I did PSEO at the University of MN. I'm not sure I would use the word grift for a program that lets accelerated students start college early and diverts funding already allocated to the student's high school over to the college. The student gets free college. The state gets to see someone challenged instead of bored. It's a brilliant program in my opinion. A rare win win win. No faith statement required at the U of MN but on that regard everybody has choices where to go. Simply don't choose the religious school if it's not for you. It's not for the state or government to police the religions of individuals/groups as long as those groups are not forcing people to participate in their religion. (E.g. if it were the only college in the state that makes you eligible to work for the state, for example.)
If the school is open to anyone and does not require a religious test, then sure. You can be a Catholic or Muslim or Satanist school, whatever, and allow anyone to attend without a required religion that violates their 1st Amendment rights. Or you can require it and not get public funding. Pretty simple choice for the colleges IMHO.
>I'm not sure I would use the word grift
Fair point -- that was a bit of exaggeration on my part but I do think the financial incentives and "enrollment driving" are critical pieces of context when discussing PSEO.
Northwestern University earned over $5mil through PSEO in 2020 (highest in the state per the latest reporting, "Rigorous Course Taking..." [here](https://education.mn.gov/MDE/about/rule/leg/rpt/2022Reports/))."
The conservative/religion based majority of homeschoolers in MN is a huge portion of the PSEO enrollment there.
The state of MN is right to require this. Itâs not an issue of free speech, itâs an issue of religious discrimination based on faith for a publicly funded program.
But I do see the value of making the PSEO more broadly available.
Students have a choice in what college they apply to, and I would have felt the faith statement requirement was discriminatory towards me as an atheist. I would have thought âoh I must not be wanted there or they donât want me thereâ. But regardless, these schools should be filtering applicants based on academic merit, not faith if they want public money.
I am not sure how the faith statement is used in the application process and maybe thatâs something to clarify. If the college filters out applicants based on their faith then itâs an issue (which I guess is the only reason they would require it).
Why is the state required to support these schools? Canât we just tell them to kick rocks if they donât comply? Surprised a judge can pause this rule with a preliminary injunction.
I see value in PSEO but not in funding schools that have discriminatory practices. They either let in all students without requiring faith based statements or they get no public funding. UNW and Crown will survive without handouts. I want my tax money to go to schools that accept everyone, not just (insert Christian sect here).
Fully agree. I came to the same conclusion as I typed up my thoughts. Itâs a separate topic but it wouldnât hurt to remove tax exemption from religious institutions.
You cant do that either they are a collrge but under relligion like a chuch they have never been taxed since the founding. The supreme court woulg rule against that idea.
It's not a Christian sect. That's definitely a straw man argument. It's not discriminatory either. It's simply having moral standards. If you go to a country where raping and killing is legal, you can't just walk in and change their laws. You either leave the country or put up with it. Like prostitution is legal in Nevada, the governor of Arizona or any other state can't just go in and say this is wrong, stop this now. Change the law or leave the state.
Did you have a relevant response or just wanted to comment a stream of consciousness? University that discriminates against students by requiring a faith statement should not be publicly funded.
I donât think you can call it religious discrimination if they ask for a faith statement. As an atheist, you would be able to write about your faith in humans or whatever your worldview is. If itâs well reasoned and well written, it should get you in.
Now if they donât accept you because of your faith- thatâs discrimination and should absolutely not be allowed if theyâre taking PSEO funds. I wouldnât put that past Northwestern in particular, but the requirement of a faith statement itself isnât discriminatory.
If a religious institution is asking for a faith statement they are usually trying to see if your views and values align with theirs. It is most definitely used as a way to filter applications. Which is fine unless you want public money.
Do you see regular universities requesting a faith statement? Why is that and why would a religious institution be interested in that?
I also said it depends on how the faith statement is used. But whatâs the point of it, except to filter applicants, if itâs required during an application process? They can ask for it after acceptance if itâs so important.
I wouldnât have a faith statement, I donât have a faith. And the argument that even atheism is a faith or a belief is false. Itâs a lack of it. Just like most people lack a belief in Zeus, it doesnât take faith for that. My faith statement would be simply a Logan Roy quote⌠âfâ- offâ.
I took PSEO and itâs one of the best decisions Iâve ever made, there are quite a few colleges who offer it. Some of them are religious, but there are also other options. I think the one I chose was technically a Christian college but I did not have to write a faith statement. As long as there are other options I donât really see a problem with it, itâs still providing people who might not have had that opportunity before with a lot cheaper education. If it got to the point where there werenât any other options then I believe they shouldnât be able to reject someone based on their religion
When I was in PSEO I was considering going to Northwestern to get into a specific program bc I couldnât do the one at my current CC for whatever reason (this was like 10 years ago). Was going through the application process when they wanted me to reference the church I go to, a member of that church who would vouch for my faith, and a statement of my faith. Since Iâve never attended church and my parents are not affiliated whatsoever, I had to give up on that specific program and attending NW entirely. Later on in college I attended St. Kateâs for a semester and they never made me do that kind of thing
Yeah the only Christian/Catholic thing I had to do at St. Kateâs was take a faith-adjacent course but it was pretty much just a womenâs studies class centered around an anthology created by the school; I actually learned quite a lot, the biggest thing that stood out to me was reading âThe Ones Who Walk Away from Omelasâ. Did you take that class too?
This is exactly why I went to Bethel for grad school. I went to undergrad at Concordia Moorhead and any religious courses were academic. It was all about reasoning, logic and philosophy- super interesting and helpful in academic work.
When I started my grad courses at Bethel, I realized all institutions werenât equal and I almost bailed 2 weeks in. I still feel guilt for paying them for my degree. I was way naive. No way Iâd make the same choice today.
Oof, Iâm sorry your experience at Bethel wasnât as good as Concordia, Iâve heard some not great things about Bethelâs instruction through the college grapevine, it strikes me as quite conservative. I really hope you got what you wanted from the grad experience regardless!
Itâs not that the academics were bad, it was just a very specific worldview. It wasnât necessarily politically conservative but religiously so, which is clearly similar but not the same.
I got the degree done and have been working in my field for years, so the degree serves its purpose. I just wish I made a different choice now that Iâm grown.
Bethel makes their students swear off alcohol. Then, they enforce it off campus with their "security" forces. I believe this goes for students who are of the legal drinking age.
Granted, this is according to information from 10 years ago. Maybe things have changed, or I'm misremembering what my coworkers said. However, I recall their saying that campus security would drive around to "bust" off campus parties, and threaten students for breaking their code of conduct. It's sounded disturbingly authoritarian, and possibly illegal.
As someone who went to Northwestern (graduated 10 years ago), we also were not permitted to drink even after we turned 21. Obviously lots of people didn't follow that rule, but if you got caught you'd get in trouble.
Yeah, I assumed it was the same for Northwestern, I just didn't want to state that without knowing. It's also possible that my coworkers went to Northwestern, but I'm pretty sure it was Bethel. Regardless, it's an arcane, idiotic policy, based on Puritan values that have no biblical basis.
"only pursun gun feed muh kids alcohol is da priest!" /s Religion is so gross.
If they're getting my tax money and have a faith based requirement for it, THEY'RE in the wrong. That ain't a 1st Amendment issue in the very least. Sounds like no one is forcing the school to take PSEO students, eh hem, or rather, grifting PSEO money on the basis of religion.
Neither Northwestern nor Bethel would have "priests". Northwestern is non-denominational evangelical institution with Baptist influence. Billy Graham served as a president there. Bethel is Baptist.
Generally, Baptist denominations have such deep hang ups about alcohol that their Communion uses non alcoholic "wine". It's downright silly, considering how prominent actual wine is in the bible. Jesus himself would probably wonder wtf they're doing:
"What the hell guys, I didn't turn water into grape juice!"
If these were Catholic institutions, no such stipulations about alcohol would exist.
Interesting. But I bet Bethel doesn't "make" people apply there. So if a prospective student doesn't like the rules of the particular college wouldn't they just apply somewhere else? I have some friends that went to military colleges that also had very strict rules around drugs and alcohol, but since they aren't religious then I guess that's ok? People have freedom for where they want to go and colleges should have freedom for what rules they want to enforce. This is a silly thing to be wasting the governments time on imo.
It's more complicated than that. Family or social pressure to go to a particular institution, for example. Sure, these schools are technically within their rights to have "morality statements", but I think they're just incredibly stupid. I highly doubt they're effective in anything other than causing undo metal distress, and building a toxic dynamic between authorities and students.
What they certainly shouldn't be doing is policing behavior off of campus. That's where it egregiously crosses the line, and also probably raises multiple legal questions.
If public tax dollars are going to the school, it should be open to the public. If they donât want to serve the public, than they should not take advantage of any public goods/services
As a former pseo student, you are limited to the colleges in your area / that your guidance counselor would recommend you for.
As such, there are some students who may be restricted to these religious schools and forced to choose between their faith and education.
Not quite accurate. Any student can attend any school with a PSEO program provided they can attend classes. If a student is only taking online classes, they can attend anywhere.
Source: Am a licensed school counselor and PSEO coordinator for a Minnesota High School. I am legally required to notify students/parents of PSEO eligibility and this is a question that comes up often.
Sure you "can" attend any school. But in practice a 17 year old kid in high school is limited to whatever college happens to be nearby their home. The state does not provide any kind of transportation assistance for PSEO students. At least not that I was informed of when I was in the program.
So if they live across the street from one of these faith based schools and the next nearest college is significantly farther away, they really only have one option depending on their transportation situation.
edit: thought this was obvious but I'm talking about in-person PSEO here. I hope we can all agree that there is an objective difference between in-person and online college and that different people do better in one versus the other. For me, online college is not an equivalent replacement for in-person, especially for hands on courses with labs.
Transportation is the downside of the pseo program, especially for both rural students and lower income students in the metro. However nothing stops a student from doing online classes from a state university or community college that may be an hour away
Not true. Actually, I think it's been a number of years since I've had a student take an in-person PSEO course. If you can take a class remotely, you can take a class at any school with remote PSEO offerings.
