Parent-Child Negotiations

toto wrote in message . ..
On 29 Jun 2004 09:10:25 -0700, (abacus) wrote:

As far as the quality of public schools in poverty-stricken areas, I
do not share your opinion that vouchers would be a step backwards. To
date, that hasn't occurred in the places they have been tried. Until
there is some evidence supporting that contention, I'll continue to
believe that vouchers will lead to improvements in education for all
children included those living in poverty. That is, in fact, the main
reason I support them. I think they offer an avenue for improvement
that is currently lacking in our system of public education.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1436

From 1991 through 1998, the state appropriated more money
for its private schools ($1.1 billion) than it did to refurbish its
public schools ($1 billion). For Ohio to prioritize state funds in
this way is significant given that, until recently, federal officials
ranked the condition of school facilities in Ohio dead last among all
50 states.

Ma'am, this is a specious comparison. The money for refurbishing
schools typically (I don't know the particulars of the Cleveland
system, but I doubt it much different from the ones I am acquainted
with) comes from different funds that those allocated in the budget
per pupil. If the students using vouchers were all in public school
instead, the money spent on vouchers would have been spent on the
expenses of educating those children in public schools, not on
refurbishing the public school buildings.


http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1489

?The results suggest that students in P-5 schools [Milwaukee public
schools with small class sizes and supplemental funding] have math
test score gains similar to those in the choice schools, and that
students in the P-5 schools outperform students in the choice schools
in reading.? Rouse went on to explain: ?Given that the pupil-teacher
ratios in the P-5 and choice schools are significantly smaller than
those in the other public schools, one potential explanation for these
results is that students perform well in schools with smaller class
sizes [emphasis in original].?34 In other words, the gains in math for
voucher students may very well not be due to the fact that they were
in voucher or private schools, but to other factors such as class
size.

Doesn't really matter to me why the students with vouchers performed
better. The point is that the voucher schools took the same amount of
money (well, actually less) that the public schools would have
received for those students and provided an education as good or
better than that of the public schools. Why deny people choice when
the education is at least as good and the costs to taxpayers are no
higher than that of public schools?

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Circe" wrote in message
and 2) that public
education, whether improved or not, creates unnecessary or artificial
inconveniences for religion.

The fact that the vast majority of private schools are religious proves this
beyond reasonable doubt.
-------------
No, it proves rather that only religionists are so obtuse and
irrational that they feel a need to use other than public schools,
which means that public schools are efficient and effective!


Granted, a great many people's exercise of
religion is not interfered with in a way that they particularly mind.
--------------------
Minding the fact that the rest of society doesn't believe in your
stupid ****ing religion is NOT an ACTUAL grounds for pretending that
public school ACTUALLY interferes with your religion, but rather with
your paranoid irrational separatism and cultic brainwashing. If your
religion was a real Faith, it wouldn't need to brainwash children by
force to sustain its existence, it could limit itself to persuading
full grown adults if it had anything intelligent to offer! Your
paranoid separatism proves to everyone that you don't trust that
your religion is persuasive enough to convince anybody who can THINK!!


But
that means only that government is establishing people, groups, and factions
that don't mind how religion is handled in government schools in a favored
position over those that do mind.
---------------------------
The government is "establishing" nothing, you insane paranoid asshole.
And YOU have indulged in the separatism and toxicity that makes your
religion objectionable to the rest of us!!


But you are not asking for a school that teaches adherence to a
particular religious creed as a separate aspect of the curriculum
like English, Math, Science, etc. People who send their children
to religious schools because they want a religious education don't
want a class on their religious beliefs in *addition* to English,
Math, and Science; instead, they want their religious beliefs to
be woven *into* the teaching of English, Math, and Science.

To a certain extent. Then again, aren't those other subjects sometimes
woven into each other?
------------------
And inherently so due to the very nature of knowledge and truth,
but you're trying to interweave FANTASY with reality using LIES!


Should we ban word problems from Math books because
they get too much into the field of English? There is no good reason why
religion SHOULDN'T be tied into other subjects when it can be without
noticeably undermining the other subjects. Raising artificial barriers
against such ties through government control of children's schools damages
religious freedom.
----------------------
That's like trying to teach genetic evolution by using examples of
creationists succeeding at Science profesionally! It's ridiculous!
It's like trying to teach the truth of mathematics using lies as
variables!


Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school activities,
and do so for academic reasons rather than because the activities are
something the children enjoy, what you are doing is demanding that families
who want their children to study religion accept a special, extra burden
above and beyond the burden that other families carry.
---------------------
Your burden is self-created, you won't uitlize afterschool activity
because of the edicts of, or the time taken up by, your stupid ****ing
religion, and then you want to pretend that it is we who prevent you
because we won't similarly cripple OUR kids!

You're complaining that WE need only go to school to learn academics,
while YOU need to go to school AND church to learn BOTH academics AND
religion, and that we are burdening you by that relatively?? Can you
honestly say this with a straight face???


You refuse to offer
them the option of substituting a religion class for some other class that
they consider less valuable (an art class, for example).
----------------------
Or maybe math or science. Or sex-ed! How sick you are, you want to
intentionally deprive your children of a REAL education for your
stupid FALSEHOOD of a religion!! What? Are you afraid your kids
won't LIKE you when they have to go to church AFTER school, and
that they will believe they are relatively UNLUCKY TO HAVE YOU AS
PARENTS??? Well, THEN, QUIT BEING ASSHOLE PARENTS, ASSHOLE!! Go to
your ****ing church yourself and leave your kids the **** ALONE!


That constitutes
discrimination by government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.
-------------------------
Religion isn't a legitimate elective for secular publically funded
education. Only State conducted caompartive religion is such a
course, because it informs without proselytizing!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Circe" wrote in message
and 2) that public
education, whether improved or not, creates unnecessary or artificial
inconveniences for religion.

The fact that the vast majority of private schools are religious proves this
beyond reasonable doubt.
-------------
No, it proves rather that only religionists are so obtuse and
irrational that they feel a need to use other than public schools,
which means that public schools are efficient and effective!


Granted, a great many people's exercise of
religion is not interfered with in a way that they particularly mind.
--------------------
Minding the fact that the rest of society doesn't believe in your
stupid ****ing religion is NOT an ACTUAL grounds for pretending that
public school ACTUALLY interferes with your religion, but rather with
your paranoid irrational separatism and cultic brainwashing. If your
religion was a real Faith, it wouldn't need to brainwash children by
force to sustain its existence, it could limit itself to persuading
full grown adults if it had anything intelligent to offer! Your
paranoid separatism proves to everyone that you don't trust that
your religion is persuasive enough to convince anybody who can THINK!!


But
that means only that government is establishing people, groups, and factions
that don't mind how religion is handled in government schools in a favored
position over those that do mind.
---------------------------
The government is "establishing" nothing, you insane paranoid asshole.
And YOU have indulged in the separatism and toxicity that makes your
religion objectionable to the rest of us!!


But you are not asking for a school that teaches adherence to a
particular religious creed as a separate aspect of the curriculum
like English, Math, Science, etc. People who send their children
to religious schools because they want a religious education don't
want a class on their religious beliefs in *addition* to English,
Math, and Science; instead, they want their religious beliefs to
be woven *into* the teaching of English, Math, and Science.

To a certain extent. Then again, aren't those other subjects sometimes
woven into each other?
------------------
And inherently so due to the very nature of knowledge and truth,
but you're trying to interweave FANTASY with reality using LIES!


Should we ban word problems from Math books because
they get too much into the field of English? There is no good reason why
religion SHOULDN'T be tied into other subjects when it can be without
noticeably undermining the other subjects. Raising artificial barriers
against such ties through government control of children's schools damages
religious freedom.
----------------------
That's like trying to teach genetic evolution by using examples of
creationists succeeding at Science profesionally! It's ridiculous!
It's like trying to teach the truth of mathematics using lies as
variables!


Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school activities,
and do so for academic reasons rather than because the activities are
something the children enjoy, what you are doing is demanding that families
who want their children to study religion accept a special, extra burden
above and beyond the burden that other families carry.
---------------------
Your burden is self-created, you won't uitlize afterschool activity
because of the edicts of, or the time taken up by, your stupid ****ing
religion, and then you want to pretend that it is we who prevent you
because we won't similarly cripple OUR kids!

You're complaining that WE need only go to school to learn academics,
while YOU need to go to school AND church to learn BOTH academics AND
religion, and that we are burdening you by that relatively?? Can you
honestly say this with a straight face???


