Jesus and Financial Aid

[scooter]

http://nytimes.com/2003/08/10/national/10SCHO.html?hp

I'm sure many of us read the above article. For those who eschew NYT and who think that it is the instrument of The Free Masons, The Conspiracy, The Illuminati, and, of course, that diadem of all things wrong in the entire world, Ted Kennedy and his evil twin William Jefferson Clinton, the article basically notes that 11 states withold financial aid for those who declare a theology major. Note (and I could so very easily be wrong with this observation): I do assume that some theology degrees are not based solely on one religion, a la Christianity; perhaps some even assume a course of study that includes non-Western religions as well as the traditional Triumberant of Western theology. I couldn't quite tell from the article.

Regardless, however, does it seem right? I have to note that I find it somewhat perplexing as several other fields, rhetoric included, have some element of theological study at their historical base.

Reactions?

S

[thedecline]

Ironically, I think it violates the first amendment. How is discouraging the study of religion more constitutional than promoting it?

[thedecline]

Conservatives tend to ignore the establishment clause and Liberals tend to ignore the free exercise clause.
:hearhear

[jatkins]

As an agnostic social utilitarian, it amazes me that whoever is responsible for convincing these schools of the necessity of their denial of financial aid to Theology majors has somehow managed to force me to the side of the conservatives on this board.

So we're denying financial aid to people majoring in theology? SWEET MOTHER OF GANDHI! I'm with Ozymandias (that's not something I say that often), this isn't nearly so much a first amendment issue as it is an equal protection issue.

First of all, if states think that it's unconstitutional to give financial aid to theology scholars, doesn't that mean that, due to the fungibility of money (there's no way to separate the money you receive from the government from the money you receive from elsewhere, since you can always just shuffle it all around), any theology program that exists at a state university must also be unconstitutional? I'm certainly not in favor of doing away with theology courses, since they merely teach about religion, they do not advocate belief in it. I took a class called Introduction to Western Christian Mysticism, and it was one of the most interesting classes I've ever taken. Sure, I thought it was BS. After all, I'm not religious. But it was an illuminating look into the world of faith, which I understood with far less depth beforehand.

Just as theology courses are not necessarily religious, neither must theology scholars inherently be religious. While the vast majority are bound to be, the fact that atheists and agnostics could also receive degrees in theology negates the whole "establishment clause" violation idea. People of one religion could also theoretically be studying other religions as well.

The denial of knowledge of religion to those who seek it hits everyone who's looking for it, not just those who want to use it to prop up their own faith. Limiting the availability of that knowledge, especially in a way that harms the impoverished and minority groups in particular while leaving the wealthy and middle-class unscathed, is a moral outrage "up with which I will no longer put.*"

*Pointless Churchill quote.

[pdano]

From what I've read of this, I don't think it's quite so egregious as it's made out here. The majority of the laws don't limit the right to get a degree in the study of religion, but rather study towards the priesthood or equivalent rank. Michigan's law limits even the study of theology, but the person in charge of the scholarships, when notified of the rule, said that she thought that was sort of silly and would like it modify to conform with the laws of other states.

I think the state's got a much better case when they're just saying "we won't finance your study to become an imam," and that's what most of them are doing.

Dan

[patio11]

The distinction you're looking for there is, for many schools, the difference in the study of theology vs. the study of divinity. I think thats still garbage : "You can use federal monies to educate any student, except those persuing a religious vocation". Catholic priests quite frequently study an undergraduate degree only tangentially related to religion in preparation for seminiary school, sometimes out of concerns that many institutions don't teach theology all that well. If you know someone is studying History (or cellular biology, like a priest I know) with the intention of eventually putting on a collar, can you exclude him too?

Clear Excercise violation.

