Posted on 02/25/2004 9:48:32 AM PST by Modernman
Edited on 04/22/2004 12:39:04 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Quite the opposite, actually. I have never stated, nor have I even implied that education should be 'free'. Historically speaking, people who receive 'entitlements' never appreciate them. I paid for my education myself, this meant delivering Pizza, stocking shelves and running my own business while going to college full time. However, I also know that if the college I attended were not funded in part by taxdollars, only the extremely wealthy could even contemplate sending their children to school. It would be nearly impossible for any person to fully fund their own education.
That is why I have never objected to paying school taxes, even while I was single. The school taxes go towards education, the education will create bright minds, who will someday return the investments made in them.
And those who would have been in favor of it in the Moore monument case are opposed to it here.
"It imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite," the high court majority said.
"It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit.
How I long for a faithful, consistent standard from the courts.
How so? In the Moore case, a government official was spending tax dollars and using a public venue for religious purposes. Here, the government is refusing to spend money on religious schooling.
Guess what? You're already paying for worse, if you check the local University's course listings.
Thats all fine but a far cry from your previous claims of benevolence graced on me by you.
But you do object to paying taxes to to bright minds who choose to study Theology simply because it is religious in nature, not tied to a specific religion mind you, simply religious in nature.
The problem is that the First Amendment guarantees that religion, in general ie:Theology, is protected and can not be discriminated against. Washington is discriminating against the study of only religion and you support it.
And you can't square that circle no matter how many pizzas you delivered.
That's a rather hollow defense in light of the fact that he used his Degree in Theology (not Divinity) to enter law school.
I have no objections to my tax dollars being used to fund any education, Islamic or otherwise, which adds to the moral strength and character of our society. I do object to my tax dollars being used on education which promotes immorality, depravity or anything else which rends and the fabric of our society. By those standards there is a large portion of liberal arts students who I object to any of my tax dollars supporting.
From your link of things you can do with a Theology degree:
personnel management
banking and accountancy
management in British Airways
management in the National Health Service
the Civil Service
public relations/marketing/advertising
radio work
the army
the ordained ministry
teaching (many doing their PGCE at the University’s School of Education)
To be honest, you can get into most of these fields without even a High School education. The ONLY job that this degree is intended for is the ordained ministry, or possibly teaching Theology courses to other like minded individuals.
Couldn't agree with you more.
Hey, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Obviously the only way to get into any field has to have prior apporval by Hodar.
THe Neutrality Doctrine has been replaced by the Hodar Doctrine, Hodar's way or the highway.
You did. I even quoted it for you. You equated giving money to a medical student (who would preusmably use his education to perform abortions) to giving money to a divinity student (who would most likely end up ministering to a specific congregation in a specific denomination). Here it is again just to avoid misunderstandings -
If I have to pay for this guy going into abortion, but the state says "no" to the other guy going into religion... that's religions discrimination. (emphasis mine)
I would suggest you actualy read the 1st Admendment because your statement is exactly 180 degrees out of phase with what US Constitution actually says.
Different" A degree in social work is different from a degree in mathematics is different from. . .well, you get the idea. I don't see that as a convincing argument as to why one particular type of degree is being 'singled out' and denied aid.
Thanks for backing up your positions so effectively.
You certainly add a lot to the discussion/debate.
Yes. They are also asked to fund education in things that are of no aid to me and with which I disgree. So can I refuse to fund those degrees?
Kind of pathetic, isn't it? You can't argue a point, but eagerly jump to the personal attack. Please grow up. I can certainly find a more intellectual argument from one of my grandchildren than you have proven so far. Have a nice day.
That was a serious question. How is it religious discrimination if the government spends tax money on things you don't approve of? Following that argument, tax money collected from members of peacenik left-wing churches should not be used for the military.
But they are limited none the less. So why should I have to fund their education?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.