[sepositus]

> Stanley said this order sets the country “on a path to educational authoritarianism”.

Paying large sums of taxes for a school that is unquestionably failing my children, with no option to attend another school (without shelling an unfathomable amount of money for private schooling), feels like educational authoritarianism to me.

[OgsyedIE]

As somebody on the other political side, I wouldn't want federal tax dollars going to mormon universities in a vacuum. To prevent more culture war distractions from the faculty's jobs of teaching, I think anybody who can do math can agree that:

Either every university should get subsidies proportional to the effectiveness of their graduates or no universities should get any subsidies at all.

[theGeatZhopa]

what about every university should get subsidies per student's head-count and let the universities decide what for the money is used? The market will regulate the demand & supply of places and the universities have an incentive to grow and to attract students by quality. If its mormon-university and mormonism happens to be in big-demand, so then its a mormon university that gets subsidies. At least, its in europe mostly like this.

[drivingmenuts]

Religious institutions should only be supported by voluntary contributions from those who believe in its mission. No state should ever give money to a religious institution, for any reason, because no state should favor one religion over another. To do so leads to religious authoritarianism, which is a direct precursor to religious segregation and persecution. Money given to the state should only be used for purposes that benefit all citizens equally or to level the playing field for the less fortunate.

[tbrownaw]

Institutions should not be treated differently because they are or aren't associated with a recognized religion.

Really, the government shouldn't be in the business of recognizing religions at all.

[FilosofumRex]

Secularism/atheism is a religion too. It has dogmas on abortion, homosexuality, fornication, usury, adultery, education of children, and hatred towards other religions (as shown by you).

[drivingmenuts]

I do not hate religion at all - but I do not like state-sponsored religion, for the reasons I mentioned. If a religion relies on the the state, then the state gets to decide the practices of that religion and who may practice that religion, if it's allowed at all.

Likewise, if a state relies on a religion for its legitimacy, then the religion chooses who is valid to serve in government and governs the practice of those outside it's congregation.

The church should be a refuge from the state, not necessarily in opposition, but in a protective sense. It should provide a way to live, but not be the only way to live. If needs be, then the state should be a refuge from the church.

As for these dogmas, if they exist, it's that they allow the things you speak of to exist and provide a framework for those things to be safely practiced. None of those things are crimes when practiced within a framework of law, but instead are the choices of free individuals and should always remain so. They are not religious functions, but secular ones. Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's; even Jesus was OK with that.

Your mistake is equating the belief they should exist with hatred - I they should be allowed to exist for all and any restrictions in their use or practice by an individual should be governed by that that individual's conscience.

Per my religion, God gave us Free Will. The State doesn't get to take that away.

[sightbroke]

I am not sure secularism is synonymous with atheism.

I am pretty sure secular policies would be avoiding advocating or prohibiting for atheism just as it would for any other form of views that fall into religious or faith beliefs.

[sepositus]

> Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion. It is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.

That's the introduction from Wikipedia, which matches my understanding of the definition. It's not synonymous with atheism. However, given its stated mission of minimizing religion, it seems like it would be relatively unconcerned if atheism were to be treated more favorably.

[noman-land]

The dogmas, if you want to call them that, come from rational thought, not a magic man in the sky.

[theGeatZhopa]

It may be a "woman in the sky". We don't know.

[BobaFloutist]

But it doesn't have remotely the same religious protections as theism.

[jauntywundrkind]

I might maybe perhaps be willing to consider this if we revoke the tax exempt status of religious institutions. Maybe. I still doubt it.

[BrandoElFollito]

Religion is a cultural and historical construction and part of our life. There are constructions such as churches that are part if a country history.

The state supports, say, history teaching so religious artefacts should be partly financed by the state.

Which ones is the question.

Note: I am French, profoundly atheist and actively anti religion. But I love yhe culture and thus the history of my country.

[tbrownaw]

> what about every university should get subsidies per student's head-count and let the universities decide what for the money is used?

From what I understand it usually works better to pay for results rather than effort.

[LaundroMat]

Paying for results sounds efficient, until you start thinking about what those results should be and how you'd prevent policy makers anyone politicizing them and educational institutions from gaming them.

[trilbyglens]

This. So how do you compare physics outcomes with humanities outcomes or creative fields of study versus science or engineering?

"Success" is often neither quantifiable nor immediately obvious.

[theGeatZhopa]

You may have a point with it's better to pay for results. But that lead to an chicken-egg-problem. Without chicken no eggs and without eggs no chickens.

So, how to achieve good results, if they are needed upfront to get subsidies and subsidies are needed to offer opportunities to achieve results?

It's not always better to pay for results. Paying for effort would also allow the headcount and university size to be regulated by the market. If you are a university no one wants to adhere to, then you also would not get any subsidies and have an incentive to become better in whatever you teach, without questioning first, where to get the money from.

I see it as a try to remove people without money from education. That fits with all the wisdom trump is producing every single day. Stupid.

[ffsm8]

I don't think that's a logical conclusion, just from looking at your argument.

Universities are pretty much always basically regional-monopolies, while it's true that not every university gets the same amount of applicants, I don't think they're struggling to get students altogether? But I'm not American, so maybe it's different in the USA?

If it's not different in the US, then this kind of subsidy is much worse then the result based one, because their incentive ends at getting people into courses, not successfully finishing them. So from a profit incentive, keeping them an extra year is highly desirable

[theGeatZhopa]

Ok, I see your point. You may have an argument here :)

[sightbroke]

You can consider moving to a better district.

[sepositus]

How about sending my children to the school 20 miles away that is doing orders of magnitude better than my local district? Not an option apparently. Even tried several routes, including appealing to the school board, and I'm effectively ignored on every attempt.

Anyways, moving is not an option for me, as I have local dependents that I am responsible for taking care of and who would be abandoned if I left.

[sightbroke]

I am confused. 20 mile commute to school is feasible personally for your child but moving 20 miles to be in the district suddenly makes taking care of certain individual infeasible?

[sepositus]

This completely ignores the problem. I shouldn't have to sell my house and move to go to a school I can drive my kids to.

But, to answer your confusion, the median house price almost doubles in this area. So it's economically infeasible.

[sightbroke]

I wonder if there is a correlation with higher priced homes and improved school districts?

[sepositus]

I'm not immediately aware of any studies, but I would be shocked if there wasn't a correlation. Low-income families have a higher probability of raising children in a dysfunctional home who then become a burden on the local school district. Respectable teachers then flee these schools for better opportunities. This part isn't conjecture, as I'm recounting personal testimonies of teachers who have come and gone from my town. Whether this is a widespread issue, or how much of the problem it represents, I cannot confirm.

[MengerSponge]

Many American school districts are funded by property taxes, and access to higher quality schools is valuable. It follows that communities with more desirable schools would also have more desirable housing.

[cherry_tree]

So you are in favor of reducing the funding your childs school receives from the federal government? And for using the government to restrict funding to universities unless they comply with limiting the speech of students and professors?

I don’t see how that makes your child’s school better, can you explain how we get from A to B?