.

Civll liberties groups criticize the donations, saying that the U.S. should not be funding prayer as it endangers the constitutionally required separation of church and state. We agree.

In the past, government has refrained from giving money directly to religious groups, but has required that they set up independent, secular organizations to get taxpayer dollars. Bush tried to get Congress to change that. Congress refused, so he unilaterally put many of his changes into effect.

...It is unclear how much religion is too much religion when government money is involved. The courts have issued mixed rulings. The administration says a group getting federal money can sponsor worship and other religious activities as long as they are separated by time and location from activities paid by the government.

What's problematic is that the money is for social programs, and many of these programs subject recipients of the aid to their religious message.

In New Haven, Conn., Women in Search of Health Education and Spirituality got almost $500,000 to help AIDS patients who are just out of drug treatment. Each session begins with a daily affirmation, where each participant chooses something to read, religious or secular. The program's director, Patricia Lafayette, says a spiritual connection is emphasized. "Generally, that's the key to recovery," she said.

Then there is the matter of faith-based jail programs that we've complained about on TalkLeft many times.

At the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kan., Life Connections got more than $50,000 to help inmates who are about to be freed and who volunteer to participate and pick one of six religious programs to follow. Activities include a two-week spiritual retreat and six weeks of intense religious study.

A list of the organizations receiving this aid is available here.

< The State of The Death Penalty | Bush Missteps on Judicial Nominations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:38:52 PM EST
    Perhaps if it was 3 or 4 billion maybe this country would be better off than we are today. When is the last time an Athiest Organization contributed anything to society.

    Perhaps if it was 3 or 4 billion... I think you can consider the Neocons as a faith-based organization. Plus the Rapturists seem to have the final say on our foreign policy these days. So thats about 3 or 4 hundred billion down the rabbithole right there...

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#4)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    When is the last time an Athiest Organization contributed anything to society. Good question. Try using "Google."

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    Hmm, would AA and NA be faith based groups? -C

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:00:18 PM EST
    What a straw man in the first comment! The problem is giving taxpayer money to groups that require religious activity to receive their benefits. (For example, giving hunger assistance money to a mosque that would only feed people who pray to Mecca five times a day.) The opposite of this is not "giving to atheist groups." It's giving to groups that don't require religious activity to receive their benefits. The regressive right are very good at this twisting of alternatives, and it must be resisted every time we see it. The opposite of going to war is not "supporting the enemy." The opposite of sending taxpayer money to churches is not sending taxpayer money to anti-religious groups. You can be against a political idea and still love America. Don't let this crap take hold.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#7)
    by Rick B on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:05:10 PM EST
    The distinction isn't between Christian and atheist. Atheism is just another faith-based religion, like Islam and Judiasm. The distinction is between irrational faith-based Christian evangelists that will bait you with social serives then switch you to their irational myths, and rational secular social agencies who provide help because you are human and in need without bias regarding your professed beliefs.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#9)
    by Kitt on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 02:22:10 PM EST
    Cliff - "Hmm, would AA and NA be faith based groups?" Some people could see them as such, myself included.

    In reponse to the comments about AA and NA, they are spiritual programs. That is why their policy is to be entirely self-supporting and refuse outside financial support. They insist on their independence for their own benefit.

    Hear! Hear! Excellent post here at 3:10 pm. Unassailable clarity of fact based logic.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:13:08 PM EST
    the last link is bad. [and deleted because not in html format]

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:14:43 PM EST
    The problem with all of this is the misconception that America is about freedom *from* religion... rather than freedom *of* religion. It would be totally improper under this paradime for the feds to promote a specific religion... But it is just as improper to crush religion, or impede people's ability to live a religious life. You may not think that this is happening... but consider this: If the US had to be sure of NO CONNECTION of monies spent that might benefit a religion (AA is a good example of clear connection), then you run into problems... What if the US took ALL income, then returned that income in services: like healthcare, education, community buildings and services, etc. This has the effect of cleansing religion out of people's lives in material ways. This is not happing you say? Guess again. People USED to be able to educate their children in an academic experience that was part of a wholistic exercise that incorporated the realities of religions life (like a "Christian School"). Since government has taken over education, people have had the money they had earned earmarked for education, taken away and stripped of relition to operate public schools. So now if the faithful want to give their kids a faith based educateion, they hvae to come up with ADDITIONAL funds somehow to do it... and many simply can't. SO, to the extent that the government increasingly takes away, then cleanses, then returns our money, is the extent to which a free people are being materially denied freedom of religion.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#10)
    by Kitt on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 04:19:18 PM EST
    Faith-based funding link....from up above - no pun intended. [Thanks, I fixed it in the post.]

    This is what the document says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; I think it could be argued that federal funds to religious organizations is de facto establishment of religion. The founding moms and pops had some experience with religion-affiliated govt and didn't like the experience. You never know when a minister of either pulpit, cabinet, or both is going to have a revelation and become an ayatollah. When Madeline Murray-O'Hare succeeded at banning prayer in school, JFK (potus at the time) said, I guess we are just going to have to do more praying at home. God bless, him, exactly the right reaction to the judicial decision. No constitutional amendment craziness, no fawning and playing to the crowd who found the decision upsetting, just a constructive solution. Matthew 12:34 For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.

    It seems to me that there are 3 questions. . 1) What is the allocation of funding and have unpopular religions, and atheistic groups been given their fair opportunity to get funding: I have heard that this is not true, but don't yet see the facts to support this. . 2) Do we want to fund agencies that are not obeying the hiring laws that other groups are required to obey, e.g. that they do not discriminate? . 3) Do we what to fund programs that are permitted, if they feel it required, to "push" their own religiosity? It may be that the majority feels that the nation is a Christian nation and so these questions are irrelevant, but they were why we had a policy in the past that required separation of charity programs and the religion and that has been eliminated. Personally, as an agnostic, I would prefer that there be a strict separation, and be willing to let religions run separate, un governmetn funded programs, but unless the suprimes or the majority agrees, I am not surprised with the $1.7b figure.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#15)
    by yank in london on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    Even without direct funding religious groups, along with non-religious groups, receive significant government subsidy in the form of tax exemption. However, even as an athiest, I see no reason religious groups should be exempted from participation in goverment programmes as long as they do not discriminate in either employment practics nor participation and do not proselytise. I do worry however that these initiatives simply allow these organistions to move monies that they would have spent on charitable activies into religious activies and therefore effectively subsidise religion directly. Perhaps that is the intent.

    I really worry about this. I think the veil between church and state is becoming perilously thin. the only way to maintain religious freedom is to have secular government. As for AA, NA, CA and the like: they are faith-based organizations. What really needs to be done is real research into addiction and come up with real, biochemical cures. 12-step orgs do not have a good track record. This is from a person whose child successfully participates in the 12-step program. From her, I've learned that very few people don't 'go out.' One of my main resentments is how fundamentalist Protestantism has become the religion de rigeur. It is not an ancient religion. It's about 150 years old. I think Fundamentalists should be free to practice their religion, but, like all other religions, should not be able to base public policy upon its beliefs.

    I'd like to know where TMM Family Services got their "photo of Jesus." Must have been a pretty primitive camera.

    CA writes: "I think it could be argued that federal funds to religious organizations is de facto establishment of religion. " Not really. If they are already established enough to receive funds, then government can not establish that which already is. And if the monies are seen broadly distributed (to groups that help the sick, for example... it is easy to check to see if only Bhuddist hospitals get funds, right?) There is a chace for corruption, we do not live in a perfect world. That does not mean that one may reasonably skirt the issue. But government taking, cleansing, then returning of funds for the citizenry is most assuredly a method to restrict religious expression. See the 3:10 post.