You refuse to offer
them the option of substituting a religion class for some other class that
they consider less valuable (an art class, for example).
----------------------
Or maybe math or science. Or sex-ed! How sick you are, you want to
intentionally deprive your children of a REAL education for your
stupid FALSEHOOD of a religion!! What? Are you afraid your kids
won't LIKE you when they have to go to church AFTER school, and
that they will believe they are relatively UNLUCKY TO HAVE YOU AS
PARENTS??? Well, THEN, QUIT BEING ASSHOLE PARENTS, ASSHOLE!! Go to
your ****ing church yourself and leave your kids the **** ALONE!


That constitutes
discrimination by government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.
-------------------------
Religion isn't a legitimate elective for secular publically funded
education. Only State conducted caompartive religion is such a
course, because it informs without proselytizing!!
Steve

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , abacus says...

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.

I'm judging him by his posts.

Having never met the man personally, so am I. Yet we come to
different conclusions. Therefore, our judgements are affected by our
individual experiences. Hence, you are judging him according to your
memories and your own stereotypes. So am I of course.

I grew up in a community that had more than its fair share of racists,
so I'm reasonably acquainted with their words and attitudes. His
don't match the racists I knew, but they do match the non-racist but
highly religious folks I knew. Based on your posts, my presumption is
that the racists you knew used similar rhetoric to his, therefore you
judge him to be racist while I do not.

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.

Actually, you should read his famous autobiography. It was religion (eventually
Sunni Islam) that gave him the transformative experiences (like the Haj) that
led him away from some of his earlier convictions concering race. It's really a
damn shame he assassinated at the point in his life that he was.

I have read his autobiography, thank you. A fascinating book. Yes,
towards the end he was reconsidering some of his earlier convictions.
My point is that it's not necessarily the white's only who wish for
separation, but that it can, in fact, be a mutually desired state.

There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists. 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.

Private schools. And I have no problem with that.

And I would have no problem with providing tax-funded vouchers to such
schools. They apparently have done an excellent job of educating
young black males. To me, the only criteria I have for tax-funded
education is that the children are provided with a good education.

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.

No, just to give them a hobson's choice between a purported failed public
school, and his prosyltizing school.

And providing them with only one option - the purportedly failed
public school - is better than allowing the choice between that and a
prosyltizing school? You may think so, but I don't.

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.

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? Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

The Amish are so generally successful in that exactly because they are so
generally self-sufficient. And non-proseltyzing or intrusive. And so don't
grub at the public coffers. I have no problem with any of that either. I think
it's wonderful, in fact. Many do use the public schools (up to 8th grade, I
think). In your test case, more importantly in real life, are the Amish among
those pressing for vouchers? I have not heard that in either Wisconsin or Ohio,
where I have relatives living near Amish communities.

They mainly keep to themselves, so I can't really say what their
opinion would be. Some do use the public schools, others home-school
or set up small private schools (sort of a co-op homeschooling
really). It's simply my opinion that given it's a small homogeneous
community with a single set of beliefs it's unfair to collect
tax-money for the purpose of educating the children in their community
and then force them to make the hobson's choice of either eliminating
religion from their children's education or forgoing all tax-support
for their children's education.

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , abacus says...

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.

I'm judging him by his posts.

Having never met the man personally, so am I. Yet we come to
different conclusions. Therefore, our judgements are affected by our
individual experiences. Hence, you are judging him according to your
memories and your own stereotypes. So am I of course.

I grew up in a community that had more than its fair share of racists,
so I'm reasonably acquainted with their words and attitudes. His
don't match the racists I knew, but they do match the non-racist but
highly religious folks I knew. Based on your posts, my presumption is
that the racists you knew used similar rhetoric to his, therefore you
judge him to be racist while I do not.

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.

Actually, you should read his famous autobiography. It was religion (eventually
Sunni Islam) that gave him the transformative experiences (like the Haj) that
led him away from some of his earlier convictions concering race. It's really a
damn shame he assassinated at the point in his life that he was.

I have read his autobiography, thank you. A fascinating book. Yes,
towards the end he was reconsidering some of his earlier convictions.
My point is that it's not necessarily the white's only who wish for
separation, but that it can, in fact, be a mutually desired state.

There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists. 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.

Private schools. And I have no problem with that.

And I would have no problem with providing tax-funded vouchers to such
schools. They apparently have done an excellent job of educating
young black males. To me, the only criteria I have for tax-funded
education is that the children are provided with a good education.

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.

No, just to give them a hobson's choice between a purported failed public
school, and his prosyltizing school.

And providing them with only one option - the purportedly failed
public school - is better than allowing the choice between that and a
prosyltizing school? You may think so, but I don't.

