The Fatal Flaw of Communism - by Frank Zappa

[Seth]

A minor point aside from this. It's not really a fair comparison to hold up the failures of communism against the success of capitalism in the west as the early communist states started from a hobbled position — both Russia and China were incredibly poor and backward countries prior to communism — expecting comparable gains from such disparate starting points is unreasonable. I'm not suggesting communism is a good system, only that comparisons must take these factors and others into account unless one is simply content to compare apples to oranges as if they were apples to apples. Moreover, I suspect it was the backwardness and suffering of their populations, perhaps fueled by envy of other nations, which allowed communism to take hold and flourish. When you're drowning, you're less picky about the rope that's thrown to you. I rather suspect, aside from my personal opinion that communism is a crackpot theory, that desperation of these populations left them vulnerable to "gambling" on radical ideas.

Well, western capitalist countries, before capitalism evolved, were dirt-poor serfdoms and feudal societies, and agrarian and poverty stricken, too.

It certainly was the grinding poverty meted out by a monarchy in Russia that made communism seem attractive. It's very simple: people rose up in favor of communism because it offered what appeared to be an improvement over the then state of affairs of near abject slavery where the bulk of the population were held as serfs at near starvation level. The difference is that NOW in rich western social democracies and republics, communism offers a reduction in lifestyle and standard of living to the great bulk of the population.

Does anyone seriously contend that what communism would offer, say, the US and Canada, is a greater, more comfortable standard of living for the average citizen, with more discretionary income, more free time, greater liberty and autonomy and an improved lifestyle? Or, isn't it fair to say that what communists and those that sympathize with communism say today is that we live too good, in "unsustainable lifestyles" which need to be taken down a notch, for the good of the planet, and in the interests of comity and equality with the rest of the planet, 90% of which lives far far below the norm of western Europe, Australia, the US and Canada?

Precisely correct and well said. This is the primary cognitive disconnect of Marxists today. They fail to understand that Marx theorized in a particular economic, social and political climate that no longer obtains, and that revolutionary overthrow of the monarchical tyranny and institutionalized class strictures of the late 1800's in Germany and in Russia that was perhaps a reasonable proposition at the time, but only because of the specific circumstances in which Marx was operating, is no longer a valid theory.

[Seth]

Can we start up the wank fnoglet, please?

bald assertion => I got nothing.

You have an adequate "wank fnoglet" already installed on your computer. It's called the "OFF" switch. Please use it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange, because I know a good many happy, healthy, well-adjusted children who are very religious.

To me, that's an oxymoron.

I don't want kids indoctrinated by Marxists either. But, I would not say it's "better" to have them indoctrinated by fucking priests and clerics and ministers and rabbis.

Some 80 percent of the population of the planet seem to disagree with you. I think their judgment is superior to yours.

The day 80% of the population demonstrates sound judgment, is the day I'll eat my hat and go ice skating in Hell.

The tax payer ends up footing nearly all of the bill.

Dunno about the UK, but that's not even a little true in the US.

Well, to the extent that someone else has to pay what the churches don't, then the tax payer does end up fitting nearly all of the bill.

Huh? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. In the US, taxpayers don't support religious schools AT ALL.[/quote]

That isn't true. You overstate. School vouchers.

Moreover, you missed the point - if the government needs $1,000,000 in revenue, if churches were taxed like other companies, then they would pay some portion of the needed revenue. Since they don't, the taxpayers have to pick up the slack. They are paying what the churches otherwise would.

Very little of the money for church-sponsored education comes from collections and donations.

In the US it's 100 percent between donations, collections and tuition paid by parents because it's illegal for our government to pay for religious schools.

Not totally true. There have been some inroads made here in terms of school vouchers going to religious schools.

Indeed. And justifiably so.[/quote]

Then you were wrong about the government not paying anything to religious schools.

Vouchers are nothing more than the money the state allocates for educating a particular child following the child to the school of the parent's choice, which is exactly how it should be, whether that is a religious school, a charter school or a public school.

You may hold the opinion that it is as it should be. However, that still makes you wrong about "no" money going to religious schools.

The state can require that children be schooled,

On what basis? Where is the constitutional authority?

but it ought not have the authority to dictate where that child attends school. So, it makes no difference to the taxpayers if the money allocated to educating a particular child goes to this school or that school so long as both schools provide the state-mandated minimum curriculum. Whatever else the school teaches is up to the school and the parents, and the taxpayers are still only paying for the state-required secular educational requirements, not for religious teachings, which are in addition to the state-required curriculum.