    Since government has taken over education, people have had the money they had earned earmarked for education, taken away and stripped of relition to operate public schools. So now if the faithful want to give their kids a faith based educateion, they hvae to come up with ADDITIONAL funds somehow to do it... and many simply can't. As conscious angel inferred...those parents can still teach their kids whatever religious beliefs they want to AT HOME. Sorry but I don't want my kids getting your religion preached to them in the school I am helping to fund...thank you very much.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#20)
    by cp on Sun Jan 02, 2005 at 11:33:44 PM EST
    the first public schools in the united states were established in 1840, by horace mann. while they did include religion as part of the curriculum, they were not religious per se. people who wanted their children to have a religiously based education still had to pony up for tuition to a religiously based school. so, if, after 164 years, you are still unaware of this, perhaps you have bigger problems to deal with. it is well established, by case law, that the inverse of freedom of religion is freedom from religion. the writers just couldn't possibly think of everything. had they included every possible permutation and combination in the constitution, the document would require a tractor trailer to cart it around. tractor trailers didn't exist in 1789, so they did the next best thing, they made it portable in and of itself. they did, however, add one feature that must surely piss off strict constructionists: they made it amendable. of course, they also, intentionally, made it very difficult to amend. federal funds to religious groups, for use in non-religious purposes, are not inherently promoting religion, though i can see the indirect argument as having some validity. as long as receiving the benefits those funds are designated for doesn't also require subscription to a specific or generic religious dogma, i suspect a court would find that the narrow construence required, to avoid the first amendment constraint, is met. but, that's just my opinion, and i'm no lawyer. nor, do i play one on tv.

    EDM writes: "As conscious angel inferred...those parents can still teach their kids whatever religious beliefs they want to AT HOME." No, they CAN'T. And that is the point. If you take material wealth form citizens, and place it into a public school that is stripped of religion, then how is a parent with some number of children supposed to be educating their children in the religion they choose, when they are busy working to pay the tax for OTHER kids to get a non-religous education? EDM continues: "Sorry but I don't want my kids getting your religion preached to them in the school I am helping to fund...thank you very much." No one is suggesting this. The point is: if government didn't take the wealth you have to give to your kids education (and give it back as the public school system), then ALL CITIZENS could use the fruits of their labor to give an education to their kids in keeping with their beliefs, which is their expressed right as free people. But Government TAKES their wealth, strips it of religious content, then hands it back as secular services. This is cleansing. It is wrong. How would it feel to you to have your wealth taken, and the automatically converted to Christian use? Now, explain how you can take the wealth of Christians (or any group) strip it of their beliefs, and hand it back to them as the school system that they "paid for"? Teaching evoluton or whathaveyou. The power to tax is the power to destroy.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#22)
    by scarshapedstar on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:34:47 AM EST
    "Now, explain how you can take the wealth of Christians (or any group) strip it of their beliefs, and hand it back to them as the school system that they "paid for"? Teaching evoluton or whathaveyou." How does evolution go against Christian beliefs? The Catholic Church has no problem with it. Oh, you mean fundamentalist beliefs. Yeah, go look at a country that kowtows to fundamentalists. See how well that works. Say hi to the bin Ladens for me.

    I was tempted to write a significantly personal response here, but I'll let someone else bang their head into a brick wall. For those of you who aren't proponents of destroying tax payer funded education, I'll say this: If you didn't attend a private Southern religious school for a portion of your lifetime, you cannot possibly appreciate what access to Public Education means to the economically impoverished and minority children of the South.

    "How would it feel to you to have your wealth taken, and the automatically converted to Christian use?" Oh, you mean like giving our tax dollars to faith-based programs? It feels dirty, that's how it feels. I do not want my tax dollars funding anyone's religion, whatever it is.Whether it's christianity, satanism, judaism, islam or wicca, pay for it yourselves. You chose your superstition, you pony up for it. Don't impose tithing on the rest of us by the back door.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#25)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 04:33:27 AM EST
    The power to tax is the power to destroy. I am not a fan of public education. But, let's be clear about what you are getting. Public education provides the foundation for a very manageable population. It destroys the critically thinking individual necessary for a true democracy to work. Without public education there would never have been a victory this fall or a currupt administration running on a failed trackrecord of inept policies during their first term. Without public education we would never have been given an alternative candidate who had been a supporter of many of these failed policies as a senator. WIthout public education we would not have a population so easily manipulated to believe social security is in a "crisis" needing to be fixed by completely dismantling it and giving the proceeds to private compaies. Without public education there would never have been any support for the preemptive invasion of IRaq in 2003. THe power to tax is the power to rule. Public education has created a soiciety of loyal subjects who eagerily support policies that are dressed in the garb of red, white and blue. Before the birth of compulsory schooling (before the days of Howard Mann)the population of the United States would never have been susceptible to an administrations promoting the Patriot Act. Now, we are like putty in their hands.

    Repub of Palu writes - "I do not want my tax dollars...." Have you returned? Since you are in Holland, and since the first $80,000 dollars of income outside the US is exempted, I wonder just how many tax dollars you are writing about. TS - Amen. As the son of a sharecropper, I totally agree. That the system is now broken, and needs fixing, is another subject.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#27)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:39:46 AM EST
    As a side note on AA, my father was ousted from their program when he refused to acknowledge a higher power ( I forget which step that is ). I would argue that AA shoudn't receive federal funds because of this. They are discriminating based on religous beliefs, or lack there of. Not to diminish the good AA has done, but if you are an atheist alcoholic, you are out of luck. Faith based groups can and should receive private contributions, gov't funding should be reserved for secular organizations, to ensure inclusiveness.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kitt on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:54:58 AM EST
    Posted by kdog at January 3, 2005 07:39 AM As a side note on AA, my father was ousted from their program when he refused to acknowledge a higher power ( I forget which step that is ). I would argue that AA shoudn't receive federal funds because of this. They are discriminating based on religous beliefs, or lack there of. Not to diminish the good AA has done, but if you are an atheist alcoholic, you are out of luck. Faith based groups can and should receive private contributions, gov't funding should be reserved for secular organizations, to ensure inclusiveness
    Well...no one I know has been "ousted" from AA for not believing in a higher power. It's not something that should have been done if indeed that is the case. It's Step 2 = "Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity".....doesn't necessarily have to be God....although Step 3 clearly states "Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him." One guy I know says a shot glass of whiskey is his 'Higher Power' - he has no power over it. Other people speak of other things. And as Dean pointed out, AA receives NO OUTSIDE funding from anyone other than the members of AA. AA doesn't even figure into this. It's in reference to a post Cliff made to which I responded (and a few others). The traditions specifically address autonomy (#4) and #7, "Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions."

    Without public education the vast majority of the populous would be as they were before it's advent, namely illiterate, and even easier to manipulate. Also want to clear a couple things up about AA. First, as is stated at the beginning of meetings everywhere "The only requirement for membership is a desire to stop drinking". One cannot be kicked out for refusing to accept a higher power. In the South AA does have a much more Christian flavor than it does elsewhere and I find this difficult to endure so I rarely go to meetings, but they didn’t kick me out. Furthermore, "Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions." Not sure where people get the idea that government is funding AA. Maybe it's because many treatment centers, some of which are taxpayer funded, rely heavily on AA tenets. It is not unreasonable to be concerned about government funding of AA based treatment facilities.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#30)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:31:37 AM EST
    “Without public education the vast majority of the populous would be ... illiterate, and even easier to manipulate.” Or rather, because of….