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.

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? Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

The Amish are so generally successful in that exactly because they are so
generally self-sufficient. And non-proseltyzing or intrusive. And so don't
grub at the public coffers. I have no problem with any of that either. I think
it's wonderful, in fact. Many do use the public schools (up to 8th grade, I
think). In your test case, more importantly in real life, are the Amish among
those pressing for vouchers? I have not heard that in either Wisconsin or Ohio,
where I have relatives living near Amish communities.

They mainly keep to themselves, so I can't really say what their
opinion would be. Some do use the public schools, others home-school
or set up small private schools (sort of a co-op homeschooling
really). It's simply my opinion that given it's a small homogeneous
community with a single set of beliefs it's unfair to collect
tax-money for the purpose of educating the children in their community
and then force them to make the hobson's choice of either eliminating
religion from their children's education or forgoing all tax-support
for their children's education.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message

Toldjya it was about money allright :-)

It is about both money and freedom, just like every other fight against
government efforts to establish people who make some religious choices in a
favored position over those who make different choices has always been.
----------------------------------
You made the choice to make your own life hard by making stupid
choices!! You did it intentionally because you're a raving ****ing
paranoid separatist! You would separate yourself from ANYTHING, a
Secular system, a State church unless it was YOURS, or some school
where every pressure group on earth could slather posters over
posters over treatises over tracts over filthy slanders and countless
erotic and sadmasochistic icons tacked all over its walls, and which
allowed anyone to harangue at its children who wanted to come and
do so, all the ****ing day long!!


You don't have the right to use the public dime for one's own, specific,
private
religious interests.

Freedom to pursue our religious desires with as little government
interference or favoritism as possible is a public interest, not a private
one.
-------------------------
So YOU pursue YOURS and leave your kids the **** alone! We have an
obligation to educate them, and you mixing your superstitions with
a reality-based secular curriculum is not feasible!


In one sense, everyone's religous desires, whether to inclde religion
or to exclude it, are private. In that sense, an atheist's desire not to
have his children taught religion is every bit as much a "private" interest
as a Catholic's desire to have his children taught Catholicism.
----------------
The exception being that at least an atheist admits the Truth which
Science teaches in a Secular curriculum, and does not contradict it
to their children! They don't require that anyone harangue their
child about atheism, they usually don't even do such things at home!


But because
we all have an interest in not having others make our choices for us, or
impose a financial disadvantage on us if we refuse to go along with their
choices, we have a shared, public interest in protecting religious freedom.
--------------------------
Not if it violates the laws regarding the treatment of children or
promotes criminality. And not if it interferees with Secular education!


You, on the other hand, desire to have government promote the private
interests of people who want children to attend secular schools at the
expense of the interests of those who would rather have their children
attend religious schools. It is you, not me, that wants to put private
interests ahead of the shared public interest in freedom to choose.
---------------------------------------
Nope, the Secular Public interest is not a private one. Its importance
resides in the need for real knowledge for life.


If government bought other people such equipment, but refused to buy me the
equipment because it did not like the content of my speech, it very
definitely WOULD be a violaton of freedom of speech.
-----------------------------
Not if it buys Secular schools that equipment for use in only Secular
Science and Knowledge Curricula and altogether NON-religious purposes!


The loss of freedom comes from the use of "the public dime" as leverage to
interfere with the natural ability to incorporate religion into children's
education,
-----------------
There is no such "ability".
The only obligation for the education of children by the State
that ever can be legitimate is strictly Secular!
It inteferes with NO religion by refusing to include all of them!!


and into children's lives during school hours, in whatever ways
families desire. It comes from offering "the public dime" to families who
accept arbitrary restrictions on such religious activity while denying an
equal share of "the public dime" to anyone who refuses to accept the
restrictions.
-------------------------------
There are NO "restrictions" of religion, but only of you getting the
State to pay for YOURS, thus, if you do NOT educate using a Secular
curriculum ALONE, you are NOT eligible for State support because that
violates separation of church and state in the Constitution! You can
have a school, but we don't have to support it!!