Again, you've just made an argument to justify the State funds being expended on religious schools. You've destroyed your own allegation that "no" such funds were in fact expended.

Parents who wish to get better educations for their children by sending them to private religious schools should get the same amount of money towards the state-mandated curriculum as parents who subject their children unwillingly to the Marxist public school educational system.

Be that your opinion as to the justification for the practice, it's still government money for religious schools, which you said did not happen in the US. Clearly it does. Clearly you admit it does.

The reason vouchers are opposed is quite simply because public school teacher's unions know full well that they are providing inferior propagandistic Marxist indoctrination in the schools and they want to keep their jobs and keep indoctrinating and propagandizing our children at taxpayer expense. They know that if voucher are allowed, the public schools will very, very quickly cease to exist because they provide such a grossly inferior educational product, and the teachers will be out on their asses looking for real jobs.

In Britain, church schools get practically the same state funding as state schools. And the churches pay practically no tax.

That's a matter of UK social policy I suppose. If you don't like it, change it. Churches are merely taking advantage of what the government permits, and people, who make up the churches, want their children given a religious education, not a secular one. That is their right. So, the government, which serves the people (or is supposed to) is merely doing what the majority want. Welcome to democracy. If you don't want your kids educated in a religious school, then by all means send them somewhere else. But parents who do want a religious education for their children have a right to put them in a religious school.

And, they have the right to pay for it. In my view, the citizen has a right to expect the government not to fund religious institutions, including schools. This is not a matter of democracy, but of constitutional limitations on government action.

School voucher money following a student to a religious school is not funding a religious institution, it's paying for the state-mandated school curriculum that the child is entitled by law to receive.

....paid to a religious institution. There is no restriction on the religious institution's use of the funds - just goes into their coffers.

That those secular elements of the entire school curriculum happen to be being taught in a religious institution that may offer ADDITIONAL religious education is hardly relevant.

Not relevant in your opinion. It's still money provided by the government to religious institutions, which you said didn't happen, when you now clearly acknowledge that it does happen.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is if he wishes to convince me that he's not pulling his assertions out of his ass.

That's what I was saying on the other thread, Seth. That if a religion or god advocate, including the writers of the Bible, want to convince me that they're not pulling their assertions out of their asses, then they have to present evidence.

Only if they wish to convince you. If they don't, they can simply make their claims and ignore you. You, on the other hand, presumably being a person of intelligence and reason, ought perhaps not violate your own principles of logic and reason by using their tactics of evasion of logic and reason. I sort of thought you held yourself to a higher rational standard than they do, which to me would mean not engaging in exactly the same sort of unreason and illogic in formulating your arguments as they do. Or shall I take this as an admission that you too are a religious zealot who makes bald assertions not founded in evidence?

Seth, I'm pointing out that YOU are using the tactics of evasion of logic and reason. I am perfectly happy to have the person making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.

You, on the other hand, engage in the nonsense evasion tactics of reversing the burden of proof when it comes to the god-claim, but demanding proof of all other positive assertions. Everyone can see it, Seth. It's plainly obvious that you do that.

It may bother you to have your own "logic" used against you, but it surely illustrates why you are so wrong on the god-claim argument. Yes, Gawdzilla made a positive claim and has the burden of proof. If he doesn't provide evidence, then we are justified in rejecting his claim. However, so are the fucking god-believers - if they assert their god(s) exist, then they must present "critically robust" (your words) evidence. If they don't, then it is rational to reject their claim, pending presentation of said evidence.

Just as Gawdzilla's writing is not itself evidence of its own claim, requiring you to find that a preponderance of the evidence is that Gawdzilla's claim is correct unless you can present critically robust evidence of the wrongness of the written claim, so too the assertion that God exists is not proof of its own truth just because it was put in writing in the Bible.

Your entire manner of argumentation is evasion.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is if he wishes to convince me that he's not pulling his assertions out of his ass.

Goose/gander.

I'm not trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother trying because you're impenetrable to logic or reason. You're merely a useful tool and foil for presenting my arguments to others, in particular the lurkers here.

You're my chew toy, and a tasty one at that.

You realize Seth, that on the god-claim issue, I'm not trying to convince them either. I'm just saying that I don't believe their claim that god exists. You claimed the belief that god doesn't exist is irrational, unless the disbeliever produces "critically robust" evidence that god does not exist.