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#31)
    by cp on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:38:21 AM EST
    i would further argue that, without the advent of public education, we would not have as high a standard of living as we currently enjoy. formal education would be strictly limited, available only to those able to pay tuition & fees, or able to hire private tutors. as the son of a share cropper ppj, you would now be...............share cropping for a living. most of the advances made in science, engineering, medicine, etc. in the 20th century, were made by people who received, at least in part, a public school education. one could easily argue that public education is responsible, in large part, for the overall superiority our military enjoys, both in terms of technology and personnel. illiterate people cannot operate the machinery employed by our current military. illiterate people cannot be given complex training in tactics or problem solving. this gives us a distinct advantage over every third-world country's army. this isn't to suggest that our public schools are perfect, they never have been, before or after ms. o'hare's suit. the teaching of morals and religious faith belongs at home and in the church, that isn't what public schools are for.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#32)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:53:14 AM EST
    ‘most of the advances made in science, engineering, medicine, etc. in the 20th century, were made by people who received, at least in part, a public school education.’ This is most certainly due to the large share of people in public education. If we required all children to be educated at home by their parents you could easily say the same. “in large part, for the overall superiority our military enjoys, both in terms of technology and personnel.” The bread and butter of US science are well-trained foreign nationals. Most US high school graduates are unprepared for the rigors of science. “as the son of a share cropper ppj, you would now be...............share cropping for a living.” This argument was made before, but it misses the mark. The sons of sharecroppers are most likely going to be sharecroppers, until they cannot. We see this worldwide in disparate cultures, sons do what their fathers did until that way of life is unsustainable. What you are talking about is opportunity; you need to make the case that it is justified to take another’s money for your son’s opportunity. “i would further argue that, without the advent of public education, we would not have as high a standard of living as we currently enjoy.” And I would argue that it was the advent of industry that has provided this opulence, even the (misguided) luxury of public education. You’ve put the cart before the horse.

    Just because public education does some good, does not automatically mean that it is not offensive to our constitution (in this case, eroding the free exercise of religion). You guys are engaging in a fallacious argument. Try this: Putting Japanese in interment camps during WWII may have done some good, (capturing spies) but does that mean that this was not offensive to the constitution? Sorry. All you are saying is that Public Education is so damned important, that we choose to turn a blind eye to what it does to the free exercise of religion. That argument *should* be beneath you.

    All people who live in a country that takes all tax money collected from you and your countrymen, automatically converts it all to Christian (or other) religious use, raise your hand. Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#35)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:14:20 AM EST
    The bread and butter of US science are well-trained foreign nationals. Depends precisely what you mean by this but I believe this to be false. Foreign students have provided lots of cash to schools in the US, but its not clear to me that they account for the majority of break throughs in Science and medicine. If you have studies that contradict my belief I would like to see them. Most US high school graduates are unprepared for the rigors of science. To succeed in science requires an advanced degree which does mean most HS students are not prepared and they are also not prepared for law school or med school or vet school etc. To me the attacks of public education are rediculous beyond belief. Yes there are problems. Its throwing the baby out with the bath water. The elite private schools of course do a better job because they are able to select a better starting population. I feel that some in the anti-public education crowd are part of the anti-reason anti-intellectual crowd that just want their faith based crap taught, as if learning about Intelligent Design is suddenly going to elevate our students in intellectual capacity. Others are frustarted with the conditions of public education which is understandable but destroying the village to save it is not the answer. Then there are others who I have met who want the schools to teach their kids the moral lessons that they themsleves are not teaching at home. Then other people don't want any moral lessons taught, they just want their kids to be programed. I went to all private schools, my kids have gone to public schools. You can be successful either way. What industrialized countries do not have public education?

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#36)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:14:40 AM EST
    SMS- A single penny of my money funding religious efforts is too much.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#37)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:24:40 AM EST
    SMS - your logic and understanding of the constitution is awful. First of all taxes are collected to serve the "community" meaning the majority. Not all people who live in a community receive the same direct benefit from the taxes. Some people don't have kids. I havn't had a fire but I help pay for the fire department. I help pay for other streets to be built and paved. If you took part of your argument to its logical conclusion, all taxes should be banned and you would pay as you go. So when the firremen come to your house you better have the cash or enough left on your credit card. Now you will argue thats a public service. So is public education. I don't believe your earlier argument that religion has been washed from the public schools. I would like to see some references or factual discussion. Public education should be religion neutral period. It should not promote religion or a belief in a specific god. It should also not discourage such beliefs. For those who want to teach their kids about god there's the dinning room table to discuss things and sunday school. Thats how my kids have been successfully raised. If you want your kids protected from certain secular beliefs thats your privalage. Put your kids in private school, a church scool, or home school. The government will not stop you from doing that.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#38)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:36:15 AM EST
    SD- “Foreign students have provided lots of cash to schools in the US, but its not clear to me that they account for the majority of break throughs in Science and medicine. If you have studies that contradict my belief I would like to see them.” I said bread and butter of science, not school funding. Spend some time with the scientific literature or visit a national lab. Heck, visit a graduate school lab. “HS students are not prepared and they are also not prepared for law school or med school or vet school etc.” Again, I didn’t say ‘prepared to become scientists’, I was pointing out they lack essentials for the rigors of science; critical thought and study habits for example. I have taught chemistry, math, and physics to freshman college students at two (state) universities. The foreign students were uniquely prepared “The elite private schools of course do a better job because they are able to select a better starting population.” True, but the majority of private schools are neither elite nor selective; but rather religious. Still, they consistently provide a better education. Of course you can succeed after wasting 12 years in a public school, I did. However, I can say with no qualifications that the only education I have received that was worthwhile was the one I paid for. “Some people don't have kids. I havn't had a fire but I help pay for the fire department.” Having kids is a choice. The comparison would be more apt if you had said ‘I haven’t SET a fire but I help pay for the fire department’. “If you took part of your argument to its logical conclusion, all taxes should be banned and you would pay as you go. So when the firremen come to your house you better have the cash or enough left on your credit card.” Logical conclusion? Just as you can insure for an ambulance ride you can ensure for a fire call.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#39)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 08:53:42 AM EST
    pigwiggle - thanks for your condescending attitude. First I work in one of the best labs in the country doing work for US defense. Second I have gone to graduate school in Engineering and was a professor at a nationally known engineering college for some time. So either come up up with some studies or but your observations where the sun don't shine. True, but the majority of private schools are neither elite nor selective; but rather religious. Still, they consistently provide a better education. pure conjecture unless you have studies. I don't believe this to be true. My personal experience is the opposite. I have taught chemistry, math, and physics to freshman college students at two (state) universities. The foreign students were uniquely prepared In general you are getting the cream of the crop from foreign countries. In state schools you tend to get everyone. So the comparison is not as black and white as you would make it. I would maintain that only the best students say upper 25% as a pure estimate are capable of real independent analytical thought no matter how much schooling they got. However, I can say with no qualifications that the only education I have received that was worthwhile was the one I paid for. that may be true but does not prove it as a universal truth. So you believe all taxes should be banned is that what is really driving you. And to do that of course you must tear down public education. I do not dispute your personal experiences, but merely say they are not indicitive of the whole country

