abacus wrote:

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes. Personally,
while I'm not thrilled with the idea of segregation in public life,
I'm not so certain it's the evil you think it is either. My
recollection is that Malcolm X was a big proponent of segregation.
---------------
He was a racist too, however, his racism arose as a reaction to
racism against blacks by whites. He simply turned the tables.


There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists.
---------------
Again, that is as a remedy to the effects of racism, not in service
to racism.


It's
just that they give the concept a bad reputation. If, indeed,
everybody involved prefers to be segregated, I'm not so sure the
government is justified in preventing it.
----------------------------------
Sure it is, it causes inevitable strife over time, but we permit it
in private, and not in public hiring, accomodations, education, or
other public functions.


And while Mr. Barclay may desire to spread the word of his religion to
those willing to listen, I don't get the impression he is out to force
others to listen. I suspect he just thinks that parents who want
their child educated in an environment supportive of their religion
(i.e. start the day with a prayer, bible verses posted on the wall,
celebrate religious holidays, etc.) should not be forced to choose
between either not doing so or having to pay the price of foregoing
all tax-support for their child's education. At least, that's my
opinion.
---------------------
I'd love to argue with him about religion, I think he's terffied
of starting THAT up with me! He KNOWS deep inside what I'd say,
and that it would be all of his buried doubts and knowing that
he has no reason for the **** he believes.


My test case for thought experiments on the issue is an Amish
community that's near where I live. They, or more typically their
forebearers, settled together so that they could build a life for
themselves separate from the rest of the population, creating a
community dedicated to living in concert with their religious beliefs.
Why should their community be denied tax-support for their children's
education or forced to conform to the current policy of no religious
observances in the school?
------------------------
No authority-led religious observances.
To protect the public and our children from State sponsored religious
proselytizing of a captive audience and absconding with public funding
by way of doing so.


Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.
----------------------------
Nope. Their hobby is living 200 years ago, not ours. The State still
has an obligation to educate their kids and NOT proselytize them!
And they have an obligation to pay their taxes, period!
Steve