You've illustrated, on this thread, the disingenuous nature of your argument on the other thread.

You talk out of both sides of your body, front and back. Which side does the "produce critically robust evidence to prove a negative" argument come from?

[Seth]

It is if he wishes to convince me that he's not pulling his assertions out of his ass.

That's what I was saying on the other thread, Seth. That if a religion or god advocate, including the writers of the Bible, want to convince me that they're not pulling their assertions out of their asses, then they have to present evidence.

Only if they wish to convince you. If they don't, they can simply make their claims and ignore you. You, on the other hand, presumably being a person of intelligence and reason, ought perhaps not violate your own principles of logic and reason by using their tactics of evasion of logic and reason. I sort of thought you held yourself to a higher rational standard than they do, which to me would mean not engaging in exactly the same sort of unreason and illogic in formulating your arguments as they do. Or shall I take this as an admission that you too are a religious zealot who makes bald assertions not founded in evidence?

Seth, I'm pointing out that YOU are using the tactics of evasion of logic and reason. I am perfectly happy to have the person making the positive assertion have the burden of proof.

You, on the other hand, engage in the nonsense evasion tactics of reversing the burden of proof when it comes to the god-claim, but demanding proof of all other positive assertions. Everyone can see it, Seth. It's plainly obvious that you do that.

You STILL don't understand? Look, the demand for proof by me is a rhetorical exercise intended to demonstrate the logical failings of Atheists who make the unevidenced claim that God does not exist based on an unevidenced claim by theists. A rational person cannot make such a claim without having accepted the burden of proving that assertion. The inability or unwillingness of theists to provide substantive critically robust evidence of the existence of God cannot logically be used as a valid premise in an argument claiming that God does not exist.

P1 Theists claim that God exists
P2 Theists fail to provide evidence of this claim
C1 Therefore, God does not exist.

The failure of this syllogism should be clear. Neither the claim by theists that God exists nor their failure or refusal to provide evidence in support of that claim leads to the conclusion that God does not exist. At best it leads to the valid conclusion that there is insufficient evidence of the existence of God upon which to form a valid logical conclusion.

You may form a BELIEF about the strength or truth-value of a theistic claim about the existence of God based on a lack of evidence, but you cannot form a rational logical conclusion that God does not exist.

P1 Theists claim that God exists.
P1 Theists fail to provide critically robust evidence of this claim.
C1 Therefore, no conclusion can be rationally and logically drawn about the existence of God.

It may bother you to have your own "logic" used against you, but it surely illustrates why you are so wrong on the god-claim argument.

But I'm not wrong, you merely misunderstand the argument.

Yes, Gawdzilla made a positive claim and has the burden of proof. If he doesn't provide evidence, then we are justified in rejecting his claim. However, so are the fucking god-believers - if they assert their god(s) exist, then they must present "critically robust" (your words) evidence. If they don't, then it is rational to reject their claim, pending presentation of said evidence.

Again, you fail to distinguish between belief and truth. What you are talking about here is belief. What I am talking about is truth.

You may validly say:

P1 Theists claim that God exists.
P1 Theists fail to provide critically robust evidence of this claim.
C1 Therefore, I am justified in refusing to believe their claim.

You may not validly say:

P1 Theists claim that God exists.
P1 Theists fail to provide critically robust evidence of this claim.
C1 Therefore, God does not exist.

Just as Gawdzilla's writing is not itself evidence of its own claim, requiring you to find that a preponderance of the evidence is that Gawdzilla's claim is correct unless you can present critically robust evidence of the wrongness of the written claim, so too the assertion that God exists is not proof of its own truth just because it was put in writing in the Bible.

Your entire manner of argumentation is evasion.

Not at all. It's an illustration of the illogic of attempting to draw a rational conclusion based on a lack of evidence supporting the claim. You seem to be stuck on the distinction between belief and logical proof.

Again, you may validly believe that a god-claim is unsupported by the evidence, but you may not validly claim that God does not exist based only on the existence of a god-claim and a lack of evidence of which you are aware or which you are willing to accept as valid and true.

Again, this is true because the god-claim is just that...a claim. It neither creates nor destroys God, if God exists or does not exist. The god-claim is merely a human claim purportedly based on evidence or belief that may or may not be correct and complete. Therefore, any criticism of the god-claim is nothing more than a criticism of the god-claim and the truth-value of the claim itself and only! The god-claim may be true or untrue without affecting whether or not God either exists or does not exist.