Tell me, if government offered to buy anyone who wants one a "free"
Chevrolet minivan but refused to pay for any other kind of vehicle, and if
government raised taxes however much was necessary to pay for those "free"
minivans (thereby leaving us a lot less money to buy other automobiles with
our own money), would that or would that not damage our freedom to choose
what kind of vehicle to drive?
----------------------------
Not if the Democracy has voted for that and decided that that vendor
had the optimal product for the cost to purchase the most inexpensively
en masse. If the Minivan had to come with religious decor, or with
reeligiously based superstitious prayer-repair procedures, of course,
it would not be considered because of the violation of separation.
We DO buy large fleets of vehicles as a govt, you know, and that IS
the criterion for their selection! If Chevy tried to impose religion
on its workeds, or its customers, in any way, even if a few of them
wanted it to, we would ****-can the deal!


If religious schools do just as good a job of educating children as
government schools, public purposes for the common good are satisfied.
There is no diversion away from the public interest.

But also serving a religous purpose. If public schools do just as good a
job
of educating children as religious schools, the common good can be
satisfied
without doing so.

This argument practically makes a deliberate public goal out of
PREVENTING religious interests from being pursued.
---------------
Yes! BY THE SCHOOLS!

The only alternatives to secular education is a specific Church State,
which you wouldn't like unless it was yours, or else a free-for-all
with all pressure groups saturating the schools with thousands of
delusional causes!!


That is directly contrary to
religous freedom.
------------------
Nosense, that is the ONLY way to PROTECT religious freedom!!


Furthermore as a taxpayer with intersts in what kind of society my son is
to live in, I'm not interested in funding a segregationist ideology, that
all
should be enabled to live congregated with their own kind. So for that
reason
also, I vote to keep all my public dimes in the public schools. But that
isn't
my primary objection to vouchers - just to some of your motivations in
advocating vouchers.

In other words, you want to use other people's tax money to reshape society
to fit your desires.
------------------------
Nonsense!! They just want to make sure kids are educated and not
brainwashed at State expense!

And you can BELIEVE ME because *I* REALLY DO want that!!: I want for
you fundy **** to all be hunted down and killed and all churches to
be seized and converted to ****atoriums for kids to have sex in! I
want every religious library, reading room, library collection and
bible to be gathered up and BURNED IN A HUGE FIRE and YOUR BODIES
WITH IT!




In a voucher system, groups pay roughly enough in taxes to cover the cost of
their own children's education. In the monopoly system, virtually every
penny of the tax money of people who prefer religious schools is diverted to
fund nonreligious schools. You are the one with a clear and deliberate
desire to force some people to fund other people's preferences, not me.
-----------------
The ONLY PREFERENCE we are funding is that chidren NOT be brainwashed
at State expense, whereas you would LIKE the State to promote your
religion that way!


You make it sound as if I, and others who favor religious schools, were not
part of the public, as if "the public" were someone else entirely. All we
really want is equal benefits in exchange for equal taxes, with the benefits
provided in a way that does not impose arbitrary and unnecessary
restrictions on religous freedom.
--------------------
Your taxes are NOT refundable. Your freedom is limited to you.
You don't GET a right to impose your religion on anyone else!


You are not allowed to tell other people what the tenets of their religion
are,
----------------
No one cares what yours are, quit LYING!


nor are you allowed to restrict people's religious freedom to only
things that the tenets of their religion absolutely require.
--------------
No, you can go live at your ****ing church and starve for all we
care, but you CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT TO YOUR KIDS!


And the
restrictions imposed by government schools certainly do impede the exercise
of many people's religion - as evidenced by the disproportionately high
percentage of private schools that are religious.
--------------
All that proves is that you're paranoid and separatist, since OTHER
people who are religious don't HAVE that kind of problem with public
schools!


If the way government
schools handled religion were not an obstacle, there would be no more reason
to choose a religous private school than to choose a secular one.
-----------------------------
Nonsense, most people HATE YOU ****'S ****ING GUTS AND THE COERCING
OF CHILDREN WITH YOUR STUPID ****ING PHONY FALSEHOOD OF A RELIGION!!


I've dealt with this idiocy elsewhere.
-------------------
You've dealth with nuthin', you merely SAID you did!


If we insist that government not do
anyting that can be regarded as even the tiniest bit unfair, government can
accomplish practically nothing.
-------------------
Nonsense, it can tell the Truth to children, and it can stop you ****
from lying to them! It can prevent ALL your competing lies from being
promoted to captive audiences!!


But when there are allegations that the
unfairness amounts to hundreds or especially thousands of dollars per year
per person for the people who claim they are being treated unfairly, we can
and should examine the issue and see if we can find a faierer way of doing
things.
-------------------
Your expenses for youir child abuse are your problem, not ours!