    Sorry soccor dad... nice try. The post from 3:10 yesterday is, as another put it, "Unassailable." And in fact, nobody has even tried. Another example: a community of faith wishes to build a church... and toward that goal, each family saves money toward the day when the faithful in the community will build. The day they have enough money for the church, the state passes a tax (coincidentally, for the amount each family has saved), to fund the construction of a "community center" by the state. The families comply, and give over their property (money) as a tax, and the church constrution is cancelled. Now, those families wish to use their new community center for services, and can you guess what they are told? To the extent that this happens... is the extent to which free exercise of religon is materially crushed. It is totally abhorrent to the constitution of the US for the state to play a material role in cleansing religion from the free peoples of these united states. The more that is taken, for an ever widening circle of uses, cleansed, and returned to the population, the larger the effect. There are no escaping these facts.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#41)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:01:30 AM EST
    “First I work in one of the best labs in the country doing work for US defense. Second I have gone to graduate school in Engineering and was a professor at a nationally known engineering college for some time.” I’m confused; you only need read current scientific literature to see that American universities and Corporations employ a largely disproportionate amount of foreign nationals, mostly Chinese and Indian. Unless you’re assuming that all these researchers of Chinese and Indian surnames are native born or naturalized citizens. I have friends and colleagues in LANL, PNL, and Oak Ridge, of which only one is a US citizen. Additionally, a colleague of mine (a US citizen) just interviewed at these and Sandia. In wake of tightening visa requirement he found himself in the pleasant position of having his pick of jobs. I think my personal experience, and conversations with those I’ve just mentioned, has given me a representative picture of the state of US science. “pure conjecture unless you have studies. I don't believe this to be true. My personal experience is the opposite.” Well, I thought this was commonly known. But OK; here, for example, are SAT test scores for a few selected years for Hawaiian schools and national averages. Also, the National Center for Education Statistics notes that privately educated kids are almost twice as likely to attend college. My experience was that my privately educated friends got much more out of school that I got from my public school. “In general you are getting the cream of the crop from foreign countries. In state schools you tend to get everyone. So the comparison is not as black and white as you would make it.” You’re right; they certainly are the cream of the crop. My point wasn’t that other country’s public education was better than ours, although many are. My point was that US HS students are unprepared for the rigors of science and that foreign nationals are the bread and butter of US science. “So you believe all taxes should be banned is that what is really driving you. And to do that of course you must tear down public education.” I think people should pay for that portion of the public infrastructure they use. The best way to do that is through privatization, where efficiency and cost are of principal importance. I can only think of a few things that we all have common need for. Namely, law and defense; the rest is pork.

    "A single penny of my money funding religious efforts is too much." How do you know an "effort" is religious? Is it because religious people are doing it? Or is it because it has religous content? Or is it because it promotes the religion? Just because a local mountain biking club raises funds for tsunami victims, does that mean it is a "biking" activity? Don't be a doof. It is a charitable activity, and the nature of the association is immaterial to the activity in such a case. If they were raising funds to promote mountain biking, that would be another story.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#43)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:08:08 AM EST
    The post from 3:10 yesterday is, as another put it, "Unassailable." And in fact, nobody has even tried. Wasn't it Dr Ace? Well if thats your support you're in big trouble. No one bother and I won't agian, because it s a waste of time to try and combat so many ignorant strawmen. Your conclusions are idiotic at best. Ah hell this is a waste of time. Have a nice time playing the eternal victim. Maybe you PPJ and RA could all get together and buy strawmen arguments at a group discount. I am starting to come to the conclusion that most of the anti-education/religous victims are really anti goverment anti-tax people.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#44)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:22:54 AM EST
    pig Unless you’re assuming that all these researchers of Chinese and Indian surnames are native born or naturalized citizens. are you assuming they are not? battling antedotes at Govt labs does not prove your orignal thesis that they accounted for majority of breakthroughs. Well if its all so well known you won't have trouble giving me reference to some studies. Also, the National Center for Education Statistics notes that privately educated kids are almost twice as likely to attend college. This is a self-selection process. Most private schools, non-demoninational as well as Catholic are highly competitive and usually take only the better students, unless they play football. So to find more of them going on to college is no big surprise. Second, families who do not view education as important will not send their kids to private schools. My experience was that my privately educated friends got much more out of school that I got from my public school. Don't doubt this was true but does not make it a universal truth. . My point was that US HS students are unprepared for the rigors of science and that foreign nationals are the bread and butter of US science. I would hypothesize that the cream of the crop of US students are better or at least no worse than the cream of the crop from foreign lands. The US universities love foreign students. You know why? They pay cash dollars! They or their government pay full freight. And now we get to the crux Namely, law and defense; the rest is pork. So obviously you must tear down public education based on your antedotes and unbiased conclusions. Yeah right.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#46)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:24:45 AM EST
    SMS- “How do you know an "effort" is religious? Is it because religious people are doing it? Or is it because it has religous content? Or is it because it promotes the religion?” Context or promotion; although I would rather spend my own charity dollars.

    "Your conclusions are idiotic at best." As they say... "the first man to raise a fist..." (google it if you don't know)

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#48)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 10:42:15 AM EST
    “Well if its all so well known you won't have trouble giving me reference to some studies.” This is ridiculous. One only need look at the index of any ACS, APS, or Biophysical Society journal. There is clearly a disproportionate amount of researchers with foreign surnames publishing from US schools and Corporations, and you know as well as I do they aren’t just 3rd and 4th generation immigrants that stumbled into science. I am not aware of any study, why would anyone do one? It is so self-evident. I have to assume you are being purposefully disingenuous. “Don't doubt this was true but does not make it a universal truth.” That’s why I included the composition of average SAT scores for both private and public schools, which you failed to address. Any comment? “The US universities love foreign students. You know why? They pay cash dollars!” What does this have to do with anything we have discussed so far? If universities had the option of only taking foreign students this might be relevant. “So obviously you must tear down public education based on your antedotes and unbiased conclusions.” And you’re unbiased, please. Forget the efficacy of US schools; the crux is how you justify robbing your neighbor to raise your kids.

    In the South AA does have a much more Christian flavor than it does elsewhere and I find this difficult to endure so I rarely go to meetings, but they didn’t kick me out. Yeah, it's funny how they want to use Jesus as a replacement for alcohol...the same way as methadone is used to replace heroin. As for SMS...your "unassailable" comment reveals your fundie mentality. Your argument was dismissed pretty effectively be several people, but you are convinced you are right and you are unable to acknowledge anything besides your own narrow beliefs. You are a personification of the threat to religious freedom (which includes the freedom not to have a religion) that the framers of the Constitution had in mind.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#50)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:05:24 AM EST
    pig Last time I'm going to beat this dead horse. One only need look at the index of any ACS, APS, or Biophysical Society journal. There is clearly a disproportionate amount of researchers with foreign surnames publishing from US schools and Corporations, and you know as well as I do they aren’t just 3rd and 4th generation immigrants that stumbled into science. I do? What if they are second generation. When I was at the U. Southern California there were many many students in Engineering with foreign surnames who were 2nd, 3rd, etc generation. I hear some racism in your remarks. I am not aware of any study, why would anyone do one? It is so self-evident. I have to assume you are being purposefully disingenuous. The reason would be to eleminate biases such as the ones you have. You are basing your conclusions on the number of foreign surnames and concluding that foreigners are better prepared. I hate to break it to you but there are lots of people in the US with "foreign" surnames who have been here multiple generations and some longer than people without "foreign" surnames. Of course its a matter of perspective Native Americans think we all have foreign surnames. So by foreigners you mean Asian, middle Eastern etc. What about Irish, English, etc make sure to count them too. That’s why I included the composition of average SAT scores for both private and public schools, which you failed to address. Any comment? Once again private schools are self-selective. Non-domininational and Catholic schools have on average better students in the first place and they come from families who value education. the crux is how you justify robbing your neighbor to raise your kids. Because my tax dollars just helped pave the road in fron of his house and pay for the firemen that went to his house. We obviously have 2 different views of the world. Yours is that every house is an island and no one should tell me what to do or spend my money. My view is that I live in a community. I believe in supporting the community. I believe that by increasing the quality of the whole community I live in brings benefits to me, not all of which are in dollars. Some of this is self-serving because I know that towns with the better school systems and better town services have higher house values and I stand to make quite a bit of profit ;-). I want my tax dollars not to be wasted, and there is disagreement as to what this means but here for any big changes they have to be voted on by the town. I live with those decisions not all of which I agree with. Such is a democratic process. So are we only individuals or are we also members of a community?