If you assert that the god-claim is insufficiently supported to be believed, you are making a rational conclusion. If you assert that because the god-claim is insufficiently supported that God does not therefore exist, you are making an invalid and irrational conclusion.

Do you understand what I'm trying to get across?

[Seth]

It is if he wishes to convince me that he's not pulling his assertions out of his ass.

Goose/gander.

I'm not trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother trying because you're impenetrable to logic or reason. You're merely a useful tool and foil for presenting my arguments to others, in particular the lurkers here.

You're my chew toy, and a tasty one at that.

You realize Seth, that on the god-claim issue, I'm not trying to convince them either. I'm just saying that I don't believe their claim that god exists. You claimed the belief that god doesn't exist is irrational, unless the disbeliever produces "critically robust" evidence that god does not exist.

You've illustrated, on this thread, the disingenuous nature of your argument on the other thread.

You talk out of both sides of your body, front and back. Which side does the "produce critically robust evidence to prove a negative" argument come from?

Not at all. You merely misunderstand the nature of the argument in the other thread, as I point out above.

[Coito ergo sum]

It is if he wishes to convince me that he's not pulling his assertions out of his ass.

Goose/gander.

I'm not trying to convince you. I wouldn't bother trying because you're impenetrable to logic or reason. You're merely a useful tool and foil for presenting my arguments to others, in particular the lurkers here.

You're my chew toy, and a tasty one at that.

You realize Seth, that on the god-claim issue, I'm not trying to convince them either. I'm just saying that I don't believe their claim that god exists. You claimed the belief that god doesn't exist is irrational, unless the disbeliever produces "critically robust" evidence that god does not exist.

You've illustrated, on this thread, the disingenuous nature of your argument on the other thread.

You talk out of both sides of your body, front and back. Which side does the "produce critically robust evidence to prove a negative" argument come from?

Not at all. You merely misunderstand the nature of the argument in the other thread, as I point out above.

Nope. I understand it completely. It's not complicated. It's just stupid.

[Seth]

Double post...deleted

[Seth]

Strange, because I know a good many happy, healthy, well-adjusted children who are very religious.

To me, that's an oxymoron.

Perhaps that's a product of either your Atheist biases and prejudices or your lack of experience with religious people and their children.

I don't want kids indoctrinated by Marxists either. But, I would not say it's "better" to have them indoctrinated by fucking priests and clerics and ministers and rabbis.

Some 80 percent of the population of the planet seem to disagree with you. I think their judgment is superior to yours.

The day 80% of the population demonstrates sound judgment, is the day I'll eat my hat and go ice skating in Hell.

The day that <15 percent of the population gets to decide for the other 85 percent how to live their lives I take up arms and go to war against them.

The tax payer ends up footing nearly all of the bill.

Dunno about the UK, but that's not even a little true in the US.

Well, to the extent that someone else has to pay what the churches don't, then the tax payer does end up fitting nearly all of the bill.

Huh? Sorry, this doesn't make any sense. In the US, taxpayers don't support religious schools AT ALL.[/quote]

That isn't true. You overstate. School vouchers.

I explained that. School vouchers merely pay for the secular state-mandated portion of a child's education, to which he/she is legally entitled. It does not pay for the religious portion of education in religious schools, the parents do.

Moreover, you missed the point - if the government needs $1,000,000 in revenue, if churches were taxed like other companies, then they would pay some portion of the needed revenue. Since they don't, the taxpayers have to pick up the slack. They are paying what the churches otherwise would.

Well, it's within the rights of the People to decide to bear that extra burden, isn't it? Well, that's exactly what the People did with the Constitution and the laws that bar taxation of churches. Welcome to democracy in action.

Very little of the money for church-sponsored education comes from collections and donations.

In the US it's 100 percent between donations, collections and tuition paid by parents because it's illegal for our government to pay for religious schools.

Not totally true. There have been some inroads made here in terms of school vouchers going to religious schools.

Indeed. And justifiably so.[/quote]

Then you were wrong about the government not paying anything to religious schools.

Nope. The tax money follows the student and must be used to pay for the secular portion of the state-mandated curriculum. It's not an "establishment" of religion any more than the government paying churches to provide food and shelter in a non-sectarian program is.

Vouchers go to pay the teachers for teaching the state-mandated curriculum, not fund the religion or the church, or for that matter the costs of school infrastructure.