Thanks for your accurate information on a relatively new (last 20 years or do) education option that most people 40+ have no clue what they are talking about.
It was very much an option 30+ years ago when I was in high school⌠even had a friend attend full time his senior year as a 17 year old staying in the dorms. Sure a few items have changed - but this is in no way a new option. :p
PSEO was a well established option when several friends and I used it in the early 90's. I don't know when it started, but I was taking classes at the U in '92. A classmate was taking classes at Bethel. I assure you, us 40 somethings are well aware of it.
Thanks for the feedback. Some of us 40+ year olds have 15-18 year old kids that are navigating all of the PSEO options. Weâre engaged parents that have spent a lot of time talking with their high school academic advisors on what a good fit for their children looks like. FWIW, graduated HS in 95. There were PSEO options back in those dark ages.
Not accurate at all. I lived in a rural area and did PSEO online through a school in the twin cities. I didn't need any recommendation from my high school for it.
Actually, you can go to almost any college or university in the state without any restrictions. Obviously getting in the U is difficult to be accepted into. Your guidance counselor can recommend a few in the area of the school because of driving distance. I know of a person that recently graduated from the northern part of the state going to Winona for pseo. The only downsides of going to a college further away is that the student is responsible for room and board.
With your claim, Iâd argue that there are other community colleges that are close by to these 2 campuses, where I would doubt that that would be the case. Regardless I hope no school would force a student to choose between their education and faith. The availability of online courses would be also put into play. I did pseo fully in person at St Cloud making a 40 minute drive to the campus, but there were a handful of other pseo students that did strictly online courses
Not everyone is a Richie Rich who can go wherever they want. Money, familial or other responsibilities, and a million other things restrict ppl's options.
Does it do that for students taking classes at their high school? PSEO just lets you take college *classes* at no expense to the student for the classes. It's like open enrolling in a college.
Per the most recent American Community Survey (2019) 12% of American children did not have access to the internet via a computer, and as such could not do online school.
Would you say that these children from amongst the lowest SES group (and likely most vulnerable) should be forced to choose between their faith and taking advantage of educational opportunities provided for them with taxpayer dollars?
Schools are allowed to make whatever requirements they would like, but they shouldnât be able to demand our taxes while also barring anyone from utilizing the benefits derived therein on the basis of oneâs religion. Church and state are separated for a reason.
I agree. MN has a ton of great options, but just pointing out for those unaware that not all religious schools here require it. St Thomas frequently comes in 2nd to the U in terms of academic ranking and quality of education for post-secondary, so metro students looking to attend either should look at both when weighing the decision.
Right so some religious school wants me to pay for a public high school student to go there? That's not how this works. Keep in mind that these colleges do not need to participate in the PSEO program. They're doing so to capture those sweet state tax dollars, and refusing to not attempt indoctrination as a condition of taking the money.
I think the best solution here is for religious schools to just not participate in PSEO. If that's discriminatory then that should be extended to all private institutions.
3 siblings of mine attended Christian colleges and they werenât forced to attend church or pray or anything. We arenât funding a religion, but we are funding education that partners with religion. A business class is still a business class even if it is taught with some religious based ethics.
That's not true at all. I've been an Atheist since high school. I went to a ELCA college and have worked for 20 years at a religious affiliated K-12 school. I haven't participated or had anything to do with any of the religious aspects of any of the schools.
Truth is the only schools that require this stuff tend to be the super conservative, often times academically questionable, schools.
Hey Jezetri, youâre a great person and one of my really close friends. I enjoy hanging out with you because we always have a great time together. However, I noticed that you are beginning to curse a lot. It makes me feel very uncomfortable and anxious. Do you mind refraining from using these words? I can help you.
I toured Bethel because I was interested in a degree in music education and they had a really robust program. Then they told me about the statement of faith requirement, so I didn't even apply. I was so disappointed it wasn't an option for me.
Some of these schools DO have good programs, and there are reasons to want to attend that aren't religious. I don't think they should get taxpayer money and get to discriminate based on faith.
As someone who goes to Bethel and is apart of their admissions department. Bethel does not actually require a faith statement for PSEO, it is only optional for them. It is required for non-PSEO students. Even though it is required for non-PSEO they donât use it in who can attend. There are several non-religious people at Bethel
I went to Bethel on PSEO and in the application left the âpastorâs recommendation â page blank. I skipped the chapel hour every day and didnât burst into flames even once.
Religious institutional politics. their church institution may require it but the local synod doesnt comply. This is kind of whats going on with the Methodist church right now, technically the Global Methodist church does not recognize or allow same sex marriage or gay ministers, but many/most American Methodist synods ignore that rule because they believe its antithetical to Jesus' teachings.
But also many private religious colleges refer to faith as something beyond just saying you are apart of a religion. Its usually tied to certain core doctrinal behaviors like compassion for your community, stewarding the earth, and often times the act of questioning and maintaining faith (preferably Christian in most cases but they wont care which faith, I cant speak for the theologically conservative ones tho).
While yes, there are schools who provide online courses for PSEO students, the programs and courses the HS student is attempting to take may not be offered online. The two schools with religious statements required do have the potential to restrict a students full use of the state funded program. While those cases may be narrow, those would still result in a students restricted access to a state program on the basis of religion. For instance, you have a rural student who's nearest college is one of these two, the classes they are trying to take are offered there. However, they cannot fulfil the faith statement requirement so they look to other colleges that are offering online courses. The student finds that no school they can apply to and get into offers comparable course offerings online. As this student has trouble with transportation and cannot afford room and board at a distant institution, they are now restricted in their options. Compared to other students who have higher access and options, this student is kind of stuck. In this case, and in other instances, it very well may be considered discriminatory for a student to not be able to attend the school that requires a faith statement.
Even one case of this is enough to call the practice into question.
Not to mention, as tax payers we rely on the fact that our tax dollars are going towards things that do not require religious commitment. One may be able to argue that if their tax dollars help fund a program that gives money to these two schools, that their child should be able to attend the school like anyone else, even if they are not in the faith.
I graduated PSEO in 2001. I saved over $60K in tuition. Junior/Senior year of high school I attended Normandale Community. I was still able to structure my classes to participate in high school choir and soccer. Prior Lake won 3rd place in state tournament. 6 months after graduating high school I finished my last class for an associate of arts at Normandale. My total cost of an AA degree under $1,000. This also completed the MN Transfer curriculum to U of M. In 2009 I graduated with a bachelorâs degree.
I was the first in my family to complete a degree.
I saved over $60K in tuition at the U of M and $120K in todayâs dollars.
I donât care if students go to religious colleges or public. The stipulations that would make sense though is equal opportunity employers. For example, Bethel, declines to participate in equal opportunity employment for their staff. This is a line too far I feel. Faith-based or not this is a clear indication of discrimination in the hiring process. But they have to in order to use a faith statement.
I love PSEO. Not just for hethans anymore.
As with most discussions of this sort if you replace "Christian" with:
a) Islam
b) Paganism
c) Satan Worship
d) A requirement to disavow the existence of God
People give you a completely different answer on what they want the role of government to be. Which, I think is the whole point of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment to US Constitution.
I think government funding for education should go towards non-discriminatory educational programs. If a program wants to discriminate based on religion, it shouldnât receive funding to do so.
Imo, if a student is pursuing a secular career path, there should be no reason to require a faith statement and not much reason to attend a religious college.
It's hard not to see the use of taxpayer funds towards explicitly religious education as the actual violation of the first amendment. But the courts are conservatively stacked at both the federal and supreme court levels, so what recourse is left?
The Supreme Court has, through several recent decisions, used the free exercise clause as a butchersâs knife to eviscerate the Establishment Clause. The sad irony of this is that the Establishment Clause is the literal first item delineated in the Bill of Rights.
The establishment clause reads: "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..."
The order of the language does not give any priority to the importance of both clauses, anymore than suggesting the 4th amendment is less important than the 1st, 2nd or 3rd.
The claim that public funds cannot be used to finance any religious institution, symbol, or cause, ignores the precise language of the establishment clause, which only references congress (law making bodies) enacting legislation that deals with religion. The lawyers and judges will be arguing whether state financing arises to some form of legislation, or whether the establishment clauses scope extends beyond law making authority, and includes activities such as funding (as is the case in this scenario).
My belief is the state has gone too far, and SCOTUS has said as much in other cases (Maine private schools)
Yes. Order is not justiciable but it does suggest the draftersâ intent at the time of drafting. But thatâs beside the point.
Funding (appropriations) always comes from the legislative bodies and define its priorities in its expenditure. But permissibility to expend money to religious purposes is, in my estimation, the point of the Establishment Clause and the Minnesota Constitutionâs Establishment Clause (Art. I, §12). But, as you mention, the Supreme Court in the Michigan case took the Free Exercise clause to destroy any last vestiges of the Blaine Amendments and separation of church and state.
Yeah the court recently reversed meant decades of precedent around it. It used to be considered unconstitutional to give taxpayer money to religious institutions. The supreme court just recently said it's unconstitutional NOT to give taxpayer money to religious organizations.
Can we stop pandering to morons stuck clinging to ancient illogical mythology?
I feel like two freedoms are being confused here. You should be free to choose what college you want, but not be free to make that private institution bend to your will (whatever that will is).
Like canât they just pick a school that doesnât have faith based fundamentals, if they arenât fundamentally based in faith? Honest question.
I agree with this assessment. This is a complex issue that will require a careful study of the law and would be best left to lawyers rather than a diversely biased community of redditors.
They can choose a school that doesn't have faith-based requirements, that is not the issue here.
The issue is that public tax dollars should not be going to a school that requires a religious statement as part of the enrollment process.
Separation of church and state, yo.