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 11:36:10 AM EST
    SD- “I hear some racism in your remarks.” Don’t be silly. I said ” I am not aware of any study, why would anyone do one? It is so self-evident.” Well, to answer my own question I can quote a previous post. “In wake of tightening visa requirement he found himself in the pleasant position of having his pick of jobs.” It turns out others are concerned about increasing hostility toward foreign nationals and how this will effect our dependence on them to fill our science jobs. Here is your proof. As I was saying, foreign nationals are the bread and butter of US science; they are mostly Chinese and Indian. “Once again private schools are self-selective. Non-domininational and Catholic schools have on average better students in the first place and they come from families who value education.” You may be right. If public schools were competitive with private why would these parents, who value education, spend money when they could get the same for free? “Yours is that every house is an island and no one should tell me what to do or spend my money. My view is that I live in a community.” I fail to see how all these benefits you mentioned flow from socializing certain select services. You mischaracterize my view. I would be willing to help support a child that has parents who, for good or bad reasons, cannot afford an education. I don’t want to subsidize the education for folks who can pay their way. I have put off having children for quite a while; I simply want to be financially stable before I do. My brother’s wife is pressuring him to have children even though they are not. She has the attitude that they will manage. They will, at the expense of folks like me. I don’t call that community, It’s deliberate theft. I would also point out that in my world there would be nothing to stop you from forming any kind of collective community you wished. The same cannot be said for yours.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    To me the attacks of public education are rediculous beyond belief. Yes there are problems. Its throwing the baby out with the bath water. SD, I don't have time to follow the whole arguments above. I agree with your positions on just about everything. I may be wrong about public education, but don't assume all advocates of home-schooling are from the right-wing religious camp. The institution of public schooling is worth taking a look at by liberals. It was set up in the late 1800's as a means to control the masses. This is a history you will never get in the public schools. Check out John Taylor Gatto's Underground History of AMerican Education. You may not agree with everything Gatto says, but any rational thinker will find his arguments against public schoolining compelling and far from ridiculous. He exposes many myths, such as AMerica was populated with illiterates before compulsory schooling began (actually literacy rates have not improved). Public education is the perfect vehicle for propaganda. The founder's intentions for forcing school on the masses was not to create an intelligent population, but to create a scientifically manageable population of consumers easily controlled and manipulated. Gatto provides the history and shows that little has changed since its inception. The trend towrd national standards and testing is only the latest installment of the elite's objective of a completely manipulative population of consumers. His perspective is worth reading by liberals and conservatives alike.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#55)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:25:22 PM EST
    ‘Your article indicates that around 30to35% of PhD's are of foreign origin and who plan to remain in the US. Not insignificant but contrary to the tone of your remarks.’ What matters is what they do while they are here. Postdoctoral and graduate students are responsible for the day-to-day work in labs. A typical postdoc will do at least four years, and in some fields 8 or more, before they can get a permanent position. “The last part of your remarks indicate that you don't believe in community in any practical sense. Everything is deliberate theft if viewed solely form one's own perspective to the exclusion of all else.” Not so, there are those that cannot do for themselves. This is what community should be about, taking care of these folks. Not the wholesale redistribution of private funds for education, or any other of your pet social engineering projects. “If public schools were competitive with private why would these parents, who value education, spend money when they could get the same for free? Its the self-selection!!!” It was a question of practicality. If public schools are as good as private why would anyone chose private? Why would I buy a product when an equivalent one can be had for free? “God forbid having a child put a crimp in your style.” God forbid I should position myself to provide for and support a child. "I just remembered I have yet to get an answer to my question what advanced industrialized country does not have public education." I'm not aware of any.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#56)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 12:39:57 PM EST
    What matters is what they do while they are here. Postdoctoral and graduate students are responsible for the day-to-day work in labs. A typical postdoc will do at least four years, and in some fields 8 or more, before they can get a permanent position. ok so now your changing the goal posts! If public schools are as good as private why would anyone chose private? Why would I buy a product when an equivalent one can be had for free? I explained that or are you trying to prove your point by not understanding. Not so, there are those that cannot do for themselves. This is what community should be about, taking care of these folks. Not the wholesale redistribution of private funds for education, or any other of your pet social engineering projects. No community should not be just about "taking care" of some people. Its should be about, IMO, about all contributing to a common good. To call public education a social engineering project is just well ridiculous. There are a number of agendas driving the attack on public education. 1. people who want to get the government to pay for religious education and 2. privitize education, i.e. let companies take over. Lots of money to be made. "I just remembered I have yet to get an answer to my question what advanced industrialized country does not have public education." I'm not aware of any. And yet according to you they are kicking our butt. Hmmm How do you reconcile that?

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#57)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:09:58 PM EST
    “ok so now your changing the goal posts!” No, I maintain that foreign nationals are the bread and butter of US science. Half of S and E PhD students and Postdocs are from overseas; these are the folks creating science in the US. There are few industries in the US that can claim anything as remarkable. Factory farm labor would be analogous. Imagine what would happen to the price of US crops if farmers were unable to use Mexican laborers. “I explained that or are you trying to prove your point by not understanding.” Your explanation was ‘self selection’ and further ‘The real question is: are the top students, say upper 20%, in the public schools have good SATs and going to good colleges’ OK, I’ll give you that the top students score as well as the private school kids, and further that the private school kids have been self selected to be the achievers, hence comparable populations. Again, if the public schools were capable of providing the same quality education for these kids, why would a parent pay for something they can get for free? “And yet according to you they are kicking our butt. Hmmm How do you reconcile that?” I never said that. As you point out we get the best and brightest from overseas. Bully for us, let them pay to educate and US industry reaps the benefit.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#58)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:24:47 PM EST
    No, I maintain that foreign nationals are the bread and butter of US science. Half of S and E PhD students and Postdocs are from overseas; these are the folks creating science in the US. Then I submit "bread and butter" is too vague a term. Again, if the public schools were capable of providing the same quality education for these kids, why would a parent pay for something they can get for free? Why do people buy a Mercedes when they could buy a ford.They both get you here you are going. Parents believe that by going to a private school they may have a chance of getting into a better college. Other people don't want their kids associating with the rif-raf of society. some people spend their last dime because their school is inferior. There are lots of reasons.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#59)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:29:16 PM EST
    Not so, there are those that cannot do for themselves. This is what community should be about, taking care of these folks. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    There are a number of agendas driving the attack on public education. 1. people who want to get the government to pay for religious education We, the people, are forced by the government to pay to the government the money by which our "public" education is funded. Some of The People want their children to attend secular schools. Some don't. A reasonable person might concede that some attempt should be made such that the desires of both groups be accomodated in some way. and 2. privitize education, i.e. let companies take over. Lots of money to be made. Isn't economic activity generally thought to be good for the "common good?"