Vouchers are nothing more than the money the state allocates for educating a particular child following the child to the school of the parent's choice, which is exactly how it should be, whether that is a religious school, a charter school or a public school.

You may hold the opinion that it is as it should be. However, that still makes you wrong about "no" money going to religious schools.

I said "In the US, taxpayers don't support religious schools AT ALL." This is true. Taxpayers who pay taxes for education that is distributed by vouchers to students who use it to obtain state-mandated secular instruction are not paying to support religious schools, they are paying the student to obtain a state-mandated education. The money goes to the student (or his parents actually) and THEY pay the religious school. The state is not funding religion, it's funding education. How the parents spend that funding is not relevant or subject to constitutional scrutiny so long as it's spent to obtain the minimum state-mandated education for the child.

The state can require that children be schooled,

On what basis? Where is the constitutional authority?

I'm not going to argue that point because I don't think there is any such authority, but I state it as a premise that remains legally true at the moment.

but it ought not have the authority to dictate where that child attends school. So, it makes no difference to the taxpayers if the money allocated to educating a particular child goes to this school or that school so long as both schools provide the state-mandated minimum curriculum. Whatever else the school teaches is up to the school and the parents, and the taxpayers are still only paying for the state-required secular educational requirements, not for religious teachings, which are in addition to the state-required curriculum.

Again, you've just made an argument to justify the State funds being expended on religious schools. You've destroyed your own allegation that "no" such funds were in fact expended.

Nope, because the money belongs TO THE CHILD, to be used for secular state-mandated education. Once it leaves the government coffers in the form of a voucher, it belongs to the child and how the child (or his parents) choose to spend it on education creates no constitutional implications.

Parents who wish to get better educations for their children by sending them to private religious schools should get the same amount of money towards the state-mandated curriculum as parents who subject their children unwillingly to the Marxist public school educational system.

Be that your opinion as to the justification for the practice, it's still government money for religious schools, which you said did not happen in the US. Clearly it does. Clearly you admit it does.

Nope. Once it leaves government hands and is distributed to the child, it's no longer the government's money, it's the child's money. The government may, however, contractually restrict how that money may be used, and it does so by specifying that it must be spent on giving the child the state-mandated secular curriculum. Because the government does not directly pay the school, the child does, there are no First Amendment Establishment Clause implications.

The reason vouchers are opposed is quite simply because public school teacher's unions know full well that they are providing inferior propagandistic Marxist indoctrination in the schools and they want to keep their jobs and keep indoctrinating and propagandizing our children at taxpayer expense. They know that if voucher are allowed, the public schools will very, very quickly cease to exist because they provide such a grossly inferior educational product, and the teachers will be out on their asses looking for real jobs.

In Britain, church schools get practically the same state funding as state schools. And the churches pay practically no tax.

That's a matter of UK social policy I suppose. If you don't like it, change it. Churches are merely taking advantage of what the government permits, and people, who make up the churches, want their children given a religious education, not a secular one. That is their right. So, the government, which serves the people (or is supposed to) is merely doing what the majority want. Welcome to democracy. If you don't want your kids educated in a religious school, then by all means send them somewhere else. But parents who do want a religious education for their children have a right to put them in a religious school.

And, they have the right to pay for it. In my view, the citizen has a right to expect the government not to fund religious institutions, including schools. This is not a matter of democracy, but of constitutional limitations on government action.

School voucher money following a student to a religious school is not funding a religious institution, it's paying for the state-mandated school curriculum that the child is entitled by law to receive.

....paid to a religious institution. There is no restriction on the religious institution's use of the funds - just goes into their coffers.

Nope, it goes to the student. The student gives it to the religious school. The Constitution does not prohibit a student spending education money on a religious school any more than the Constitution prevents a welfare recipient from giving the money they get from the government on tithing to their church. Once the money passes to them, it's their money. There may be contractual restrictions on how its used, such as using food-stamps only for authorized food, but there are many government giveaways that give away unrestricted cash that can be used for anything, including religious practices or donations to churches.

This is why vouchers are used rather than the state simply sending money directly to a religious school that certifies a student is enrolled, as it does with public schools. The voucher creates the necessary constitutional circuit-breaker between the government and a church that avoids any Establishment Clause complications.

Vouchers can be issued to any student who wishes to get a state-approved and mandated secular education outside the public schools, whether at a religious or purely secular private school. Once the voucher has been issued, the money it represents belongs to the student, to be used for education at ANY certified educational institution. When the student presents the voucher to the religious school, it's HIS MONEY he's presenting, not the government's. And just like that, all the constitutional difficulties are flushed away.