Patrick McKenzie

P.S. By the way, "Pell grants apply to religious schools so vouchers should, too" is a good argument if you like education reform cases. ;)

[jatkins]

Originally posted by patio11
P.S. By the way, "Pell grants apply to religious schools so vouchers should, too" is a good argument if you like education reform cases. ;)
Counterplan: Pass legislation preventing Pell grants from applying to religious schools. My coach would go absolutely crazy over this one. :P

[scooter]

I have to agree with Patrick on this one. I find the separation b/t the two to be a bit forced. I also think that Michigan, although clearly shocked at how silly this distinction is, should clearly change its policy. What disturbs me is the notion of the state telling a student what majors count or can not count with the intent of receiving aid. That bugs me not only in terms of religions but also in consideration of the possibility of what could be said in terms of some aspects of sexuality studies (like for the students in our newly created GLBT studies minor, quite possibly major) in states whereby (until recently) being gay was still illegal. I am frightened of possible impacts.

I think that one's tax dollars for education, yes, even in terms of a long term goal of religous service, should be given. I also have to wonder about possible censure of teachers whose salaries come directly out of state dollars. Shall I thus not address or mention anything positive about Judaism in my state sponsored lectures?

The possibility of having shoved a study of divinity or theology of any religion into the netherworld of non-recogntion does strike me as an act of extreme overuse of the establishment clause, not to mention I have to wonder how equal protection falls under this action...

S

[Pattybar]

It seems to me that an educated population is the reason we have financial aid in the first place... and it doesn't seem to matter what they are learning ----

This will just lead to more combining of departments at state schools... my BA is from the department of philosophy and religion -- I could have taken much more religion to complete my program --

Do I need to teach the arguments for the existence of God on my own time??? I doubt I'd have to do so when I do the argument from evil :evil

Patty

[patio11]

Counterplan: Pass legislation preventing Pell grants from applying to religious schools. My coach would go absolutely crazy over this one.

I've NEVER seen someone counterplan "Ban case and then some" and have it work. Its not competitive, first of all, and its an awful lot of work to do instead of just putting five analytics on the point (like "Pell grants being nondiscriminatory is bad" -- same idea, less words than the CP option). But even if you say that you still have 30 (?) years of religious Pell grants being awarded without the impending doom of the secular educational system which I always hear when I run education reform.

Patrick McKenzie

[jatkins]

Originally posted by patio11
I've NEVER seen someone counterplan "Ban case and then some" and have it work.
It is hard, but I've seen it work. Unfortunately I've never done it. Or voted for it. SHUT UP!

Its not competitive, first of all,
Yes it is; counteradvocacy is kill off Pell Grants and vote against case. If Pell Grants suck and I prove it, plan fails, because the advocacy adheres the value of Pell Grants to the value of School Vouchers. Of course, then I'm making the judge do a lot of work...and that's rarely good.

...and its an awful lot of work to do instead of just putting five analytics on the point (like "Pell grants being nondiscriminatory is bad" -- same idea, less words than the CP option).
I'm going to assume that this is where you're telling me what I should do instead. Unfortunately, I am not as experienced a debater as you, and your lingo-fu is superior to mine. Please exlpain this to me in the way that you would to a small child or primate.

But even if you say that you still have 30 (?) years of religious Pell grants being awarded without the impending doom of the secular educational system which I always hear when I run education reform.
I then argue that the gov's very use of the precedent set by the Pell Grants to justify the use of school vouchers for religious schools demonstrates clearly the slippery slope of precedent that we are on. Then I go on to cite private and charter schools in Texas, which received state money, and taught children to read using nothing but the Bible. Then there is an example/counterexample war on vouchers that I would generally win, having researched exactly this when working for my state rep, who is the most avidly anti-charter/voucher guy in the world. My only hope is that I wouldn't be facing you on the other side of the table, as I'm certain this is one of your better areas as well.

I posted the counterplan as a joke, but I'll try to defend it for the sport.

[patio11]

;) If you're this hard up for something to debate about, join the debate tournament on Net Benefits. We need more people who will actually stick to rounds through completion.