If it can't be done with the same money, religous people would have to pay
any extra costs out of their own pockets.
---------------
Mixing public money with private to amplify the private is illegal!


The protection of the laws is NOT equal when a teacher is allowed to demand
the right to teach other people's children whether the children's families
want that teacher to teach them or not.
----------------
No, that's true, protection is not equal when you claim control of
your children's rights and claim to obviate the State's obligation
to them as citizens! Equal protection of children would take your
children's rights out of your hands, and give them back to your kids!

The State has the obligation to make sure children are taught the
TRUTH!!


And the money would go to
buy crucifixes or other religious implements.

Only on the same basis that it could go for any other kind of wall
decorations and such. Government would neither discriminate in favor of
religious choices nor discriminate against them in regard to such matters.
You are the one who wants to discriminate.
------------
Then you'd have to build 30 walls for each classroom and accept
all decorations of every religion and club and organization and
pressure group and even sacred porn when the pagans and satanists
get organized, as well as Islamic trash!! And then you'd have to
accept all the slam literature trashing THOSE religions for the
**** they say! This is WHY the State has to be Secular!!!!!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message

Toldjya it was about money allright :-)

It is about both money and freedom, just like every other fight against
government efforts to establish people who make some religious choices in a
favored position over those who make different choices has always been.
----------------------------------
You made the choice to make your own life hard by making stupid
choices!! You did it intentionally because you're a raving ****ing
paranoid separatist! You would separate yourself from ANYTHING, a
Secular system, a State church unless it was YOURS, or some school
where every pressure group on earth could slather posters over
posters over treatises over tracts over filthy slanders and countless
erotic and sadmasochistic icons tacked all over its walls, and which
allowed anyone to harangue at its children who wanted to come and
do so, all the ****ing day long!!


You don't have the right to use the public dime for one's own, specific,
private
religious interests.

Freedom to pursue our religious desires with as little government
interference or favoritism as possible is a public interest, not a private
one.
-------------------------
So YOU pursue YOURS and leave your kids the **** alone! We have an
obligation to educate them, and you mixing your superstitions with
a reality-based secular curriculum is not feasible!


In one sense, everyone's religous desires, whether to inclde religion
or to exclude it, are private. In that sense, an atheist's desire not to
have his children taught religion is every bit as much a "private" interest
as a Catholic's desire to have his children taught Catholicism.
----------------
The exception being that at least an atheist admits the Truth which
Science teaches in a Secular curriculum, and does not contradict it
to their children! They don't require that anyone harangue their
child about atheism, they usually don't even do such things at home!


But because
we all have an interest in not having others make our choices for us, or
impose a financial disadvantage on us if we refuse to go along with their
choices, we have a shared, public interest in protecting religious freedom.
--------------------------
Not if it violates the laws regarding the treatment of children or
promotes criminality. And not if it interferees with Secular education!


You, on the other hand, desire to have government promote the private
interests of people who want children to attend secular schools at the
expense of the interests of those who would rather have their children
attend religious schools. It is you, not me, that wants to put private
interests ahead of the shared public interest in freedom to choose.
---------------------------------------
Nope, the Secular Public interest is not a private one. Its importance
resides in the need for real knowledge for life.


If government bought other people such equipment, but refused to buy me the
equipment because it did not like the content of my speech, it very
definitely WOULD be a violaton of freedom of speech.
-----------------------------
Not if it buys Secular schools that equipment for use in only Secular
Science and Knowledge Curricula and altogether NON-religious purposes!


The loss of freedom comes from the use of "the public dime" as leverage to
interfere with the natural ability to incorporate religion into children's
education,
-----------------
There is no such "ability".
The only obligation for the education of children by the State
that ever can be legitimate is strictly Secular!
It inteferes with NO religion by refusing to include all of them!!


and into children's lives during school hours, in whatever ways
families desire. It comes from offering "the public dime" to families who
accept arbitrary restrictions on such religious activity while denying an
equal share of "the public dime" to anyone who refuses to accept the
restrictions.
-------------------------------
There are NO "restrictions" of religion, but only of you getting the
State to pay for YOURS, thus, if you do NOT educate using a Secular
curriculum ALONE, you are NOT eligible for State support because that
violates separation of church and state in the Constitution! You can
have a school, but we don't have to support it!!