That those secular elements of the entire school curriculum happen to be being taught in a religious institution that may offer ADDITIONAL religious education is hardly relevant.

Not relevant in your opinion. It's still money provided by the government to religious institutions, which you said didn't happen, when you now clearly acknowledge that it does happen.

Nope, it's government money provided to the student. It's the student who provides it to the religious institution, something he is constitutional entitled to do. That's why they use vouchers, which are nothing more or less than a negotiable instrument with the sole condition that it be used to provide a state-approved academic curriculum.

That's the beauty of vouchers. Government could simply give the student cash, or a check they could deposit, but vouchers allow the government to be sure the money is being properly used to provide education, and not for something else.

Would you argue that if the government simply issued each student a check for their yearly education stipend that was deposited in their (parent's) checking account, and then the parents wrote a check to the religious institution (or any other institution of education) for tuition to a government-approved academic curriculum that this would still be "government money?" If so, when does government money granted to private persons become private property of the recipient? I believe the law is very, very clear on this: The instant the government hands it over to the private person, it becomes the property of the individual and is no longer government money. Now, there may be contractual obligations regarding how that money may be spent, but the money is still private property is it not?

Vouchers are nothing more than that, and the moment they are issued, they become the valuable private property of the grantee, not government money.

[Seth]

Nope. I understand it completely. It's not complicated. It's just stupid.

Only a stupid person would think so.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Arguments from Verbosity dominate this thread.

[Coito ergo sum]

Strange, because I know a good many happy, healthy, well-adjusted children who are very religious.

To me, that's an oxymoron.

Perhaps that's a product of either your Atheist biases and prejudices or your lack of experience with religious people and their children.

Not "pre-"judices. Just judices. I was raised in a church, and arrived at my opinions based on experience, and it's not a prejudice or a bias. It's a conclusion based on fact.

I don't want kids indoctrinated by Marxists either. But, I would not say it's "better" to have them indoctrinated by fucking priests and clerics and ministers and rabbis.

Some 80 percent of the population of the planet seem to disagree with you. I think their judgment is superior to yours.

The day 80% of the population demonstrates sound judgment, is the day I'll eat my hat and go ice skating in Hell.

The day that <15 percent of the population gets to decide for the other 85 percent how to live their lives I take up arms and go to war against them.

Who said anything about deciding for anyone how they live. I'm for every INDIVIDUAL deciding for himself or herself how he or she lives, no matter what idiot belief system they want to adopt. That doesn't mean they have sound judgment, and the reality is that 80% of the population are rather dumb and foolish.

I explained that. School vouchers merely pay for the secular state-mandated portion of a child's education, to which he/she is legally entitled. It does not pay for the religious portion of education in religious schools, the parents do.

Religious organizations are still getting the fucking money. You can justify it all you want. Maybe it's just fine and dandy. However, you didn't say "they get money from the government, but it's good they do." You said that they don't get any money. They do.

It doesn't matter that you explained why it's good. The fact remains that you said they did not, and you were flat out wrong about that.

Moreover, you missed the point - if the government needs $1,000,000 in revenue, if churches were taxed like other companies, then they would pay some portion of the needed revenue. Since they don't, the taxpayers have to pick up the slack. They are paying what the churches otherwise would.

Well, it's within the rights of the People to decide to bear that extra burden, isn't it? Well, that's exactly what the People did with the Constitution and the laws that bar taxation of churches. Welcome to democracy in action.

Whether or not it's within anybody's rights, it still is OTHER PEOPLE PICKING UP THE TAB.

Again, just because you feel something is justified doesn't mean it isn't happening. I agree, there is good reason for churches not to be taxed. However, the fact that they don't pay income tax like every other organization means that everyone else has to pick up that portion. Plain and simple.

Then you were wrong about the government not paying anything to religious schools.

Nope. The tax money follows the student and must be used to pay for the secular portion of the state-mandated curriculum. It's not an "establishment" of religion any more than the government paying churches to provide food and shelter in a non-sectarian program is.

The religious organization gets the money. You said they didn't. They do. I never said it was unconstitutional. I said they get the fucking god-damn money, and you're fucking admitting that they do get the money, and at the same time you're saying "nope they don't." But, they do. You're just explaining why it's constitutional and why it's a good idea. Fine. Arguendo, it's constitutional and a good idea. They still get the fucking money!

