[crisdux]

Why shouldn't finds go to religious institutions? I lived in a western country that allows public funding for religious schools, which I attended while growing up. The schools are still fulfilling a public need of educating students. Is it because they are religious?

[riskable]

It's quite simple, really: The government shouldn't be giving money to religious institutions because that would be, "respecting an establishment of religion".

You could argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to laws written by Congress and not the whims of state governments but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does extend downwards like that.

Then again, the Supreme Court also ruled that if a state does decide to subsidize private education it can't discriminate based on religion VS non-religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue).

The bigger argument: By allowing a state to fund religious institutions (educational or not) you're basically granting the state great power over religious institutions (as well as taking non-sectarian money and giving it to sectarian causes). A governor or powerful congressman/regulator could demand all sorts of concessions from religious institutions or their funding could be withheld or reduced. In other words, it gives the government direct (and/or indirect) influence over the religion itself.

[s1artibartfast]

Seems to be stretching the separation of church and state.

As long as the schools meet certification and minimum curriculum, I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.

[consteval]

It seems like an obvious example of separation of church and state. The state shouldn't be funding the indoctrination of people into a particular church.

[s1artibartfast]

the state isn't funding any particular church. It is giving a voucher that can be redeemed by any secular or religious school.

I think it would be a separation issue if vouchers 1) could only be used for one religion or 2) could only be used at secular schools.

The key is equal treatment, not enforcing atheism.

[consteval]

A-religious endeavors are not inherently atheist. Public education is certainly not atheist.

Vouchers as a whole should be eliminated. Giving public funds to private schools is nothing short of evil. Using children as a pawn to move that money doesn't change anything.

Ultimately these schools exist to completely bypass any standards of education. That includes teaching religion, which is not allowed in public schools for good reason. This, on its own, isn't awful. But combined with stealing money from public schools it's a huge problem.

[s1artibartfast]

I think we will have to disagree. Religious topics aside, I am still a big proponent of vouchers, if only to get more kids out of bad public schools and hold them accountable.

It isnt stealing money because the schools dont deserve it. Students success should be the focus, not institutions.

[abenga]

> I dont see how it is different than the city buying concrete from a religious vendor.

It is not expected that the religious vendor will try to teach religion to every person who uses the structure built by the concrete the government pays for in your example.

[pixl97]

Depends if the school is serious about educating students or being a weird ass cult. In the US we have issues with cults throughout our history.