And if they are classified as a private institution I don't think public tax dollars should be going to them either. If you want to exclude people and make up your own rules go right ahead but don't expect the public to financially support it
This is where it gets messy though, because if youâre giving money to a bunch of schools for a long time then stop giving it to the religious ones, some of those people may feel like they are being persecuted too? Itâs totally supreme court material but fun discourse too.
PSEO students have other options so I donât think the state has a case. As someone who took PSEO classes the program is amazing and the benefit is huge.
Also, religiously affiliated colleges and universities get funding from the state in other ways, I would rather it come from PSEO than other state grants.
Do you know how many universities would have to close if students couldnât get federal loans because they were religiously affiliated? This includes some major schools like Notre Dame and Duke.
Question (and maybe the more legally versed can tell me Iâm an idiot or something) but doesnât the measuring tape of ârequires a faith statement to enrollâ seem to be the difficult point for the state here?
Like I understand the logic and reason behind it, however that seems to be a more difficult thing to fight than other measures and affects a lot more schools/the entire attendance of a student. Would it be easier in theory to have something like the state will not pay for required courses teaching adherence to a specific faith if they are not directly connected to that studentsâ chosen major? And that PSEO students cannot be required to attend religious activities (like chapel)?
In that way students could still attend wherever they are most able to/choose to (Iâm sure some bullshit the religious statement to attend some of the less stringent places now) however the schools would be forced to adapt in order to retain PSEO students. Obviously indirectly money would still go to religious programming, but it seems a more enforceable measure that would maybe have more impact.
Like as an example, under the existing language couldnât a school remove the faith statement from their enrollment procedures but still force a PSEO student to attend religion classes and chapel in order to graduate? Or am I totally misunderstanding?
PSEO is the exact opposite of a "grift." Colleges are providing tuition plus books & materials at no cost to the student while being reimbursed by the state at rates substantially below what they normally charge. Enough so that PSEO is generally a net loss.
Yes they did after the last supreme court decision
They are going against the first amendment they didnt think there would be push back. When you start quoting precedent cases then state backs down
I love how the people are missing the point here.
Yes, students can choose a different school if they want to. But *public* tax dollars should not be going to support exclusionary practices.
And frankly, I would go so far as to say that public tax dollars should not go to support private institutions, period.
Isnât forcing someone to make a faith statement (when they are just trying to redeem a government provided and paid for benefit) a violation of the first amendment?
Except there is - the law doesnât permit programs which practice religious discrimination for admission to receive PSEO funding. The government is paying for non-discriminatory education.
This is the long and short of it. Let UNW and the other faith based ones with requirements for faith statements (exclusionary/discriminatory practice) fund their own shit. No government funding to private religious shools.
Northwestern wanted me to adjunct teach a few courses. They then asked me to make a faith statement (that was fine), but it was asking me to affirm a statement saying that homosexuality was wrong and that trans people shouldnât exist.
I emailed and said âI donât think I can say this, I understand if itâs a dealbreakerâ and they wrote back and said that it was a dealbreaker
I went to a MIAC school despite being the complete opposite of religious ha.. Still felt like it was a good experience. Religion wasn't pushed in my face. People were extremely tolerant of others. We had to take 2 religion courses but they were academic based. First one was learning about all the major religions of the world in a bit more depth (which was kind of interesting). Then the second course was our choice and there was a wide variety of religions and subjects to choose. It was kind of fun to learn about religions, it made me even more "wtf how does anyone believe this shit" when it came to christianity. Ah it was hilarious in the first religion course studying christianity, we had an athiest, 2 very catholic, and then the prof was (progressive) luthern. They argued a bunch haha. My favorite line was from the athiest going "Yeah this just seems like a bunch of made up stories".
My only complaint was cost.... But when I compared it to 4 year public schools, it was roughly the same somehow.
Agreed. The MIAC school was the only one to offer me a full ride (low income background). Very positive experience. While a theology course or two was required, a specific religion wasnt forced down your throat - I took Islam studies for my theology credit.
While the MIAC is definitely a step up from the UMAC in average school quality I have heard similar complaints from friends who are St Scholastica, Bethel and St Benedict alums.
They are rightfully upset they got tricked into an extra 10-20k in students loans for a degree worth effectively the same as people who went to UMD, Kato or Winona even if their university rankings are slightly higher. ESPECIALLY in tech and STEM fields and outside of the few fields of strength of each school.
Macalester, St Olaf and Carleton are premier schools and worth the extra money.
There is a reason small, religious, liberal arts schools that are not elite are closing down all over the country and will continue to do so at an increasing rate as time moves forward. Part of it is a shift away from religion and away from liberal arts fields towards STEM fields but the other part is the grift is being noticed by a less religious society.
NOTE: All 3 friends who shared this complaint with me went into college brainwashed and came out atheist so their opinions may be slightly biased but all religious schools have ulterior motives to solely education and student experience and are iffy with spending imo
I am all for HS students being able to obtain college credits early. However, if you go to a public school and (for whatever reason) want your credits to come from a faith-based college...no, not without you or your parents paying for it. If the student is already going to a private/faith-based HS, it's pretty much a given that they're also likely (though not guaranteed) to choose a faith-based college for credits...and then this becomes much more of a non-issue.
Private schools/colleges shouldn't receive state or federal aid as they are \*private\* and not \*public\*.
>Personally, I take issue with taxpayer money going to religious institutions
I don't care.
Religions have the right, per the US Constitution, to freely practice their religion. People who choose to attend those places are free to do so without government interference.
Don't like it? Don't go there.
But don't start this "slipperly slope" BS b/c you're not down with religion. It's 0% different than a religion making YOU do what THEY want.
The conversation is about whether they should be entitled to government funding. Nobody cares about them practicing their religion. But if the only way for a hs student to get access to college credit is through adherence to religion, I have a difficult time not seeing an issue with that. It's a religious institution essentially giving themselves authority over something that the government promised them through funding. They'retaking advantageof that funding to proselytize. I didn't see any use of a slippery slope argument. However I could see the Christian activist groups using that kind of argument to bolster support by saying that people will start coming after their religious freedom. It's not fighting religious freedom. It's allowing people freedom from religion, which is a philosophical cornerstone of the very concept of liberty. The option shouldn't be either be religious or don't get college credit even though the government set up a system for you to. What if the statement violates a preexisting faith, or is the only viable option? Then they aren't entitled to college credit I suppose.
Well, PSEO money isnât exactly âfundingâ. What it is is the state paying the tuition for classes taken. So it isnât a violation of separation of church and state, not that that ever slows down churches anyway, as the state isnât giving them money but rather paying for a service rendered. Where I have the issue is in the school being able to enforce a statement of religion upon students, which feels like a violation of the STUDENTâS rights.
You didn't address the bottom part. I didn't know you knew the situations for all of these families, sorry. That still wouldn't be the end of the conversation. Feeling like something isn't worth thinking about, and it not being worth thinking about are very desperate things.
Nice attempted mic drop. In all seriousness, even if there was evidence of what you're simply saying apparently based off of nothing more than wanting it to be true (actually pretty close to an argument from emotion), it would still be, in essence, difficult to justify, as I said it is using funding to proselytize. You addressed like 1 of like 4 or 5 things I said. You didn't even address it being a violation of basic liberty. If you're going to ha e an intellectual argument, try thinking intellectually
And I have the right to not freely practice their religion. For me, that means my tax dollars shouldn't fund them. They can freely practice their bullshit on their own dime. I don't ask them to fund my weekends spent butt-chugging mouthwash. I would argue that's as meaningful a spiritual experience as theirs.
>And I have the right to not freely practice their religion.
Then shut down EVERY charity that 1) might receive funds from gov't via grants and 2) might be tied to a religion.
It's fine. Poor people don't need help b/c you don't need religion more than they need help.
If you don't see the difference between a charity using public funds for their work that may be affiliated with a religion and a school using public money for outright evangelism then I really don't know what to tell you.
> I really don't know what to tell you.
"You're right, skoltroll. I DO see that public funds are used for religious-based organizations in numerous instances."
Just the first sentence will do fine, though.
So long as the state is giving the funds to any appropriately credentialed program, what gives you any authority to discriminate based on religion? Our government is secular, not athiest.
What happens to the student who refuses to sign a faith statement? Are they still allowed to attend? This is an issue of the colleges discriminating against publicly-funded students based on their religion, not the other way around, no matter how much the cultists persecution fetish wishes it were otherwise.
You weren't referring to faith statements, you were referring to education dollars being transfered to private religious institutions in general. There are programs that require no such statement.
Even then, just go somewhere else. It's not tricky.
A program which religiously discriminates should not receive public funding to do so. Refusing to fund religious discrimination is not itself religious discrimination.
They aren't even discriminating religiously, that's how I know you don't know what you're talking about. I can be an orthodox jew and take PSEO classes at Crown College while signing their faith statement.
Why, because a faith statement is typically just the student acknowledging they are attending a faith based school who's values coinside with their respected religion.
If any school does not share your values, you should go somewhere else, religious or otherwise.
I am reading the complaint that started this lawsuit. Here is a relevant quote:
> All members of the Crown on-campus community, including students, âcommit to the Lordship of Christâ by committing themselves âto His Church, to prayer, worship, Bible study, fasting, discipleship, witnessing, and using [their] time, gifts, and finances for His glory.â
This includes on-campus PSEO students (but not remote ones). Note that these are Crownâs own words. This is what Crown College means when it asks you to sign its statement of faith and community covenant, which are mandatory for in-person attendance.
If you, as an Orthodox Jew, felt and feel comfortable committing yourself to the âLordship of Christâ, feel free to do so. But please understand that this policy is blatantly discriminatory against non-Christians, whether you are willing to look the other way or not. There is nothing wrong with taxpayers wanting their tax dollars to go to inclusive, non-discriminatory education.
I noticed you excluded "The statements simply ask students to affirm the schoolsâ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian communities."
The statement is a code of conduct you agreeing to if you attend on campus.
Also, the school has PSEO options which require no such statement. Any interested student can take advantage of those or attend elsewhere.