Can't you just say "yes, they get the money. I think it's good they get the money, and it's legal and constitutional."?

Vouchers go to pay the teachers for teaching the state-mandated curriculum, not fund the religion or the church, or for that matter the costs of school infrastructure.

Does the religious organization receive government money? Yes.

Whether it is justified or not is another issue.

The state can require that children be schooled,

On what basis? Where is the constitutional authority?

I'm not going to argue that point because I don't think there is any such authority, but I state it as a premise that remains legally true at the moment.

LOL - right. Thought so.

Nope, because the money belongs TO THE CHILD,

Bullshit. Cite the statute that says that. The voucher laws provide the money to the schools. It doesn't "belong" to the child. If it "belonged" to the child then the child or the child's parents would get the money.

[Seth]

Strange, because I know a good many happy, healthy, well-adjusted children who are very religious.

To me, that's an oxymoron.

Perhaps that's a product of either your Atheist biases and prejudices or your lack of experience with religious people and their children.

Not "pre-"judices. Just judices. I was raised in a church, and arrived at my opinions based on experience, and it's not a prejudice or a bias. It's a conclusion based on fact.

Perhaps. Or, perhaps it's an opinion based on bias and prejudice.

I don't want kids indoctrinated by Marxists either. But, I would not say it's "better" to have them indoctrinated by fucking priests and clerics and ministers and rabbis.

Some 80 percent of the population of the planet seem to disagree with you. I think their judgment is superior to yours.

The day 80% of the population demonstrates sound judgment, is the day I'll eat my hat and go ice skating in Hell.

The day that <15 percent of the population gets to decide for the other 85 percent how to live their lives I take up arms and go to war against them.

Who said anything about deciding for anyone how they live. I'm for every INDIVIDUAL deciding for himself or herself how he or she lives, no matter what idiot belief system they want to adopt. That doesn't mean they have sound judgment, and the reality is that 80% of the population are rather dumb and foolish.

Sadly, most Atheists are perfectly willing and eager to interfere with how theists live if given the opportunity to do so. I've never met one that wouldn't happily toss the Free Exercise clause out and impose legal sanctions on anyone who publicly displays any sort of religious faith. Perhaps you're the exception to the rule.

I explained that. School vouchers merely pay for the secular state-mandated portion of a child's education, to which he/she is legally entitled. It does not pay for the religious portion of education in religious schools, the parents do.

Religious organizations are still getting the fucking money.

So what? The Constitution does not bar them from getting money from the government, it merely prohibits government from establishing a state religion, and therefore any action by government involving religion must have a legitimate secular purpose (in this case providing to every child equally a secular government-mandated educational curriculum), it must neither advance nor inhibit any religion (in this case vouchers do neither because the money is paid to the student, not the religious institution, and even if it was it would be for a secular purpose not a religious one), and it must not "excessively entangle" government and religion (in the case of vouchers it does not because the government doesn't give the religious institution anything, it gives education money to the student, who then spends it where he chooses, be it at a religious or secular school).

You can justify it all you want.

Indeed I can.

Maybe it's just fine and dandy. However, you didn't say "they get money from the government, but it's good they do." You said that they don't get any money. They do.

No, they don't. They get it from the student, to whom the educational funds belong. I know you don't want to accept this salient fact, but it's a fact nonetheless.

It doesn't matter that you explained why it's good. The fact remains that you said they did not, and you were flat out wrong about that.

No, you simply refuse to acknowledge that money is fungible and that once it passes from the government to the student, it's no longer government money and the strictures on giving it to religious institutions vanishes.

Moreover, you missed the point - if the government needs $1,000,000 in revenue, if churches were taxed like other companies, then they would pay some portion of the needed revenue. Since they don't, the taxpayers have to pick up the slack. They are paying what the churches otherwise would.

Well, it's within the rights of the People to decide to bear that extra burden, isn't it? Well, that's exactly what the People did with the Constitution and the laws that bar taxation of churches. Welcome to democracy in action.

Whether or not it's within anybody's rights, it still is OTHER PEOPLE PICKING UP THE TAB.

Well, you wrongly presume that just because the government wants revenue that everyone is obliged to contribute equally to that purported need. That's not the case. We tax corporations different than we tax sole proprietorships. We tax commerce different from how we tax individuals. We tax segments of commerce differently from one another.

