Polycarp

Well, you may not like it but that’s how it works. Every college student who applies for financial aid fills out a FAFSA form. “FAFSA” stands for “Free Application for Federal Student Aid”, and is affiliated with the United States Department of Education. Here’s their website:
<a href="http://www.fafsa.ed.gov" target="_blank">http://www.fafsa.ed.gov</a>

You can search for any eligible school in the country at their site, and you’ll find almost every private religious school listed. Check it out it this link:
<a href="http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0203/fslookup.htm?szFSYEAR=1szFSMETHOD=1" target="_blank">http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/fotw0203/fslookup.htm?szFSYEAR=1szFSMETHOD=1</a>

Start writing to your congressional representatives… But good luck on getting this changed. It won’t happen anytime soon. Make sure you keep the poor people out of those private schools. Only the people with money should be allowed to attend those places.

[ January 25, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Polycarp

Further info for you to verify what I’ve been saying. Here is Biola University’s list of potential sources of financial aid: <a href="http://www.biola.edu/admin/finaid/main_aid.cfm#uggrants" target="_blank">http://www.biola.edu/admin/finaid/main_aid.cfm#uggrants</a>

Toto

Okay, it looks like you are right. A private religious institution cannot get federal grants for itself without signing a non-discrimination agreement, but its students can get federal aid. I guess the idea is that the aid goes to the student and not the religious institution. This is legal for adult students, but questionable for elementary school students, where it is the voucher issue.

I guess I feel about the same way about this as I feel about colleges being certified to teach astrology. That is, disgusted but powerless.

Asha'man

I just thought I would add an opinion or two. I haven't really thought about this issue much, so forgive the rawness of these ideas. (I’m following this thread from the BC&A thread, and don’t usually spend much time in this forum.)

I see a clear line between teaching about a religion and teaching for, or promoting, a religion. If you go to a class about ancient Egyptian religion, you are pretty likely to get an unbiased presentation, including the flaws, contradictions, and controversies that may have existed. If you take a course on Christianity, as taught by members of the Catholic Church within a Catholic school, you will probably get a whitewashed version of the religion, where any flaws, contradictions, and controversies are severely toned down, if not entirely ignored. (I know someone out there will speak up and say their Catholic school education included some of those things, but I will maintain that the teacher’s position was clear and authoritatively on the side of church doctrine.)

The difference is probably in conversion. If the teaching is such that it could convert someone, or strengthen their beliefs, then it is probably for a religion, rather than about a religion.

I don’t mind my tax money being spent on schools that teach about various religions, but I don’t want it spent on schools that teach for any particular religion. Think about the implication as if you were an outsider: what if tax money was being spent teaching your Christian child to convert to Islam?

The idea of student aid is clearly a more difficult question, but I think the same test can be applied. I don’t want my tax money spent on converting anyone, or strengthening his or her religious beliefs. If a student is attending a religious school, at least some of that money is going to a purpose I don’t approve of.

However, it is clearly more complicated than that. Suppose, as Polycarp suggests, the purpose of the study is a secular subject, like biology. A fine field of study, and one worthy of my tax support. However, if that study is done at a religious school, how can I not pay for the religious portion of the studies? I suppose we could cut financial aid for that portion of tuition going to religious studies, but what about aid that simply pays for a dorm room?

I have another hesitation about tax money going to religious schools, even when religion is not being promoted. Look at the debates over in the Evolution/Creation forum. Clearly, religious views can corrupt the practice of science. Imagine studying biology under a professor that believes in Young-Earth-Creationism, and therefore doesn’t teach critical portions of the material. Is this a good education? I know, not a likely scenario, since I have taken it to an extreme, but I do think educational corruption is possible and even probable.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Asha'man: I see a clear line between teaching about a religion and teaching for, or promoting, a religion. If you go to a class about ancient Egyptian religion, you are pretty likely to get an unbiased presentation, including the flaws, contradictions, and controversies that may have existed. If you take a course on Christianity, as taught by members of the Catholic Church within a Catholic school, you will probably get a whitewashed version of the religion, where any flaws, contradictions, and controversies are severely toned down, if not entirely ignored. (I know someone out there will speak up and say their Catholic school education included some of those things, but I will maintain that the teacher's position was clear and authoritatively on the side of church doctrine.) The difference is probably in conversion. If the teaching is such that it could convert someone, or strengthen their beliefs, then it is probably for a religion, rather than about a religion.