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#61)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    SD- This is the simply and introduction for what the founders hoped the enumeration (read limitation) of federal powers would achieve. Notice that the powers actually provided to the federal government were not nearly as vague as to “promote the general Welfare”. Even in your stretch this would be limited to a power reserved for the state. I will say that the constitution is a inspired document but by no means divine or infallible.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#62)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:48:49 PM EST
    A reasonable person might concede that some attempt should be made such that the desires of both groups be accomodated in some way. I'm not reasonable when it comes to the issue of separation of church and state. People who don't have children or whose children are already grown don't get a break why should you. There are certain things business should not be involved in: education and medicine come to mind. Their goals are contrary to the patients/student.

    Seriously, what would the govt do, if it didn't give away money to people who they think will elect them again. Dagma, I disagree with just about everything you've ever said...... except this.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#64)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    I will say that the constitution is a inspired document but by no means divine or infallible. rotfl - yeah I know it means what you want it to mean.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#65)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:06:29 PM EST
    “yeah I know it means what you want it to mean.” If it meant only what I wanted it to it would be more in my interest to hold it as infallible. “I'm not reasonable when it comes to the issue of separation of church and state.” Certainly not, or your might realize it is in everyone’s best interest to separate school and state. Most folks, acting in good faith, can’t even agree on what is factual; i.e. creation and evolution.

    Soc - "The post from 3:10 yesterday is, as another put it, "Unassailable." "And in fact, nobody has even tried. "Wasn't it Dr Ace? Well if thats your support you're in big trouble. "No one bother and I won't agian, because it s a waste of time..." Translation: can't!

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#67)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:15:22 PM EST
    Certainly not, or your might realize it is in everyone’s best interest to separate school and state. Not logical a real non-sequiter Most folks, acting in good faith, can’t even agree on what is factual; i.e. creation and evolution. creation by god is a matter of faith. Creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive, unless you are a biblical literalist, which no one is, some are selectively. Its my contention that science can never prove nor refute God's role in the formation of the universe. the "good faith" argument carries no weight with me. Racists in the south in the 1950's were acting in "good faith"

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#68)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:23:41 PM EST
    “creation by god is a matter of faith.” And your belief in the scientific method and reason is as well. I use reason as a practical matter; however neither reason nor faith can make any claims at universal truth. Dump trucks have been written on just this; the bottom line is everyone starts from some given (inarguable) foundation, be it reason or faith.

    soccerdad Each sentance of your response to my post is your own personal opinion - though they be stated as fact - and also patently ludicrous (in my own personal opinion, of course). But clearly neither of us is going change the other's mind.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#70)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:31:23 PM EST
    And your belief in the scientific method and reason is as well. absolute complete rubbish and indicates a complete lack of understanding of what the limits of each are. I already noted a limit of science

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#71)
    by Jlvngstn on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    So if you are unwilling to concede to any higher power, your sponsor and the rest of AA will look the other way regarding the higher power step? AA is no panacea and courts forcing people to attend is ridiculous so in a way the gov't is supporting AA as those attendees are paying state sponsored counselors who cram aa down the throat of alcohol and drug related offenders and make them attend meetings. AA helps many and doesn't help just as many, it is no panacea it is merely a trade-off one addiction for another. As one who has seen many "recover" thru AA and many recover thru counseling, i like the long term prognosis and attitudes of those that opted for the therapy approach.....

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#72)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 03:02:32 PM EST
    “absolute complete rubbish and indicates a complete lack of understanding of what the limits of each are.” No, it’s not. Science had previously offered the predictive power as proof of contact with some fundamental reality, or universal truth. Those days are gone. An honest physicist will tell you that she only has a tool for predicting average events, not a mathematical description of some fundamental entity. The theory of quantum mechanics, the most powerfully predictive theory to date, has lost the ability to claim contact with any physical, or metaphysical entity; simply symbolic meaning, not a description of anything real. I don't think you understand the limitations.

    you know, this whole 'seperation of church and state' thing is simple to me; it's the christians (majority) exerting their will over everyone else (minority). period. it is not about them being prevented from practicing their religion - it is about them being forced to aknowledge other religions as being of merit. i am a universalist unitarian. so to me, the teaching that 'jesus is lord' is against my religion. if it is taught in my son's school that jesus was more than an exalted man, it is against our religion. therefore, when christianity is taught in school, it violates our freedom of religion. atheists believe there is no god. that is their religion, to the best of my knowledge - that there is no god. the idea that there is a god is against their religion. so if the idea was taught in public school that there is a god, it would violate an atheist's freedom of religion. we would be forced, by our own government, to deny our religious beliefs. same with buddhists, taoists, muslims, etc etc etc, who do not believe in jesus or the concept of the christian god. and the first person to argue, 'well you can teach your own religion at home!' gets the hypocrisy gold star of the day. get it? this is purely a matter of the many (christians) saying to the few (everyone else) 'your beliefs are unimportant'. and it is very important for us all to fight against that tyranny.

    Kelite, It only violates the freedom of religion clause if you don't let them practive their religion. If they have to see yours, it's not a violation. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

    kelite I bet, if you really tried, you could probably figure out all by yourself some simple way such that those who want no religion in their kid's public education can get it, and those who want religion in their kid's public education can also get it. Get it?

    sorry, didn't mean to be rational. maybe i should be rude and snarky and i will get a reasoned response? anon, it's not just 'seeing' someone else's religion. it's participating in it. if the teacher says, 'okay kids! let's talk about how god created the earth and all of us!' or, 'let's all thank jesus before we eat' the teacher is promoting a religion and compelling the children to participate. that's what churches and homes are for - keep all religion out of public schools. period. sarcastic; good to see you living up to your handle. why don't you explain your point?

    Science is a method for understanding the universe. It is not an ideology, for, of necessity, ideology strangles inquiry.

    Ah PW, Google quantum computing or something and leave the Constitution the hell alone... Grover(s) piss off! Sorry, "Bill W." has said himself that the "Higher Power" was "God". I've lost a few freinds after they lost their faith. SOS (Secular Organizations for Soberity) are an alternative for ones who might have a problem with other orgs..