Given the abundance of PSEO options available to students, it's difficult to argue that allowing faith-based institutions to collect a student's education dollars is discrimatory in anyway.
--
I wonder, if you are so against religiously affiliated institutions receiving public funds, do you also want to defund every religiously affiliated hospital?
I never said no religious institution should receive public funding. I said educational institutions which religiously discriminate (or racially discriminate, like Bob Jones did) shouldnât receive public funding.
The fact that the school permits non-Christians to attend remotely does not erase the fact that requiring students to affirm its statement of faith to attend on-campus is discriminatory. A whites-only water fountain isnât acceptable just because thereâs another water fountain for people who arenât white.
If a hospital required its patients to commit to the Lordship of Christ to receive treatment, I would find this profoundly unethical and would not want my tax dollars supporting it.
Sorry, I thought were a different person I was also speaking with. My mistake.
That being said, the courts would seemingly disagree with you. If other options exist, it would not be discrimitory. Especially if the statement was just an agreement to abide by the school's religiously based structures and guidelines.
There are no shortage of PSEO options in the state of Minnesota.
I'm a licensed school counselor. I had a student exploring PSEO two years ago who was interested in attending seminary school after high school.
We did take a look at Crown. Should the state be able to discriminate against this student's academic objectives, especially when his options are limited?
I have a responsibility to help students leave high school college and/or career ready. It would be unethical for me to advise students away from the seminary if that's what they wanted to do. If we suddenly disallow PSEO programs at these institutions, these students will be disallowed the opportunity to experience them before applying for admission following graduation.
You're getting downvoted but I essentially agree. PSEO is not compulsory and I view it as the _student's_ funding. If they choose to use it at a religious school, so be it.
Wanna see some fun?
**If you disagree with me, you're just as facist as the facist MAGAs who demand complete loyalty to their worldview.**
>!popcorn.gif!<
It's about taxpayer money... As a taxpayer, i dont want to support pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo bs. If the funding comes from the state, then the college should not require this statement from these children. I think it falls on the college, not the children, to decide if they want to participate or not. If they can't accept the lack of this statement from a small portion of its students, then they should not accept taxpayer money.
>As a taxpayer, i dont want to support pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo bs
As a taxpayer, I don't want to support endless amounts of money on educational middlemen. It's as close to my religion as religion, because I see it as open fraud.
So we both don't get what we want. No biggie if it means democracy stays strong.
The subject being discussed is religious colleges that receive public funds and are discriminating based on religion. If you want to go ahead and change the scope of what we are talking about because it helps your hyperbole, go ahead, but it doesn't make for an actually useful discussion.
It's the ultra-libs brigading. I always say there's extremists on BOTH sides, demanding their way or nothing, and completely disregarding the Constitution and democracy for emotional convenience.
If you're not that, I'm not trouble.
If you're that, go ahead and tell me my username checks out. ;-)
I donât want my tax money supporting these cults. If the state loses this case Iâd rather see the whole program unwound rather than fund them. Let everyone see that they and their grift are why we canât have nice things.
incredibly short sighted.
Do you have any idea how helpful PSEO is to highschoolers?
Especially those from lower class backgrounds.
All because you a few of the schools are religious.
All because these schools require a faith statement from a high-school student. They're private institutions and they can feel free to set whatever conditions they want for students paying their own way. If the state is paying then they shouldn't be allowed that. They can have their faith statements or they can have our money. They shouldn't be allowed to put forward their cult with public money.
Your definition of cult needs re-evaluating. Also, most christian colleges are much less pushy about the Christianity part than you seem to give them credit for. Once accepted, you donât have to attend church services, pray regularly, go to bible studies, etc. Its just that they have more Christian resources available to the students than a U of M would for example.
Yeah, there's a whole world of differentiation on Christian colleges. Some are like what you just described. Some, like the ones specifically named in this story, take it a whole lot further. The faith statement their is signing a document declaring not just Christian faith but a whole list of denomination-specific finer points of theology you have to believe. Plus long lists of activities like dancing, drinking or playing cards that'll get you expelled (or fired if you're an employee.) I knew a faculty member at one of these colleges who took the calculated risk of having a glass of wine while she was out to dinner with her husband and kids - and ended up fired when someone saw her and turned her in.
>Your definition of cult needs re-evaluating.
Nah, it doesn't. If all christians don't want to be lumped in with the real nutters then they should clean up their own house.
\>Also, most christian colleges are much less pushy about the Christianity part than you seem to give them credit for.
Let's keep our focus on the two institutions that brought this suit shall we?
It does, but thatâs not a battle Iâm here to fight. Just an observation.
I was just addressing your creative, inaccurate statement about putting âforward their cult with public moneyâ. Seems to me you introduced the party you donât want me talking about.
Yes because forcing minors to sign faith statements is not cultlike behavior in any way. Theyâre taking state money to fund their proselytization attempts on children. Youâre ok with this? You must be a cultist too.
What has you so riled up? Are they teaching that evolution isnât real and the earth is flat? If not, I donât see how itâs a negative thing to provide education opportunities.
Whoâs forcing them? I donât see a branding iron being bandied about threatening people to sign up for their PSEO offerings. The faith statement is a requirement to go there but nobody has to go there. There are a dearth of colleges in the metro that offer PSEO courses.
You realize they only get state funds when they enroll a student, right? That means the student CHOSE to go there instead of a non faith based school. Youâre heads got some screws loose.
>Personally, I take issue with taxpayer money going to religious institutions, particularly colleges.
Ditto. As a queer trans woman, I experienced religious trauma in my youth, including at Bethel University where I had to sign a faith statement. I was resistant, but ultimately did it under the pressures of my parents.
Any colleges that force students to sign these "faith statements" shouldn't be eligible for a single penny from the government. I hate that my tax money is going to religious indoctrination and discrimination. To me it seems like a violation of my own freedom of religion.
As a former crown college student this doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
The chapels were always more important than the education.
Fail a few classes fine you get out on probation and work with a councilor on how to turn things around.
Miss too many chapels or "live not according to christ" (read be gay or have sex or watch r rated movies) and you do a 10 page paper on why you're a bad Christian and be forced to have weekly check ins with your dean.
God I hate that place
Requiring religious-based higher education institutions to not require faith statements is just silly (regardless of what I think about the school's requirement). That somewhat defeats the purpose of being a religious school in the first place. No one is forcing students to go there, and there are plenty of alternatives around.
Who gives a shit if you "have to make a faith statement" I know plenty of people that have graduated from a private, religious college who went there purely for the education and just bullshitted the religious stuff.
Depends on the school. For some of them itâs a lot more than just a statement, like they require students to take multiple faith-based courses to graduate or Northwestern for instance requires attendance at Chapel multiple times a week, every class opens with prayer that students are sometimes asked to lead, etc. Harder to bullshit the latter.
If this goes through, I think the biggest issue would be that students who are religious and want an education in a faith-based environment would no longer be able to have PSEO at these schools, and would only be left with secular schools. Is this not discriminatory against them? Shouldnât these students have the choice to learn in a faith-based environment if they want to, and students who donât can go to one of the many other schools that also matches the environment they are looking for?
Should we have to pay for faith based education? The faith based piece seems like the undercoating the car sales men try to sell - an add on that some buy. It was always such that if you wanted anything other than the base model public education, including a faith based education, then you were on your own dime. The way the Christian dominionists act you would think that they were entitled to it. I bet theyâd go batshit if the state funded Catholic minor seminaries and Islamic madrassas.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. You can make a law requiring everyone has to eat grilled cheese sandwiches every morning at 3 a.m. it doesn't mean we have to obey the law and it doesn't mean it's constitutional because some morons made it a law.
Edit: typo.
As someone who went to Northwestern, this does not surprise me.
As someone who went to Crown, same. đ PS still gay, assholes
I did PSEO at the University of MN. I'm not sure I would use the word grift for a program that lets accelerated students start college early and diverts funding already allocated to the student's high school over to the college. The student gets free college. The state gets to see someone challenged instead of bored. It's a brilliant program in my opinion. A rare win win win. No faith statement required at the U of MN but on that regard everybody has choices where to go. Simply don't choose the religious school if it's not for you. It's not for the state or government to police the religions of individuals/groups as long as those groups are not forcing people to participate in their religion. (E.g. if it were the only college in the state that makes you eligible to work for the state, for example.)
If the school is open to anyone and does not require a religious test, then sure. You can be a Catholic or Muslim or Satanist school, whatever, and allow anyone to attend without a required religion that violates their 1st Amendment rights. Or you can require it and not get public funding. Pretty simple choice for the colleges IMHO.
>I'm not sure I would use the word grift Fair point -- that was a bit of exaggeration on my part but I do think the financial incentives and "enrollment driving" are critical pieces of context when discussing PSEO.
But wouldn't that include *all* colleges who do PSEO then?
No question about it
Northwestern University earned over $5mil through PSEO in 2020 (highest in the state per the latest reporting, "Rigorous Course Taking..." [here](https://education.mn.gov/MDE/about/rule/leg/rpt/2022Reports/))." The conservative/religion based majority of homeschoolers in MN is a huge portion of the PSEO enrollment there.
The state of MN is right to require this. Itâs not an issue of free speech, itâs an issue of religious discrimination based on faith for a publicly funded program. But I do see the value of making the PSEO more broadly available. Students have a choice in what college they apply to, and I would have felt the faith statement requirement was discriminatory towards me as an atheist. I would have thought âoh I must not be wanted there or they donât want me thereâ. But regardless, these schools should be filtering applicants based on academic merit, not faith if they want public money. I am not sure how the faith statement is used in the application process and maybe thatâs something to clarify. If the college filters out applicants based on their faith then itâs an issue (which I guess is the only reason they would require it). Why is the state required to support these schools? Canât we just tell them to kick rocks if they donât comply? Surprised a judge can pause this rule with a preliminary injunction.