Tell me, if government offered to buy anyone who wants one a "free"
Chevrolet minivan but refused to pay for any other kind of vehicle, and if
government raised taxes however much was necessary to pay for those "free"
minivans (thereby leaving us a lot less money to buy other automobiles with
our own money), would that or would that not damage our freedom to choose
what kind of vehicle to drive?
----------------------------
Not if the Democracy has voted for that and decided that that vendor
had the optimal product for the cost to purchase the most inexpensively
en masse. If the Minivan had to come with religious decor, or with
reeligiously based superstitious prayer-repair procedures, of course,
it would not be considered because of the violation of separation.
We DO buy large fleets of vehicles as a govt, you know, and that IS
the criterion for their selection! If Chevy tried to impose religion
on its workeds, or its customers, in any way, even if a few of them
wanted it to, we would ****-can the deal!


If religious schools do just as good a job of educating children as
government schools, public purposes for the common good are satisfied.
There is no diversion away from the public interest.

But also serving a religous purpose. If public schools do just as good a
job
of educating children as religious schools, the common good can be
satisfied
without doing so.

This argument practically makes a deliberate public goal out of
PREVENTING religious interests from being pursued.
---------------
Yes! BY THE SCHOOLS!

The only alternatives to secular education is a specific Church State,
which you wouldn't like unless it was yours, or else a free-for-all
with all pressure groups saturating the schools with thousands of
delusional causes!!


That is directly contrary to
religous freedom.
------------------
Nosense, that is the ONLY way to PROTECT religious freedom!!


Furthermore as a taxpayer with intersts in what kind of society my son is
to live in, I'm not interested in funding a segregationist ideology, that
all
should be enabled to live congregated with their own kind. So for that
reason
also, I vote to keep all my public dimes in the public schools. But that
isn't
my primary objection to vouchers - just to some of your motivations in
advocating vouchers.

In other words, you want to use other people's tax money to reshape society
to fit your desires.
------------------------
Nonsense!! They just want to make sure kids are educated and not
brainwashed at State expense!

And you can BELIEVE ME because *I* REALLY DO want that!!: I want for
you fundy **** to all be hunted down and killed and all churches to
be seized and converted to ****atoriums for kids to have sex in! I
want every religious library, reading room, library collection and
bible to be gathered up and BURNED IN A HUGE FIRE and YOUR BODIES
WITH IT!




In a voucher system, groups pay roughly enough in taxes to cover the cost of
their own children's education. In the monopoly system, virtually every
penny of the tax money of people who prefer religious schools is diverted to
fund nonreligious schools. You are the one with a clear and deliberate
desire to force some people to fund other people's preferences, not me.
-----------------
The ONLY PREFERENCE we are funding is that chidren NOT be brainwashed
at State expense, whereas you would LIKE the State to promote your
religion that way!


You make it sound as if I, and others who favor religious schools, were not
part of the public, as if "the public" were someone else entirely. All we
really want is equal benefits in exchange for equal taxes, with the benefits
provided in a way that does not impose arbitrary and unnecessary
restrictions on religous freedom.
--------------------
Your taxes are NOT refundable. Your freedom is limited to you.
You don't GET a right to impose your religion on anyone else!


You are not allowed to tell other people what the tenets of their religion
are,
----------------
No one cares what yours are, quit LYING!


nor are you allowed to restrict people's religious freedom to only
things that the tenets of their religion absolutely require.
--------------
No, you can go live at your ****ing church and starve for all we
care, but you CAN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT TO YOUR KIDS!


And the
restrictions imposed by government schools certainly do impede the exercise
of many people's religion - as evidenced by the disproportionately high
percentage of private schools that are religious.
--------------
All that proves is that you're paranoid and separatist, since OTHER
people who are religious don't HAVE that kind of problem with public
schools!


If the way government
schools handled religion were not an obstacle, there would be no more reason
to choose a religous private school than to choose a secular one.
-----------------------------
Nonsense, most people HATE YOU ****'S ****ING GUTS AND THE COERCING
OF CHILDREN WITH YOUR STUPID ****ING PHONY FALSEHOOD OF A RELIGION!!


I've dealt with this idiocy elsewhere.
-------------------
You've dealth with nuthin', you merely SAID you did!


If we insist that government not do
anyting that can be regarded as even the tiniest bit unfair, government can
accomplish practically nothing.
-------------------
Nonsense, it can tell the Truth to children, and it can stop you ****
from lying to them! It can prevent ALL your competing lies from being
promoted to captive audiences!!