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#79)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:03:56 PM EST
    Science had previously offered the predictive power as proof of contact with some fundamental reality, or universal truth Not true An honest physicist will tell you that she only has a tool for predicting average events, not a mathematical description of some fundamental entity. We've known that for a long time. You are concocting strawmen again. Shame on you The theory of quantum mechanics, the most powerfully predictive theory to date, has lost the ability to claim contact with any physical, or metaphysical entity; simply symbolic meaning, not a description of anything real. I don't think you understand the limitations. now you're just making stuff up or having fun with the meaning of words. I'm finding you more despicable by the post. Between the moving goal posts, vague definitions, changes in context and argument this has become a waste of time.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    Science has never been about absolutes and anyone who says different doesn't know what they are talking about. Science is an ever evolving understanding of the world around us obtained by observation and experimentation. Sometimes theories last for a long time until a new technology allows us to see things a way never seen before and the theory goes up in smoke. To see a theory fail is not an indictment of science, it is an example of the fundamental strength of science. When provided with new data, theories will be revised and change appropiately. It may take time but it always happens. Ideologies continue without supporting data

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#81)
    by Mike on Mon Jan 03, 2005 at 07:01:06 PM EST
    SMS on January 2, 2005 03:10 PM made some sincere points that deserve straight answers. he objects to public education on the grounds that 1. After paying taxes for secular education, few people have enough money left to replace it with 'wholistic' religious education. 2. Secular eductaion not only uses up his money but also includes content, evolution, to which he objects. The first problem is not unique to religious people. All of us feel that school misses some of the main points in history, physics, etc. Of course we all have to supplement the school lessons with outside learning, especially on controversial issues. That's part of the cost of having democratic institutions- none of us get everything we want. Families are free to teach all the religious content they want. It seems like a real stretch to claim that losing the wholistic integration of the religion into all the other topics is an unbearable cost for religious families. On evolution, cosmology, etc.: What are we supposed to do? Pretend that we don't understand radioisotope dating, DNA sequencing, the statistics of the cosmic microwave background, the existence of transitional fossils, the results of evolutionary experiments, etc. etc.? If thoroughly established scientific facts aren't part of the common ground suitable for public institutions, what is? On another question: Why the big argument about exactly how much we rely on imported brains? Most of the immigrants were also educated in public schools. If other countries do it better, why not try to learn from them, instead of just giving up?

    Sarcastic wrote: "I bet, if you really tried, you could probably figure out all by yourself some simple way such that those who want no religion in their kid's public education can get it, and those who want religion in their kid's public education can also get it. What is it about "prohibiting the free expression thereof" that you don't understand? It does not say "all" expression. It does not say "most" expression. Cutting off KNOWN avenues of expression is restricting of that expression (for when ALL avenues are cut, then religion is stopped). Like a freeway that has half of its lanes removed for repairs, "free" flow can be restricted to intolerable levels. The first amendment says that laws must not cause an end to *free expression* of a religion... and as a perpetual institution, passing on the religion is necessary to its survival. Worship and education are part of that... clearly.

    Thanks, mike. Thoughtful. 1. After paying taxes for secular education, few people have enough money left to replace it with 'wholistic' religious education. The first problem is not unique to religious people. All of us feel that school misses some of the main points in history, physics, etc. Of course we all have to supplement the school lessons with outside learning, especially on controversial issues. Problem is, those that merely seek a "broader" or more complete education do not have a first amemdment to secure it. You may personally feel that the problem is the same, but the constitution views this very differently. The perpetual health of a religion must not be adversely affected by the state. It may die of it's own accord... but the state may not become an agent to that eventuality. Regards.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#84)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 07:47:32 AM EST
    SD- “I'm finding you more despicable by the post. Between the moving goal posts, vague definitions, changes in context and argument this has become a waste of time.” I have never, as you say, ‘moved goal posts’; I challenge you to show as much. My assertion was that your faith in science is little different that other’s faith in God. Modern science had never ‘evolved’; it is based on the scientific method; postulation and experiment. This is where your faith lays, not some individual theory that will eventually fail. The point has always been, at least in this current argument, that you believe just as fervently in your paradigm as religious fundamentalists. You, however, have little compunction with taking their money to educate your children in your way. When they propose the same you cry foul, unconstitutional. And it is; this is just the price everyone pays for inviting the government into the most intimate parts of our lives. But at least you have your sense of community; excluding religious fundamentalists of course. “now you're just making stuff up or having fun with the meaning of words.” No, I’m not. It is an interesting topic; modern physics has lost claim to a description of some underlying deep reality. The interpretations range; multiple world, unrelated cause and effect, even that there is no fundamental underlying reality. See for yourself. As for this being a waste of time, it was from the beginning. However, you make it even more apparent with the ad homonym; despicable indeed.

    Sorry, "Bill W." has said himself that the "Higher Power" was "God". I've lost a few freinds after they lost their faith. have any of the people talking about aa on the site actually read the entire big book? specifically the chapter to the agnostic? aa is based on the big book. many many many different ideas have come from interpretations of the big book (kind of like the bible). the big book was written to help alcoholics. part of the program is being willing to accept that there was/is a power greater than yourself. aa does not ask anyone to define that higher power based on any religion. i know a man who is successfully sober (for over 15 years) based on the idea that his mother is/was his higher power. i know it's off topic, but i couldn't resist commenting. if you want to know about aa, read the big book.

    kelite If you think the tone of the responses to your post were uncalled for, you might want to re-read your post. Get it? I went to 12 years of Catholic school. Near as I could tell from what all my public school friends told me, the main difference between their school and mine was that we had religion class once a day and they had sports teams that actually won on occasion. Public school can accomodate religious education without tyrannizing you and yours.

    Public school can accomodate religious education without tyrannizing you and yours. when i attended st. catherine's in seattle, we had a religion class too. a catholic religion class. where we studied the christian bible. i was our 'religion' representative in our student government. but catholicism was the only religion talked about as fact, or as 'the right information'. or studied or talked about at all. that makes st. catherine's, rightfully, a private school funded by private dollars. if you want to talk about a class in public school that teaches about all religions, fine. religious education, to me, means learning about all religions across the country and around the world. to some fundamentalists, religious education means teching about jesus and the bible as 'the way and the light'. there is a big difference between teaching about religion and just teaching religion. and i think that should be the difference between being a private or a public funded school. and yes, a public school that teaches one religion as the 'right' or 'correct' religion would be tyrannizing me and mine.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#88)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:49:19 AM EST
    Pig You are just making up straw men telling me what i think and posing a definition of science that is not correct. And frankly you appear to be completely ignorant of the meaning of science or, more likely, have co-opted some ridiculous view for other purposes to advance an agenda. Belief in the scientific method is not the same as faith in religion and your premise that Science can not lead to an understanding, although incomplete, of the world is sheer nonsense. Its simply impossible to take you seriously after this babbling. maybe you should give me a reference or two I could read, but until I see something that can better explain what you are trying to say, I say it is complete BS and is predicated simply by your agenda of tearing down public education. And yes you changed the goalposts anybody reading the entire thread can see that and hide behind such vague phrases as "bread and Butter" in order to avoid resolution of the discussion.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kitt on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 10:50:58 AM EST
    To 'sarcastic unnamed one' - My daughter also had 12 years of catholic schooling. Trust me, it was more than an hour of religion class every day and you know it. It's indoctrination and support of a religion - Catholicism - with symbols and signs all over and around. Plus the required attendance at Mass. I went to a Catholic high school, college and graduate school. Even at the undergraduate level, there were courses required of me that would not have been required at a public university - not that I particularly cared.

    kelite We're almost there. The other big difference I noticed between public school and my Catholic school, is that public school kids got to choose, within some parameters of course, their classes.