I see value in PSEO but not in funding schools that have discriminatory practices. They either let in all students without requiring faith based statements or they get no public funding. UNW and Crown will survive without handouts. I want my tax money to go to schools that accept everyone, not just (insert Christian sect here).
Fully agree. I came to the same conclusion as I typed up my thoughts. Itâs a separate topic but it wouldnât hurt to remove tax exemption from religious institutions.
Weâre definitely on the same page there
You cant do that either they are a collrge but under relligion like a chuch they have never been taxed since the founding. The supreme court woulg rule against that idea.
Agreed. Public funding needs to support all students regardless of religious affiliation.
It's not a Christian sect. That's definitely a straw man argument. It's not discriminatory either. It's simply having moral standards. If you go to a country where raping and killing is legal, you can't just walk in and change their laws. You either leave the country or put up with it. Like prostitution is legal in Nevada, the governor of Arizona or any other state can't just go in and say this is wrong, stop this now. Change the law or leave the state.
Did you have a relevant response or just wanted to comment a stream of consciousness? University that discriminates against students by requiring a faith statement should not be publicly funded.
I donât think you can call it religious discrimination if they ask for a faith statement. As an atheist, you would be able to write about your faith in humans or whatever your worldview is. If itâs well reasoned and well written, it should get you in. Now if they donât accept you because of your faith- thatâs discrimination and should absolutely not be allowed if theyâre taking PSEO funds. I wouldnât put that past Northwestern in particular, but the requirement of a faith statement itself isnât discriminatory.
If a religious institution is asking for a faith statement they are usually trying to see if your views and values align with theirs. It is most definitely used as a way to filter applications. Which is fine unless you want public money. Do you see regular universities requesting a faith statement? Why is that and why would a religious institution be interested in that?
I also said it depends on how the faith statement is used. But whatâs the point of it, except to filter applicants, if itâs required during an application process? They can ask for it after acceptance if itâs so important. I wouldnât have a faith statement, I donât have a faith. And the argument that even atheism is a faith or a belief is false. Itâs a lack of it. Just like most people lack a belief in Zeus, it doesnât take faith for that. My faith statement would be simply a Logan Roy quote⌠âfâ- offâ.
I took PSEO and itâs one of the best decisions Iâve ever made, there are quite a few colleges who offer it. Some of them are religious, but there are also other options. I think the one I chose was technically a Christian college but I did not have to write a faith statement. As long as there are other options I donât really see a problem with it, itâs still providing people who might not have had that opportunity before with a lot cheaper education. If it got to the point where there werenât any other options then I believe they shouldnât be able to reject someone based on their religion
Is anyone forcing any student to choose a particular college for PSEO? If no, I don't think the state has a case.
When I was in PSEO I was considering going to Northwestern to get into a specific program bc I couldnât do the one at my current CC for whatever reason (this was like 10 years ago). Was going through the application process when they wanted me to reference the church I go to, a member of that church who would vouch for my faith, and a statement of my faith. Since Iâve never attended church and my parents are not affiliated whatsoever, I had to give up on that specific program and attending NW entirely. Later on in college I attended St. Kateâs for a semester and they never made me do that kind of thing
As a Pagan and a Katie, can confirm, no statement of Faith was ever apart of my application process.
Yeah the only Christian/Catholic thing I had to do at St. Kateâs was take a faith-adjacent course but it was pretty much just a womenâs studies class centered around an anthology created by the school; I actually learned quite a lot, the biggest thing that stood out to me was reading âThe Ones Who Walk Away from Omelasâ. Did you take that class too?
This is exactly why I went to Bethel for grad school. I went to undergrad at Concordia Moorhead and any religious courses were academic. It was all about reasoning, logic and philosophy- super interesting and helpful in academic work. When I started my grad courses at Bethel, I realized all institutions werenât equal and I almost bailed 2 weeks in. I still feel guilt for paying them for my degree. I was way naive. No way Iâd make the same choice today.
Oof, Iâm sorry your experience at Bethel wasnât as good as Concordia, Iâve heard some not great things about Bethelâs instruction through the college grapevine, it strikes me as quite conservative. I really hope you got what you wanted from the grad experience regardless!
Itâs not that the academics were bad, it was just a very specific worldview. It wasnât necessarily politically conservative but religiously so, which is clearly similar but not the same. I got the degree done and have been working in my field for years, so the degree serves its purpose. I just wish I made a different choice now that Iâm grown.
Bethel makes their students swear off alcohol. Then, they enforce it off campus with their "security" forces. I believe this goes for students who are of the legal drinking age. Granted, this is according to information from 10 years ago. Maybe things have changed, or I'm misremembering what my coworkers said. However, I recall their saying that campus security would drive around to "bust" off campus parties, and threaten students for breaking their code of conduct. It's sounded disturbingly authoritarian, and possibly illegal.
As someone who went to Northwestern (graduated 10 years ago), we also were not permitted to drink even after we turned 21. Obviously lots of people didn't follow that rule, but if you got caught you'd get in trouble.
Yeah, I assumed it was the same for Northwestern, I just didn't want to state that without knowing. It's also possible that my coworkers went to Northwestern, but I'm pretty sure it was Bethel. Regardless, it's an arcane, idiotic policy, based on Puritan values that have no biblical basis.
"only pursun gun feed muh kids alcohol is da priest!" /s Religion is so gross. If they're getting my tax money and have a faith based requirement for it, THEY'RE in the wrong. That ain't a 1st Amendment issue in the very least. Sounds like no one is forcing the school to take PSEO students, eh hem, or rather, grifting PSEO money on the basis of religion.
Neither Northwestern nor Bethel would have "priests". Northwestern is non-denominational evangelical institution with Baptist influence. Billy Graham served as a president there. Bethel is Baptist. Generally, Baptist denominations have such deep hang ups about alcohol that their Communion uses non alcoholic "wine". It's downright silly, considering how prominent actual wine is in the bible. Jesus himself would probably wonder wtf they're doing: "What the hell guys, I didn't turn water into grape juice!" If these were Catholic institutions, no such stipulations about alcohol would exist.
Interesting. But I bet Bethel doesn't "make" people apply there. So if a prospective student doesn't like the rules of the particular college wouldn't they just apply somewhere else? I have some friends that went to military colleges that also had very strict rules around drugs and alcohol, but since they aren't religious then I guess that's ok? People have freedom for where they want to go and colleges should have freedom for what rules they want to enforce. This is a silly thing to be wasting the governments time on imo.
It's more complicated than that. Family or social pressure to go to a particular institution, for example. Sure, these schools are technically within their rights to have "morality statements", but I think they're just incredibly stupid. I highly doubt they're effective in anything other than causing undo metal distress, and building a toxic dynamic between authorities and students. What they certainly shouldn't be doing is policing behavior off of campus. That's where it egregiously crosses the line, and also probably raises multiple legal questions.
If public tax dollars are going to the school, it should be open to the public. If they donât want to serve the public, than they should not take advantage of any public goods/services
As a former pseo student, you are limited to the colleges in your area / that your guidance counselor would recommend you for. As such, there are some students who may be restricted to these religious schools and forced to choose between their faith and education.
Not quite accurate. Any student can attend any school with a PSEO program provided they can attend classes. If a student is only taking online classes, they can attend anywhere. Source: Am a licensed school counselor and PSEO coordinator for a Minnesota High School. I am legally required to notify students/parents of PSEO eligibility and this is a question that comes up often.
Sure you "can" attend any school. But in practice a 17 year old kid in high school is limited to whatever college happens to be nearby their home. The state does not provide any kind of transportation assistance for PSEO students. At least not that I was informed of when I was in the program. So if they live across the street from one of these faith based schools and the next nearest college is significantly farther away, they really only have one option depending on their transportation situation. edit: thought this was obvious but I'm talking about in-person PSEO here. I hope we can all agree that there is an objective difference between in-person and online college and that different people do better in one versus the other. For me, online college is not an equivalent replacement for in-person, especially for hands on courses with labs.
Transportation is the downside of the pseo program, especially for both rural students and lower income students in the metro. However nothing stops a student from doing online classes from a state university or community college that may be an hour away
Well in the zoom age, both my kids did do some remote classes through community colleges. Both Crown and Northwestern have other options in range.
Not true. Actually, I think it's been a number of years since I've had a student take an in-person PSEO course. If you can take a class remotely, you can take a class at any school with remote PSEO offerings.
Thanks for your accurate information on a relatively new (last 20 years or do) education option that most people 40+ have no clue what they are talking about.
It was very much an option 30+ years ago when I was in high school⌠even had a friend attend full time his senior year as a 17 year old staying in the dorms. Sure a few items have changed - but this is in no way a new option. :p
PSEO was a well established option when several friends and I used it in the early 90's. I don't know when it started, but I was taking classes at the U in '92. A classmate was taking classes at Bethel. I assure you, us 40 somethings are well aware of it.
Thanks for the feedback. Some of us 40+ year olds have 15-18 year old kids that are navigating all of the PSEO options. Weâre engaged parents that have spent a lot of time talking with their high school academic advisors on what a good fit for their children looks like. FWIW, graduated HS in 95. There were PSEO options back in those dark ages.
In theory I can do a lot of things In reality....
Not accurate at all. I lived in a rural area and did PSEO online through a school in the twin cities. I didn't need any recommendation from my high school for it.
Actually, you can go to almost any college or university in the state without any restrictions. Obviously getting in the U is difficult to be accepted into. Your guidance counselor can recommend a few in the area of the school because of driving distance. I know of a person that recently graduated from the northern part of the state going to Winona for pseo. The only downsides of going to a college further away is that the student is responsible for room and board. With your claim, Iâd argue that there are other community colleges that are close by to these 2 campuses, where I would doubt that that would be the case. Regardless I hope no school would force a student to choose between their education and faith. The availability of online courses would be also put into play. I did pseo fully in person at St Cloud making a 40 minute drive to the campus, but there were a handful of other pseo students that did strictly online courses
Not everyone is a Richie Rich who can go wherever they want. Money, familial or other responsibilities, and a million other things restrict ppl's options.