I appreciate your thoughts on this issue. We're looking at it from opposite perspectives, so I'm sure we'll disagree on much of this. This portion of your post seems very subjective and open to a variety of interpretations. For example, I've attended three post-high school educational institutions. Two of them were private religious institutions and one was a public secular college. My religious beliefs were "strengthened" at all three institutions. Similarly, I disagreed with the views of some teachers at all three institutions. I don't see how it's possible to say which classes/schools would fall into which category. What influences one student in a particular direction may have the opposite effect on another. I could also see how a person could be converted at a secular school. In fact, I know a person who converted to Christianity based, in large part, on their study of astronomy at a secular university. Does this mean the school was encouraging such a thing? I don't think so.

Quote:

I don’t mind my tax money being spent on schools that teach about various religions, but I don’t want it spent on schools that teach for any particular religion. Think about the implication as if you were an outsider: what if tax money was being spent teaching your Christian child to convert to Islam?

What’s wrong with government supporting all religions (and non-religions) equally? This is how they handle financial aid for college students. Your analogy of a Christian child converting to Islam fails because a Christian parent would not send their child to a school where this was being promoted. We are assuming that private schools are open about their religious persuasions. As a Christian, I really wouldn’t care if vouchers could be used at Islamic schools, just as they are at Christian schools. I’m sure Islamic schools are doing a better job educating our children then the government-run schools have been doing. Atheists can start their own private schools and be in the same boat as theistic religions in terms of promoting their worldview. I have no problem with that, so I’m always left wondering why so many non-theists disagree with my view.

Quote:

The idea of student aid is clearly a more difficult question, but I think the same test can be applied. I don’t want my tax money spent on converting anyone, or strengthening his or her religious beliefs. If a student is attending a religious school, at least some of that money is going to a purpose I don’t approve of. However, it is clearly more complicated than that. Suppose, as Polycarp suggests, the purpose of the study is a secular subject, like biology. A fine field of study, and one worthy of my tax support. However, if that study is done at a religious school, how can I not pay for the religious portion of the studies? I suppose we could cut financial aid for that portion of tuition going to religious studies, but what about aid that simply pays for a dorm room?

This ties into what I said earlier: most classes in most schools (public and private) attempt to influence the beliefs of the students. Why should anti-religious views be the only ones supported by the government? The government would not be supporting any one religion over another. The practical implications of your suggestion seem to render it improbable. How are you going to determine which classes count toward “strengthening one’s beliefs”? Or… Why is it OK for the government to support the atheistic philosophy professor who insults theists, but not OK for the government to support theistic professors who insult atheists? We would also need to withhold funding for anti-religious classes, too. Would you support this? If not, then you would seem to say that the government can only support anti-religious education. Surely, this isn’t what the Constitution says. It would seem impossible to implement the guidelines you suggested.

Quote:

I have another hesitation about tax money going to religious schools, even when religion is not being promoted. Look at the debates over in the Evolution/Creation forum. Clearly, religious views can corrupt the practice of science. Imagine studying biology under a professor that believes in Young-Earth-Creationism, and therefore doesn’t teach critical portions of the material. Is this a good education? I know, not a likely scenario, since I have taken it to an extreme, but I do think educational corruption is possible and even probable.

Educational corruption occurs in all fields of study, regardless of religious persuasion. What about my brother’s junior high art teacher who wouldn’t let him make a T-shirt depicting a religious musical group? Is that corruption acceptable? Or could the kids making T-shirts for Slayer be allowed to do so because that band is against religion? Yep, that kinda stuff really encourages free artistic expression.

[ January 29, 2002: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

ohwilleke

I am fairly sure that there is a non-discrimination statement that has to be signed for a private college's students to be eligible for federal financial aid. I don't think that this non-discrimination clause includes religion. But, it does include race. I don't think that you can use a Pell grant, or a Stafford loan, to study at a racially exclusionary institution, even though you can use it to study at a religious discriminatory institution.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by ohwilleke: I am fairly sure that there is a non-discrimination statement that has to be signed for a private college's students to be eligible for federal financial aid. I don't think that this non-discrimination clause includes religion. But, it does include race. I don't think that you can use a Pell grant, or a Stafford loan, to study at a racially exclusionary institution, even though you can use it to study at a religious discriminatory institution.

Yes. That's my understanding, too. I'm not sure about the student being required to sign a racial non-discrimination clause (I never remember doing it, nor did I read the fine print), but I know you can use it at religiously discriminating schools.