But when there are allegations that the
unfairness amounts to hundreds or especially thousands of dollars per year
per person for the people who claim they are being treated unfairly, we can
and should examine the issue and see if we can find a faierer way of doing
things.
-------------------
Your expenses for youir child abuse are your problem, not ours!


If it can't be done with the same money, religous people would have to pay
any extra costs out of their own pockets.
---------------
Mixing public money with private to amplify the private is illegal!


The protection of the laws is NOT equal when a teacher is allowed to demand
the right to teach other people's children whether the children's families
want that teacher to teach them or not.
----------------
No, that's true, protection is not equal when you claim control of
your children's rights and claim to obviate the State's obligation
to them as citizens! Equal protection of children would take your
children's rights out of your hands, and give them back to your kids!

The State has the obligation to make sure children are taught the
TRUTH!!


And the money would go to
buy crucifixes or other religious implements.

Only on the same basis that it could go for any other kind of wall
decorations and such. Government would neither discriminate in favor of
religious choices nor discriminate against them in regard to such matters.
You are the one who wants to discriminate.
------------
Then you'd have to build 30 walls for each classroom and accept
all decorations of every religion and club and organization and
pressure group and even sacred porn when the pagans and satanists
get organized, as well as Islamic trash!! And then you'd have to
accept all the slam literature trashing THOSE religions for the
**** they say! This is WHY the State has to be Secular!!!!!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:eCCEc.9613$Qj6.825@fed1read05...
It isn't analogous at all, though. The Constitution doesn't
prohibit the government from putting a bus stop closer to your
house; it *does* prohibit the government from providing religious
instruction.

The Constitution does prohibit government from earmarking money
specifically for religious education. It does not, however,
prohibit government from earmarking money for education and leaving
the choice of whether religious content will be included in that
education up to the individual.

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? One that you and I are not going to
get to decide.

That distinction has been in place
for decades with regard to financial aid for college students,

Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you? They
specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship to an
eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study theology at
a religious college without infringing that individual's free exercise. In
this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically bars government
financial support of religious entities.

and
the Cleveland voucher case applied the same distinction at the K-12
level.

I am not familiar enough with the Cleveland voucher system to comment on it.
If the state of Ohio does not ban support to religion as explicitly as
Washington state does, however, it may well be legal.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Circe" wrote in message
news:eCCEc.9613$Qj6.825@fed1read05...
It isn't analogous at all, though. The Constitution doesn't
prohibit the government from putting a bus stop closer to your
house; it *does* prohibit the government from providing religious
instruction.

The Constitution does prohibit government from earmarking money
specifically for religious education. It does not, however,
prohibit government from earmarking money for education and leaving
the choice of whether religious content will be included in that
education up to the individual.

That's the $64,000 question, isn't it? One that you and I are not going to
get to decide.

That distinction has been in place
for decades with regard to financial aid for college students,

Missed the recent Washington state Supreme Court decision, did you? They
specifically ruled that the state could refuse to fund a scholarship to an
eligible individual because he wanted to use the money to study theology at
a religious college without infringing that individual's free exercise. In
this case, the Washington State Constitution specifically bars government
financial support of religious entities.

and
the Cleveland voucher case applied the same distinction at the K-12
level.

I am not familiar enough with the Cleveland voucher system to comment on it.
If the state of Ohio does not ban support to religion as explicitly as
Washington state does, however, it may well be legal.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

toto wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 08:07:58 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Not in government schools. I just want families to be able to choose
schools where a prayer can be led someone, where the Ten Commandments can be
displayed on the wall, and so forth, without having to pay thousands of
dollars extra for a choice that in reality costs no more than it would cost
a government school to educate the children.

Here's a mainstream Jewish view:

http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edt..._vouchers.html

Your argument appears to be this one:

Parents whose religious conscience precludes them from using the
public schools are in effect taxed double when they also pay tuition
for their children's mandatory secular education in denominational
schools.

The counter is that:

In fact, all citizens, including single persons, childless couples,
and retired couples, pay taxes to support public schools, regardless
of use. No one is taxed to support a religious school any more than
one is taxed to support a church or synagogue.

In regards to education, the government taxes all citizens to provide
a benefit that is available to all citizens (or at least all citizens
with children). There is no corresponding government service that
provide, free of charge to all who wish to go, benefits that are
analogous to the benefits that one gets from attending a church or
synagogue. If there were (and thankfully there isn't), then this
would be a reasonable analogy. Since there is not, it isn't.