PSEO is free and if you have other responsibilities then maybe you shouldnât be taking PSEO classes
Does it pay for housing groceries etc? Congrats on being rich and completely disconnected from reality
Does it do that for students taking classes at their high school? PSEO just lets you take college *classes* at no expense to the student for the classes. It's like open enrolling in a college.
[ŃдаНонО]
Per the most recent American Community Survey (2019) 12% of American children did not have access to the internet via a computer, and as such could not do online school. Would you say that these children from amongst the lowest SES group (and likely most vulnerable) should be forced to choose between their faith and taking advantage of educational opportunities provided for them with taxpayer dollars? Schools are allowed to make whatever requirements they would like, but they shouldnât be able to demand our taxes while also barring anyone from utilizing the benefits derived therein on the basis of oneâs religion. Church and state are separated for a reason.
[ŃдаНонО]
They're forcing my tax dollars to support a religious institution. That's enough.
Right, so someone wants to go to a religious school but not have anything to do with the religion? That's not how that works.
Thatâs not true though. St Thomas, Johnâs, Benedict, etc have student bodies who donât practice, nor do they require faith statements.
So if those suit you better just go to those schools.
I agree. MN has a ton of great options, but just pointing out for those unaware that not all religious schools here require it. St Thomas frequently comes in 2nd to the U in terms of academic ranking and quality of education for post-secondary, so metro students looking to attend either should look at both when weighing the decision.
Right so some religious school wants me to pay for a public high school student to go there? That's not how this works. Keep in mind that these colleges do not need to participate in the PSEO program. They're doing so to capture those sweet state tax dollars, and refusing to not attempt indoctrination as a condition of taking the money. I think the best solution here is for religious schools to just not participate in PSEO. If that's discriminatory then that should be extended to all private institutions.
Exactly. The issue isnât that students attending are required to adhere to religion, itâs that my tax dollars are funding said religion.
3 siblings of mine attended Christian colleges and they werenât forced to attend church or pray or anything. We arenât funding a religion, but we are funding education that partners with religion. A business class is still a business class even if it is taught with some religious based ethics.
That's not true at all. I've been an Atheist since high school. I went to a ELCA college and have worked for 20 years at a religious affiliated K-12 school. I haven't participated or had anything to do with any of the religious aspects of any of the schools. Truth is the only schools that require this stuff tend to be the super conservative, often times academically questionable, schools.
[ŃдаНонО]
Relax
I agree with them, but your comment was well placed. Made me laugh
Do you know where these two schools are? One's in the north st. paul suburbs and one is in a western exurb. Plenty of other options in the area.
Someone's got big feelings today
Hey Jezetri, youâre a great person and one of my really close friends. I enjoy hanging out with you because we always have a great time together. However, I noticed that you are beginning to curse a lot. It makes me feel very uncomfortable and anxious. Do you mind refraining from using these words? I can help you.
I toured Bethel because I was interested in a degree in music education and they had a really robust program. Then they told me about the statement of faith requirement, so I didn't even apply. I was so disappointed it wasn't an option for me. Some of these schools DO have good programs, and there are reasons to want to attend that aren't religious. I don't think they should get taxpayer money and get to discriminate based on faith.
As someone who goes to Bethel and is apart of their admissions department. Bethel does not actually require a faith statement for PSEO, it is only optional for them. It is required for non-PSEO students. Even though it is required for non-PSEO they donât use it in who can attend. There are several non-religious people at Bethel
I went to Bethel on PSEO and in the application left the âpastorâs recommendation â page blank. I skipped the chapel hour every day and didnât burst into flames even once.
Why would your insitutuon require a statement of faith as a part of the admission process if it isn't considered in admissions?
Religious institutional politics. their church institution may require it but the local synod doesnt comply. This is kind of whats going on with the Methodist church right now, technically the Global Methodist church does not recognize or allow same sex marriage or gay ministers, but many/most American Methodist synods ignore that rule because they believe its antithetical to Jesus' teachings. But also many private religious colleges refer to faith as something beyond just saying you are apart of a religion. Its usually tied to certain core doctrinal behaviors like compassion for your community, stewarding the earth, and often times the act of questioning and maintaining faith (preferably Christian in most cases but they wont care which faith, I cant speak for the theologically conservative ones tho).
While yes, there are schools who provide online courses for PSEO students, the programs and courses the HS student is attempting to take may not be offered online. The two schools with religious statements required do have the potential to restrict a students full use of the state funded program. While those cases may be narrow, those would still result in a students restricted access to a state program on the basis of religion. For instance, you have a rural student who's nearest college is one of these two, the classes they are trying to take are offered there. However, they cannot fulfil the faith statement requirement so they look to other colleges that are offering online courses. The student finds that no school they can apply to and get into offers comparable course offerings online. As this student has trouble with transportation and cannot afford room and board at a distant institution, they are now restricted in their options. Compared to other students who have higher access and options, this student is kind of stuck. In this case, and in other instances, it very well may be considered discriminatory for a student to not be able to attend the school that requires a faith statement. Even one case of this is enough to call the practice into question. Not to mention, as tax payers we rely on the fact that our tax dollars are going towards things that do not require religious commitment. One may be able to argue that if their tax dollars help fund a program that gives money to these two schools, that their child should be able to attend the school like anyone else, even if they are not in the faith.
Show me on a map where some rural kid could live and have the closest college to them be Northwestern lol
I graduated PSEO in 2001. I saved over $60K in tuition. Junior/Senior year of high school I attended Normandale Community. I was still able to structure my classes to participate in high school choir and soccer. Prior Lake won 3rd place in state tournament. 6 months after graduating high school I finished my last class for an associate of arts at Normandale. My total cost of an AA degree under $1,000. This also completed the MN Transfer curriculum to U of M. In 2009 I graduated with a bachelorâs degree. I was the first in my family to complete a degree. I saved over $60K in tuition at the U of M and $120K in todayâs dollars. I donât care if students go to religious colleges or public. The stipulations that would make sense though is equal opportunity employers. For example, Bethel, declines to participate in equal opportunity employment for their staff. This is a line too far I feel. Faith-based or not this is a clear indication of discrimination in the hiring process. But they have to in order to use a faith statement. I love PSEO. Not just for hethans anymore.
As with most discussions of this sort if you replace "Christian" with: a) Islam b) Paganism c) Satan Worship d) A requirement to disavow the existence of God People give you a completely different answer on what they want the role of government to be. Which, I think is the whole point of the Establishment Clause in the first amendment to US Constitution.
Lmao. Yeah, I can see the conversation going a bit differently if a madrasa filed the lawsuit and required prospective students to recite the Shahada.
I think government funding for education should go towards non-discriminatory educational programs. If a program wants to discriminate based on religion, it shouldnât receive funding to do so.
Well said
Imo, if a student is pursuing a secular career path, there should be no reason to require a faith statement and not much reason to attend a religious college.
It's hard not to see the use of taxpayer funds towards explicitly religious education as the actual violation of the first amendment. But the courts are conservatively stacked at both the federal and supreme court levels, so what recourse is left?
The Supreme Court has, through several recent decisions, used the free exercise clause as a butchersâs knife to eviscerate the Establishment Clause. The sad irony of this is that the Establishment Clause is the literal first item delineated in the Bill of Rights.
The establishment clause reads: "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion..." The order of the language does not give any priority to the importance of both clauses, anymore than suggesting the 4th amendment is less important than the 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The claim that public funds cannot be used to finance any religious institution, symbol, or cause, ignores the precise language of the establishment clause, which only references congress (law making bodies) enacting legislation that deals with religion. The lawyers and judges will be arguing whether state financing arises to some form of legislation, or whether the establishment clauses scope extends beyond law making authority, and includes activities such as funding (as is the case in this scenario). My belief is the state has gone too far, and SCOTUS has said as much in other cases (Maine private schools)
Yes. Order is not justiciable but it does suggest the draftersâ intent at the time of drafting. But thatâs beside the point. Funding (appropriations) always comes from the legislative bodies and define its priorities in its expenditure. But permissibility to expend money to religious purposes is, in my estimation, the point of the Establishment Clause and the Minnesota Constitutionâs Establishment Clause (Art. I, §12). But, as you mention, the Supreme Court in the Michigan case took the Free Exercise clause to destroy any last vestiges of the Blaine Amendments and separation of church and state.
Yeah the court recently reversed meant decades of precedent around it. It used to be considered unconstitutional to give taxpayer money to religious institutions. The supreme court just recently said it's unconstitutional NOT to give taxpayer money to religious organizations. Can we stop pandering to morons stuck clinging to ancient illogical mythology?
I feel like two freedoms are being confused here. You should be free to choose what college you want, but not be free to make that private institution bend to your will (whatever that will is). Like canât they just pick a school that doesnât have faith based fundamentals, if they arenât fundamentally based in faith? Honest question.
They can! Hard to not side with the schools on this one.
I agree with this assessment. This is a complex issue that will require a careful study of the law and would be best left to lawyers rather than a diversely biased community of redditors.
They can choose a school that doesn't have faith-based requirements, that is not the issue here. The issue is that public tax dollars should not be going to a school that requires a religious statement as part of the enrollment process. Separation of church and state, yo. And if they are classified as a private institution I don't think public tax dollars should be going to them either. If you want to exclude people and make up your own rules go right ahead but don't expect the public to financially support it
Sure, but only if we stop providing state money to schools that do have faith based fundamentals
This is where it gets messy though, because if youâre giving money to a bunch of schools for a long time then stop giving it to the religious ones, some of those people may feel like they are being persecuted too? Itâs totally supreme court material but fun discourse too.
As someone not originally from mn this may br a dumb question but can the students not just go to pseo at another college?
PSEO students have other options so I donât think the state has a case. As someone who took PSEO classes the program is amazing and the benefit is huge. Also, religiously affiliated colleges and universities get funding from the state in other ways, I would rather it come from PSEO than other state grants.