    Kitt I'm sure you are right about Catholic school. I'm trying to focus on public school solutions.

    oh, i get it! so you want public high school to offer a christian class as an elective? but see, if the government funds classes that endorese a particular religion, they are in effect endorsing the religion themselves. and that violates the seperation of church and state - if only because no school can afford to have teachers for classes in christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc etc etc. if you include one youmust include them all and you cannot teach one as 'the way'. and besides, i feel it is my responsibility as a prent to teach my child about spirituality and morality. i am against the government being involved in that at all. in addition, my son goes to sunday school and seems to be developing just fine without any interference from the public school. religion should stay out of public school. unless you are looking at a religion class that teaches about all religions in an unbiased way. that's the only way it would make sense to me.

    oh, i get it! so you want public high school to offer church, er, sorry, I mean a christian class as an elective? but see, if the government funds classes that endorse a particular religion, they are in effect endorsing the religion themselves. and that violates the seperation of church and state - if only because no school can afford to have teachers for classes in christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism, etc etc etc. if you include one you must include them all and you cannot teach one as 'the way'. and besides, i feel it is my responsibility as a parent to teach my child about spirituality and morality. i am against the government being involved in that at all. in addition, my son goes to sunday school and seems to be developing just fine without any interference from the public school. religion should stay out of public school. unless you are looking at a religion class that teaches about all religions in an unbiased way. that's the only way it would make sense to me.

    whoops, sorry - Double post.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#95)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 11:25:44 AM EST
    SD- “Belief in the scientific method is not the same as faith in religion” It absolutely is, the only reason I can see for ‘believing in’ the scientific method is its usefulness. However, it is just the paradigm of the day. Tell me, what makes your belief unique, or rather; what grounds do you have for ‘believing in’ the scientific method? “maybe you should give me a reference or two I could read, but until I see something that can better explain what you are trying to say, I say it is complete BS” Ok, here is a link to the so-calledCopenhagen interpretation. It does a nice job of outlining why the notions of causality and objective reality are, to be generous, problematic. The CI is one of many interpretations, simply google ‘the interpretation of quantum mechanics’. “And yes you changed the goalposts anybody reading the entire thread can see that and hide behind such vague phrases as "bread and Butter" in order to avoid resolution of the discussion.” That phrase came up in my response to another poster’s claim that “one could easily argue that public education is responsible, in large part, for the overall superiority our military enjoys, both in terms of technology and personnel.” I was simply pointing out that foreign nationals did much of the science here, i.e. defense; you disagreed. Most people would take that colloquialism, ‘bread and butter’, to mean a large or substantial portion; I think half, or even the 30% you site, fits the bill. Sorry, another vague colloquialism; rather, I think half could be described as ‘a large or substantial portion’. Better?

    but see, if the government funds classes that endorese a particular religion, they are in effect endorsing the religion themselves. and that violates the seperation of church and state kelite We were so close... Your original post was all about fighting against "tyranny." We resolved that concern. Ok, maybe some more details would need to be worked out, but conceivably, it could be done. Some how, some way, it could be done. Then you change our discussion to that of church and state. It has been debated exhaustively above, I won't waste time in repeating it. Why not just be honest and say "I don't want religion in public schools because, well, I just don't want it."? It'd save us all a lot of time.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#97)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 12:18:03 PM EST
    I know I am wasting my time but anyway Faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence For example - belief in god is a matter of faith since there is no tangible proof. To acknowledge what science provides does not involve faith, i.e. science is only useful if it can describe some phenomenon in a reproducible and testable way. The acceptance of a scientific theory depends on observations. Can science explain everything? Probably not. We don't know for sure because science is an ever evolving proposition where advances proceed one step at a time. Sometimes you end up in a "blind alley" and have to start over. Your rendition of the Copenhagen interpretation is selective and incomplete. Quantum mechanics is a construct (theory) its failure is not an indictment of the scientific method or science itself. It is an indictment of the theory and our understanding of how single particles behave. The conclusion that the understanding of the motion of a single particle under quantum mechanics is not deterministic does not necessarily mean that we can't ever understand the fundamental properties of elemental behavior. What it does say is that quantum mechanics as presently constructed can't do it. But to say there is not another better formulation that can capture the behavior is not warrented. For example, in the last 10 years or so we have seen quite clearly that nonlinear systems have behavior which is not deterministic in the usual scientific sense. In fact you can write a simple nonlinear equation that will have very rich behavior that is not deterministic. Many simple biological processes have non-deterministic behavior. Note non deterministic behavior is not the same as random. See chaos theory, the behavior is highly variable but has a complex structure. So in summary what you are saying is a philosphical argument that is not widely held as far as I can tell. It may be due to the fuzzines or lack of precision that is apparent in your use of words. A failure of a theory is just that. The conclusion that, therefore, there is not a better theory or construct to be developed in the future that will explain behavior is pure conjecture at this point. Your statement that faith in science is the same as faith in science proves to me that either you are in over your head, are extremely imprecise in your use of words or you are a charlatan

    Your original post was all about fighting against "tyranny." We resolved that concern. where???? where did we resolve that concern? tyranny = A government in which a single ruler is vested with absolute power. so i am taking the word 'ruler' and replacing it with the word 'religion'. perhaps the correct term is oppression? fascism? persecution? coercion? when you take public funds and spend them promoting one religion over all other religions (and teaching it as the 'correct' religion is promoting it) you are oppressing everyone who believes differently. now the idea that jesus is the lord, and that he is the son of god - those ideas are deeply against my religion. much like christians would not accept satanism being taught in their public school that they fund with their money, i will not fund a public school that teaches christian ideals as 'the way'. in my opinion, the only way to use governmental funds to teach about religion without oppressing the minority is to truly teach about all religions. the law is supposed to protect the people's right to practice religion as they see fit, not as the majority sees fit. so if you keep all religion out of public school, you preserve everyone's freedom to worship and practice their religion as they choose. if you espouse one religion in the public school, you are destroying religious freedom in the school. keep in mind that over 37 million people in american are not christian.

    Re: Bush Admin. Gave $1.7 Billion to Faith-Based (none / 0) (#99)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 04, 2005 at 01:08:43 PM EST
    SD- “Your rendition of the Copenhagen interpretation is selective and incomplete. Quantum mechanics is a construct (theory) its failure is not an indictment of the scientific method or science itself.” Quantum mechanics has NEVER failed, and this is my point. We have a rigorous mathematical formalism that has defied all reasonable interpretation but describes experiment exactly. The formalism has effectively described phenomena that are non-local, that disregard causality and determinism, that eliminate all objectivism. For this reason most choose not to interpret the formalism; the Copenhagen interpretation has been described as ‘shut up and calculate’. Some claim that there is no objective reality; some claim we can never know the true objective reality. In either case science has ‘lost touch’ with reality. Incidentally, this isn’t some marginal viewpoint. Most involved in day to day quantum mechanics need never consider any of these questions. When we do it is just fun debate, something to do over a beer. None would claim to have a common sense interpretation, one that describes an objective reality. “I know I am wasting my time but anyway” I don’t think so. Our positions seem fairly clear at this point. If you want me to concede that it is OK for your version of reality to be the reality of choice for schools, show me how it is unique or otherwise superior to that of fundamentalists. I offer the failure of the interpretation of QM as evidence that science has eschewed all claims to an objective reality. Anyone who claims they have some objective version of reality is most certainly wrong. I can see why you want to teach your kids the scientific method; it works well. I can see why the fundies want to teach their kids the version of reality spelled out by the bible; they want them to go to heaven and are equally convinced they are right. Neither of you has possession of the Truth. Why not to each his own? And I really mean to each his own, not everyone funds one versions of events and all dissenters must pay extra.

    kelite Are you serious? oh, i get it! so you want public high school to offer church, er, sorry, I mean a christian class as an elective? ...kelite See, an elective class. Free choice. No tyranny. If you can't see this, perhaps we'd better stop wasting TL bandwidth.

    yes, perhaps we'd better agree to disagree as you can't seem to be bothered to read my entire post. happy hunting.