It just so happens that we do not tax churches, so they have no liability or obligation or "slack" that other people are "picking up." Since they had no duty to pay in the first place, they are not creating slack by not paying. You would like to construct this convenient strawman so you can knock it down, but it doesn't fly as an argument.

Again, just because you feel something is justified doesn't mean it isn't happening. I agree, there is good reason for churches not to be taxed. However, the fact that they don't pay income tax like every other organization means that everyone else has to pick up that portion. Plain and simple.

Not every other organization pays income tax, and you know it. Certainly you know that 501(c)3 non-profit corporations pay no income tax as well, so that shoots your argument right in the arse. And when you say "everyone else has to pick up that portion" you cannot make that statement without first making the false presumption that there is a "portion" that churches (or non-profits) are obliged to "pick up" in the first place. There isn't. They are not being forgiven their tax obligations because they are churches, they have no tax obligation to begin with, and therefore they can't be "slacking" and nobody else is "picking up that portion" because there is no portion assigned to them in the first place.

Then you were wrong about the government not paying anything to religious schools.

Nope. The tax money follows the student and must be used to pay for the secular portion of the state-mandated curriculum. It's not an "establishment" of religion any more than the government paying churches to provide food and shelter in a non-sectarian program is.

The religious organization gets the money. You said they didn't. They do.

Gets what money? The government's money? Nope, sorry, it's not the government's money by the time it gets to the religious organization, it's the student's money. That's a simple distinction that you simply don't want to acknowledge because it destroys your argument against vouchers. You want to continue to apply the original source of the money (which is actually the taxpayers, not the government) in your analysis of the legal implications, but the fact is that it's not government money, it's private money.

I never said it was unconstitutional. I said they get the fucking god-damn money, and you're fucking admitting that they do get the money, and at the same time you're saying "nope they don't." But, they do. You're just explaining why it's constitutional and why it's a good idea. Fine. Arguendo, it's constitutional and a good idea. They still get the fucking money!

Can't you just say "yes, they get the money. I think it's good they get the money, and it's legal and constitutional."?

No, because you are trying to use a strawman definition of "the money" that does not apply. There is a serious legal distinction between government money collected as taxes and private money belonging to an individual. The former cannot be given directly to a religious organization in a manner that "advances or inhibits" ANY religion, but the former CAN be given directly to religious organizations where its use is secular in nature and neither advances nor inhibits religion and where the giving has a legitimate secular legislative purpose. The Lemon test, with which I know you're familiar, says that.

But even that does not apply because the fact is that "the money" goes from being government money to being private property the moment it's issued to the student. At that point it's no longer "the money," it's just money belonging to the student that the student can and must use to pay for state-mandated education. Because it's the student's money, and not the government's, it's none of the government's business to whom that money is given because it's no longer "the money" that you are trying desperately to refer to. It's just money belonging to a private person.

Vouchers go to pay the teachers for teaching the state-mandated curriculum, not fund the religion or the church, or for that matter the costs of school infrastructure.

Does the religious organization receive government money? Yes.

Nope. It receives the private property of the student, and nothing that belongs to the government, as title to the money has passed from the government to the student upon transfer of the voucher to the student.

Whether it is justified or not is another issue.

Not really. There's nothing to justify because you're wrong.

The state can require that children be schooled,

On what basis? Where is the constitutional authority?

I'm not going to argue that point because I don't think there is any such authority, but I state it as a premise that remains legally true at the moment.

LOL - right. Thought so.

Derail attempt declined.

Nope, because the money belongs TO THE CHILD,

Bullshit. Cite the statute that says that. The voucher laws provide the money to the schools. It doesn't "belong" to the child. If it "belonged" to the child then the child or the child's parents would get the money.

They do, in the form of a voucher, which is a conditionally transferable negotiable instrument, which becomes their property, which they then take to the school and transfer ownership of to the school. Note that the owner of the money backed by the voucher is not REQUIRED to transfer ownership to anyone, which debunks the notion that it's still government money completely. But the only legal way it can be used is at a state-approved school, so the owner cannot use it for other purposes. But the ownership of the funds represented by the voucher had changed hands twice: From the government to the student; from the student to the school. When it gets to the school, it's no longer government money and there are no restrictions on which school the student can use it to attend.

That's the whole point of vouchers, to place the government at a legal remove from the disbursement of the funds to the school precisely to frustrate exactly the specious argument you're trying to make and allow parents to use the money to which their children are entitled by law for their education at the educational facility of their choice, including at religious schools.

[Hermit]

Thank fuck for scroll-wheels.