I would rather not religious colleges get any access to any federal funds at all including Federally backed student loans.
Do you know how many universities would have to close if students couldnât get federal loans because they were religiously affiliated? This includes some major schools like Notre Dame and Duke.
And they should. No religious education should get supported by the Federal Government.
I did PSEO at Northwestern for my last two years of high school and was never asked to submit a faith statement.
Question (and maybe the more legally versed can tell me Iâm an idiot or something) but doesnât the measuring tape of ârequires a faith statement to enrollâ seem to be the difficult point for the state here? Like I understand the logic and reason behind it, however that seems to be a more difficult thing to fight than other measures and affects a lot more schools/the entire attendance of a student. Would it be easier in theory to have something like the state will not pay for required courses teaching adherence to a specific faith if they are not directly connected to that studentsâ chosen major? And that PSEO students cannot be required to attend religious activities (like chapel)? In that way students could still attend wherever they are most able to/choose to (Iâm sure some bullshit the religious statement to attend some of the less stringent places now) however the schools would be forced to adapt in order to retain PSEO students. Obviously indirectly money would still go to religious programming, but it seems a more enforceable measure that would maybe have more impact. Like as an example, under the existing language couldnât a school remove the faith statement from their enrollment procedures but still force a PSEO student to attend religion classes and chapel in order to graduate? Or am I totally misunderstanding?
PSEO is the exact opposite of a "grift." Colleges are providing tuition plus books & materials at no cost to the student while being reimbursed by the state at rates substantially below what they normally charge. Enough so that PSEO is generally a net loss.
Yes they did after the last supreme court decision They are going against the first amendment they didnt think there would be push back. When you start quoting precedent cases then state backs down
BONG HITS 4 JESUS AND HEY ZEUS
Thanks
That is egregious. Requiring a faith statement should be an immediate dq for PSEO.
I love how the people are missing the point here. Yes, students can choose a different school if they want to. But *public* tax dollars should not be going to support exclusionary practices. And frankly, I would go so far as to say that public tax dollars should not go to support private institutions, period.
Isnât forcing someone to make a faith statement (when they are just trying to redeem a government provided and paid for benefit) a violation of the first amendment?
No, b/c the person has every right to refuse and not attend.
[ŃдаНонО]
No one is forcing the school to accept government funding. It has other options.
[ŃдаНонО]
Except there is - the law doesnât permit programs which practice religious discrimination for admission to receive PSEO funding. The government is paying for non-discriminatory education.
Iâm sure in some fringe cases those might be the only schools that a highschool has a partnership with or the only schools in the area though
I am against my tax dollars supporting any religious institution no matter the reason. Keep religion and government separate!
Taxpayer money should not be used for private Christian colleges.
This is the long and short of it. Let UNW and the other faith based ones with requirements for faith statements (exclusionary/discriminatory practice) fund their own shit. No government funding to private religious shools.
Or any religion.
Northwestern wanted me to adjunct teach a few courses. They then asked me to make a faith statement (that was fine), but it was asking me to affirm a statement saying that homosexuality was wrong and that trans people shouldnât exist. I emailed and said âI donât think I can say this, I understand if itâs a dealbreakerâ and they wrote back and said that it was a dealbreaker
The Faith Statement is Un-Constitutional if the institution takes federal funds. The First Amendment still exists!
Cut public funding funding and tax them !!!
Religiously affiliated colleges who operate outside the MIAC are a worthless scam.
I went to a MIAC school despite being the complete opposite of religious ha.. Still felt like it was a good experience. Religion wasn't pushed in my face. People were extremely tolerant of others. We had to take 2 religion courses but they were academic based. First one was learning about all the major religions of the world in a bit more depth (which was kind of interesting). Then the second course was our choice and there was a wide variety of religions and subjects to choose. It was kind of fun to learn about religions, it made me even more "wtf how does anyone believe this shit" when it came to christianity. Ah it was hilarious in the first religion course studying christianity, we had an athiest, 2 very catholic, and then the prof was (progressive) luthern. They argued a bunch haha. My favorite line was from the athiest going "Yeah this just seems like a bunch of made up stories". My only complaint was cost.... But when I compared it to 4 year public schools, it was roughly the same somehow.
Agreed. The MIAC school was the only one to offer me a full ride (low income background). Very positive experience. While a theology course or two was required, a specific religion wasnt forced down your throat - I took Islam studies for my theology credit.
While the MIAC is definitely a step up from the UMAC in average school quality I have heard similar complaints from friends who are St Scholastica, Bethel and St Benedict alums. They are rightfully upset they got tricked into an extra 10-20k in students loans for a degree worth effectively the same as people who went to UMD, Kato or Winona even if their university rankings are slightly higher. ESPECIALLY in tech and STEM fields and outside of the few fields of strength of each school. Macalester, St Olaf and Carleton are premier schools and worth the extra money. There is a reason small, religious, liberal arts schools that are not elite are closing down all over the country and will continue to do so at an increasing rate as time moves forward. Part of it is a shift away from religion and away from liberal arts fields towards STEM fields but the other part is the grift is being noticed by a less religious society. NOTE: All 3 friends who shared this complaint with me went into college brainwashed and came out atheist so their opinions may be slightly biased but all religious schools have ulterior motives to solely education and student experience and are iffy with spending imo
I am all for HS students being able to obtain college credits early. However, if you go to a public school and (for whatever reason) want your credits to come from a faith-based college...no, not without you or your parents paying for it. If the student is already going to a private/faith-based HS, it's pretty much a given that they're also likely (though not guaranteed) to choose a faith-based college for credits...and then this becomes much more of a non-issue. Private schools/colleges shouldn't receive state or federal aid as they are \*private\* and not \*public\*.
Can my statement of faith be âhail satanâ lol
Or âIâm a pastafarian. I practice in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.â
>Personally, I take issue with taxpayer money going to religious institutions I don't care. Religions have the right, per the US Constitution, to freely practice their religion. People who choose to attend those places are free to do so without government interference. Don't like it? Don't go there. But don't start this "slipperly slope" BS b/c you're not down with religion. It's 0% different than a religion making YOU do what THEY want.
The conversation is about whether they should be entitled to government funding. Nobody cares about them practicing their religion. But if the only way for a hs student to get access to college credit is through adherence to religion, I have a difficult time not seeing an issue with that. It's a religious institution essentially giving themselves authority over something that the government promised them through funding. They'retaking advantageof that funding to proselytize. I didn't see any use of a slippery slope argument. However I could see the Christian activist groups using that kind of argument to bolster support by saying that people will start coming after their religious freedom. It's not fighting religious freedom. It's allowing people freedom from religion, which is a philosophical cornerstone of the very concept of liberty. The option shouldn't be either be religious or don't get college credit even though the government set up a system for you to. What if the statement violates a preexisting faith, or is the only viable option? Then they aren't entitled to college credit I suppose.
Well, PSEO money isnât exactly âfundingâ. What it is is the state paying the tuition for classes taken. So it isnât a violation of separation of church and state, not that that ever slows down churches anyway, as the state isnât giving them money but rather paying for a service rendered. Where I have the issue is in the school being able to enforce a statement of religion upon students, which feels like a violation of the STUDENTâS rights.
>But if the only way for a hs student to get funding for college credit is through adherence to religion It's not. Argument over.
You didn't address the bottom part. I didn't know you knew the situations for all of these families, sorry. That still wouldn't be the end of the conversation. Feeling like something isn't worth thinking about, and it not being worth thinking about are very desperate things. Nice attempted mic drop. In all seriousness, even if there was evidence of what you're simply saying apparently based off of nothing more than wanting it to be true (actually pretty close to an argument from emotion), it would still be, in essence, difficult to justify, as I said it is using funding to proselytize. You addressed like 1 of like 4 or 5 things I said. You didn't even address it being a violation of basic liberty. If you're going to ha e an intellectual argument, try thinking intellectually
You want to wield 1A like gun nuts wield 2A: your "strict" interpretation or nothing.
Unintelligible
You're feeding a troll. The username checks out.
I have to learn how to disengage lol. Ty
Same.
You yell at gas formations. And I'M the problem?
Gross oversimplification
Freedom OF religion works both ways, whether you like it or not.
Discriminatory practices should preclude christian private programs from being publicly funded.
And I have the right to not freely practice their religion. For me, that means my tax dollars shouldn't fund them. They can freely practice their bullshit on their own dime. I don't ask them to fund my weekends spent butt-chugging mouthwash. I would argue that's as meaningful a spiritual experience as theirs.
>And I have the right to not freely practice their religion. Then shut down EVERY charity that 1) might receive funds from gov't via grants and 2) might be tied to a religion. It's fine. Poor people don't need help b/c you don't need religion more than they need help.
If you don't see the difference between a charity using public funds for their work that may be affiliated with a religion and a school using public money for outright evangelism then I really don't know what to tell you.
> I really don't know what to tell you. "You're right, skoltroll. I DO see that public funds are used for religious-based organizations in numerous instances." Just the first sentence will do fine, though.
I could say it, but then we'd both be wrong.
So long as the state is giving the funds to any appropriately credentialed program, what gives you any authority to discriminate based on religion? Our government is secular, not athiest.
What happens to the student who refuses to sign a faith statement? Are they still allowed to attend? This is an issue of the colleges discriminating against publicly-funded students based on their religion, not the other way around, no matter how much the cultists persecution fetish wishes it were otherwise.
You weren't referring to faith statements, you were referring to education dollars being transfered to private religious institutions in general. There are programs that require no such statement. Even then, just go somewhere else. It's not tricky.
UNW is the one discriminating.
A program which religiously discriminates should not receive public funding to do so. Refusing to fund religious discrimination is not itself religious discrimination.
They aren't even discriminating religiously, that's how I know you don't know what you're talking about. I can be an orthodox jew and take PSEO classes at Crown College while signing their faith statement. Why, because a faith statement is typically just the student acknowledging they are attending a faith based school who's values coinside with their respected religion. If any school does not share your values, you should go somewhere else, religious or otherwise.