For the heck of it :

a) Philosophical competition doesn't prove an opportunity cost. Governments do irrational things all the time.

b) Even if you banned Pell Grants today, you would have thirty years of Pell grants going to religious schools and the sky has not fallen yet. This is a link takeout for the disads or case objections you would be making against vouchers.

c) My "debate-fu" was the following.

You have many choices in answering the voucher plan. You decide, for whatever reason, this Pell grant subpoint is key to the case, and it needs to die. There are two ways you can accomplish this. You can CP out Pell grants -- but this will take you three minutes and might not work. Or, you can make arguments against the rightness of Pell grants -- this can be accomplished in thirty seconds, and won't get derailed by a procedural objection like "Less competitive than Wash U's football team". So you'd probably not want to go for the CP, at least if winning was your objective.

d) I then argue that the gov's very use of the precedent set by the Pell Grants to justify the use of school vouchers for religious schools demonstrates clearly the slippery slope of precedent that we are on.

That is a very innovative argument. In fact, its a brilliant way of explaining a slippery slope link story to a judge and having them actually buy it. However, explaining the link story forces you to admit that your impact does not exist, because it should have happened all ready at the university level, caused by years of perfidious Pell provided to papist post-docs. Then you either need some fancy footwork on "Elementary/secondary school students are more at risk than higher ed students" or some similar argument to say that, basically, the experience with Pell grants teaches us nothing. Now, if you have an argument like that, you don't need to mention either the CP or slippery slope -- just make it and the aff's claim goes away.

Join the online tournament and we could do a callout round on vouchers. I'm sure Mr. Steck would like to see me clash for a change ;)

Patrick McKenzie

[jatkins]

Originally posted by patio11
c) My "debate-fu" was the following.

You have many choices in answering the voucher plan. You decide, for whatever reason, this Pell grant subpoint is key to the case, and it needs to die. There are two ways you can accomplish this. You can CP out Pell grants -- but this will take you three minutes and might not work. Or, you can make arguments against the rightness of Pell grants -- this can be accomplished in thirty seconds, and won't get derailed by a procedural objection like "Less competitive than Wash U's football team". So you'd probably not want to go for the CP, at least if winning was your objective.
I see now. That's probably what I'd do.

That is a very innovative argument. In fact, its a brilliant way of explaining a slippery slope link story to a judge and having them actually buy it. However, explaining the link story forces you to admit that your impact does not exist, because it should have happened all ready at the university level, caused by years of perfidious Pell provided to papist post-docs.
I'm glad you liked it. I would actually probably end up explaining the impact of Pell Grants as Vouchers, and then actually make topical arguments as to the impact of vouchers going to religious schools (unfortunately, there are very few examples in the status quo). I can see why it might be a problem that I don't have any really good impacts in the past thirty years, though.

Then you either need some fancy footwork on "Elementary/secondary school students are more at risk than higher ed students" or some similar argument to say that, basically, the experience with Pell grants teaches us nothing. Now, if you have an argument like that, you don't need to mention either the CP or slippery slope -- just make it and the aff's claim goes away.
The footwork need not be that fancy: "Students in higher education come into college with a more strongly developed conceptual framework, and are less likely to be swayed by the unsupported assertions of other individuals. Younger children, however, are very likely to believe that which they are told, especially when the person doing the telling is an authority figure like a teacher or school administrator." Straight Fordham, if you please. This one isn't a direct quote, but it's what I think he would say. He did a great article in the Journal of Church and State on the Pledge of Allegiance that I've had hanging on my wall since my Sophomore year of High School.

Join the online tournament and we could do a callout round on vouchers. I'm sure Mr. Steck would like to see me clash for a change ;)
I would, but my schedule is weird this summer. I'll be gone at seemingly random times, and reappear at others, in such a manner as I myself may not be able to predict. If you started a vouchers thread, though, I'd be willing to post to it when I had the chance.

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by patio11
I've NEVER seen someone counterplan "Ban case and then some" and have it work.

GOV: Claremont BS (behan/Small)

vs.

OPP: Truman MS (Mecham/Stroup)

Pt. Loma Sunset Cliffs Invitational, 2001

IS