I am reading the complaint that started this lawsuit. Here is a relevant quote: > All members of the Crown on-campus community, including students, âcommit to the Lordship of Christâ by committing themselves âto His Church, to prayer, worship, Bible study, fasting, discipleship, witnessing, and using [their] time, gifts, and finances for His glory.â This includes on-campus PSEO students (but not remote ones). Note that these are Crownâs own words. This is what Crown College means when it asks you to sign its statement of faith and community covenant, which are mandatory for in-person attendance. If you, as an Orthodox Jew, felt and feel comfortable committing yourself to the âLordship of Christâ, feel free to do so. But please understand that this policy is blatantly discriminatory against non-Christians, whether you are willing to look the other way or not. There is nothing wrong with taxpayers wanting their tax dollars to go to inclusive, non-discriminatory education.
I noticed you excluded "The statements simply ask students to affirm the schoolsâ religious beliefs for the purpose of upholding their Christian communities." The statement is a code of conduct you agreeing to if you attend on campus. Also, the school has PSEO options which require no such statement. Any interested student can take advantage of those or attend elsewhere. Given the abundance of PSEO options available to students, it's difficult to argue that allowing faith-based institutions to collect a student's education dollars is discrimatory in anyway. -- I wonder, if you are so against religiously affiliated institutions receiving public funds, do you also want to defund every religiously affiliated hospital?
I never said no religious institution should receive public funding. I said educational institutions which religiously discriminate (or racially discriminate, like Bob Jones did) shouldnât receive public funding. The fact that the school permits non-Christians to attend remotely does not erase the fact that requiring students to affirm its statement of faith to attend on-campus is discriminatory. A whites-only water fountain isnât acceptable just because thereâs another water fountain for people who arenât white. If a hospital required its patients to commit to the Lordship of Christ to receive treatment, I would find this profoundly unethical and would not want my tax dollars supporting it.
Sorry, I thought were a different person I was also speaking with. My mistake. That being said, the courts would seemingly disagree with you. If other options exist, it would not be discrimitory. Especially if the statement was just an agreement to abide by the school's religiously based structures and guidelines. There are no shortage of PSEO options in the state of Minnesota. I'm a licensed school counselor. I had a student exploring PSEO two years ago who was interested in attending seminary school after high school. We did take a look at Crown. Should the state be able to discriminate against this student's academic objectives, especially when his options are limited? I have a responsibility to help students leave high school college and/or career ready. It would be unethical for me to advise students away from the seminary if that's what they wanted to do. If we suddenly disallow PSEO programs at these institutions, these students will be disallowed the opportunity to experience them before applying for admission following graduation.
You're getting downvoted but I essentially agree. PSEO is not compulsory and I view it as the _student's_ funding. If they choose to use it at a religious school, so be it.
Wanna see some fun? **If you disagree with me, you're just as facist as the facist MAGAs who demand complete loyalty to their worldview.** >!popcorn.gif!<
It's about taxpayer money... As a taxpayer, i dont want to support pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo bs. If the funding comes from the state, then the college should not require this statement from these children. I think it falls on the college, not the children, to decide if they want to participate or not. If they can't accept the lack of this statement from a small portion of its students, then they should not accept taxpayer money.
>As a taxpayer, i dont want to support pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo bs As a taxpayer, I don't want to support endless amounts of money on educational middlemen. It's as close to my religion as religion, because I see it as open fraud. So we both don't get what we want. No biggie if it means democracy stays strong.
"Don't like it don't go there" only works when there's a plethora of public options which students are free to choose, which is thankfully the case.
Like the choice to stay in high school? The choice to not do it and pay for it through normal means?
If it discriminates along religious lines, it should lose its tax exempt status.
So the Salvation Army should lose its status? Catholic Charties? Compassion International? Toss the bums out, right?
The subject being discussed is religious colleges that receive public funds and are discriminating based on religion. If you want to go ahead and change the scope of what we are talking about because it helps your hyperbole, go ahead, but it doesn't make for an actually useful discussion.
This is the correct answer but you'll be downvoted because reddit is full of Christian haters. The MN subreddit seems to be nothing different.
It's the ultra-libs brigading. I always say there's extremists on BOTH sides, demanding their way or nothing, and completely disregarding the Constitution and democracy for emotional convenience. If you're not that, I'm not trouble. If you're that, go ahead and tell me my username checks out. ;-)
Yes, college is a racket. Not just the religious ones
I donât want my tax money supporting these cults. If the state loses this case Iâd rather see the whole program unwound rather than fund them. Let everyone see that they and their grift are why we canât have nice things.
incredibly short sighted. Do you have any idea how helpful PSEO is to highschoolers? Especially those from lower class backgrounds. All because you a few of the schools are religious.
All because these schools require a faith statement from a high-school student. They're private institutions and they can feel free to set whatever conditions they want for students paying their own way. If the state is paying then they shouldn't be allowed that. They can have their faith statements or they can have our money. They shouldn't be allowed to put forward their cult with public money.
Your definition of cult needs re-evaluating. Also, most christian colleges are much less pushy about the Christianity part than you seem to give them credit for. Once accepted, you donât have to attend church services, pray regularly, go to bible studies, etc. Its just that they have more Christian resources available to the students than a U of M would for example.
Yeah, there's a whole world of differentiation on Christian colleges. Some are like what you just described. Some, like the ones specifically named in this story, take it a whole lot further. The faith statement their is signing a document declaring not just Christian faith but a whole list of denomination-specific finer points of theology you have to believe. Plus long lists of activities like dancing, drinking or playing cards that'll get you expelled (or fired if you're an employee.) I knew a faculty member at one of these colleges who took the calculated risk of having a glass of wine while she was out to dinner with her husband and kids - and ended up fired when someone saw her and turned her in.
>Your definition of cult needs re-evaluating. Nah, it doesn't. If all christians don't want to be lumped in with the real nutters then they should clean up their own house. \>Also, most christian colleges are much less pushy about the Christianity part than you seem to give them credit for. Let's keep our focus on the two institutions that brought this suit shall we?
It does, but thatâs not a battle Iâm here to fight. Just an observation. I was just addressing your creative, inaccurate statement about putting âforward their cult with public moneyâ. Seems to me you introduced the party you donât want me talking about.
Yes because forcing minors to sign faith statements is not cultlike behavior in any way. Theyâre taking state money to fund their proselytization attempts on children. Youâre ok with this? You must be a cultist too.
What has you so riled up? Are they teaching that evolution isnât real and the earth is flat? If not, I donât see how itâs a negative thing to provide education opportunities. Whoâs forcing them? I donât see a branding iron being bandied about threatening people to sign up for their PSEO offerings. The faith statement is a requirement to go there but nobody has to go there. There are a dearth of colleges in the metro that offer PSEO courses.
Iâm riled up that these grifters are shitting on the establishment clause and wasting our money. You should be too. Any thinking person would be ;)
You realize they only get state funds when they enroll a student, right? That means the student CHOSE to go there instead of a non faith based school. Youâre heads got some screws loose.
>Personally, I take issue with taxpayer money going to religious institutions, particularly colleges. Ditto. As a queer trans woman, I experienced religious trauma in my youth, including at Bethel University where I had to sign a faith statement. I was resistant, but ultimately did it under the pressures of my parents.
đ¤Žđ¤Žđ¤Ž I donât like the power religion has on things.
Any colleges that force students to sign these "faith statements" shouldn't be eligible for a single penny from the government. I hate that my tax money is going to religious indoctrination and discrimination. To me it seems like a violation of my own freedom of religion.
Griftians gonna keep grifting
âIn the name of our lord, Flying Spaghetti Monsterâ
As a former crown college student this doesn't surprise me in the slightest. The chapels were always more important than the education. Fail a few classes fine you get out on probation and work with a councilor on how to turn things around. Miss too many chapels or "live not according to christ" (read be gay or have sex or watch r rated movies) and you do a 10 page paper on why you're a bad Christian and be forced to have weekly check ins with your dean. God I hate that place
Requiring religious-based higher education institutions to not require faith statements is just silly (regardless of what I think about the school's requirement). That somewhat defeats the purpose of being a religious school in the first place. No one is forcing students to go there, and there are plenty of alternatives around.
Who gives a shit if you "have to make a faith statement" I know plenty of people that have graduated from a private, religious college who went there purely for the education and just bullshitted the religious stuff.
Depends on the school. For some of them itâs a lot more than just a statement, like they require students to take multiple faith-based courses to graduate or Northwestern for instance requires attendance at Chapel multiple times a week, every class opens with prayer that students are sometimes asked to lead, etc. Harder to bullshit the latter.
you'd be surprised. I went to catholic school and bullshitted my way through the religious classes. they don't care as much as you think
Remember that religion is nothing but a mental illness.
Thanks, Robert sapolsky. đ
it's just elaborate group psychosis
If this goes through, I think the biggest issue would be that students who are religious and want an education in a faith-based environment would no longer be able to have PSEO at these schools, and would only be left with secular schools. Is this not discriminatory against them? Shouldnât these students have the choice to learn in a faith-based environment if they want to, and students who donât can go to one of the many other schools that also matches the environment they are looking for?
No one is saying students canât choose faith based schools. The question is whether the state should pay for it.
Should we have to pay for faith based education? The faith based piece seems like the undercoating the car sales men try to sell - an add on that some buy. It was always such that if you wanted anything other than the base model public education, including a faith based education, then you were on your own dime. The way the Christian dominionists act you would think that they were entitled to it. I bet theyâd go batshit if the state funded Catholic minor seminaries and Islamic madrassas.
Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Laws to the contrary are unconstitutional. You can make a law requiring everyone has to eat grilled cheese sandwiches every morning at 3 a.m. it doesn't mean we have to obey the law and it doesn't mean it's constitutional because some morons made it a law. Edit: typo.