Parent-Child Negotiations

Banty wrote:
In article HxCEc.9586$Qj6.1647@fed1read05, Circe says...
Look, government can't STOP you from exercising your right to free
association and to segregate yourself from anyone you don't want
to be around, but it's under NO obligation whatsoever to support
you in these pursuits, any more than it is obligated to give you a
printing press and blank newspapers or a soapbox and a bullhorn so
you can exercise your right to free speech.

Hey that was MY analogy - except MINE was BETTER and more CURRENT
because I invoked the government providing for free computers and
CD burners and distribution!

I musta missed that part of your post. Still, I think CD burners are
*waaaaay* old news in the media department. It's Internet domains that the
government has to give away g!
--
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

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an
explicity religious purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving
the quality of children's education in a manner that does not
create unnecessary, artificial inconveniences for religion.

Begs the question. Assumes that 1) the quality of children's education needs
improvement (this may or may not be true, depending on the school your child
attends, but poor or low quality public education is not an issue for all
Americans by any means) and 2) that public education, whether improved or
not, creates unnecessary or artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study
English, another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so
forth. We don't do that. So if we expect children to go to a
separate place to study religion, we are singling out the study of
religion to be subject to an unnecessary, artificial inconvenience
compared with how other subjects are handled.

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. If what you want is a course in religious education for your
kids, send 'em to Bible School at church as an extracurricular activity the
way I send my son to piano lessons (I don't demand that the school teach him
piano or integrate it into their curriculum) and my daughter to ballet
lessons.
--
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:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an
explicity religious purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving
the quality of children's education in a manner that does not
create unnecessary, artificial inconveniences for religion.

Begs the question. Assumes that 1) the quality of children's education needs
improvement (this may or may not be true, depending on the school your child
attends, but poor or low quality public education is not an issue for all
Americans by any means) and 2) that public education, whether improved or
not, creates unnecessary or artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study
English, another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so
forth. We don't do that. So if we expect children to go to a
separate place to study religion, we are singling out the study of
religion to be subject to an unnecessary, artificial inconvenience
compared with how other subjects are handled.

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. If what you want is a course in religious education for your
kids, send 'em to Bible School at church as an extracurricular activity the
way I send my son to piano lessons (I don't demand that the school teach him
piano or integrate it into their curriculum) and my daughter to ballet
lessons.
--
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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Banty

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

Banty

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

Ah, but what if they don't want to be converted? Most of my students have
strong religious beliefs, but not necessarily those preached by, say Roman
Catholics. I don't think my COGIC or AME parents would want their child
in a private school (and since many COGIC and AME churches are small,
storefront or living room operations, I don't think they're going to be
opening their own schools anytime soon). I really don't think my Moslem
parents are going to want to send their child to a school run by a
Christian
group.

And the costs for starting up a school are immense. Which is why charter
schools generally require corporate or charitable start-up money. Only
fairly rich organizations can do it. IE-big, established churches.

Unfortunately, in an imperfect world, there are no perfect solutions. But I
strongly reject the philosophy, "If we can't make sure everyone can get what
they want, then no one should be able to get what they want." In my view,
laws designed on that basis are very serious violations of the equal
protection of the laws because they deliberately harm some people or groups
without really helping others.

On the other hand, I don't think the situation is as bleak as you're making
it out to be. Schools that are Christian but not sectarian could
potentially draw students from poorer churches and financial support from
wealthier ones by handling religion in a way that is compatible with the
desires of both. Christians whose churches are not particularly interested
in starting their own schools in poorer neighborhoods, and individual
members of such churches, could be especially good candidates to hit up for
donations for such schools. (Yes, I know that wouldn't help non-Christians,
but preventing Christians from getting something just because poorer or
smaller non-Christian groups can't afford it would itself be a serious
violation of separation of church and state.)

Another interesting possibility would be "incubator" organizations financed
by private donations and aimed at helping new schools get started. With an
adequate voucher amount, such organizations could even be somewhat
self-sustaining if they make part or all of their assistance a loan instead
of a gift; that way, the same money could be used to start up a number of
different schools over time. (Obviously, that would require a voucher
amount large enough to cover operating costs with some money left over to
repay start-up costs.) An incubator could even arrange for the assets of
the schools it assists to serve as collateral so if the school folds, its
assets can be reused in another start-up effort. I wouldn't be surprised if
some of the organizations that currently provide privately funded vouchers
would shift their efforts in that direction.

And with a large enough voucher amount, there would be serious potential for
investment in schools on a for-profit basis. I would definitely want full
disclosure of profits (including any unusually large salaries) so families
know how much money might be being diverted away from eductional purposes.
But the possibility of profit can provide an incentive to put up money for
start-up costs, and successful for-profit organizations tend to be a lot
more interested in replicating their success elsewhere (whether through
opening new branches or through franchising) than successful non-profit
organizations.

One final thought is that if the private sector of education would grow
enough to create excess capacity in the public schools, the public system
could rent its excess capacity to private schools. That could create
potential to start private schools with very low start-up costs because they
would be using existing infrastructure.

ANd, there's also another difference. I've posted about the programs in my
public school-which you say most parents don't need. True. But these
programs are what the parents of the kids in my school say they need in
order for their children to benefit from school. No one has come to us and
said "My little Johnny needs to attend catechism classes every day to make
his first communion". Somehow, this need seems to have slipped below the
bandwidth of the parents here. But they have come to us and asked for help
in finding a safe place for their kids after the school day ended
(answer-provide extended day programming), with medical care (work with
the health department where we provide the space, and they send in the
personnel), clothing, etc.

There is nothing magical about public schools that makes them the only way
such needs could be addressed. As long as public schools like yours are
kept intact, they would remain available for families who feel like those
schools meet their children's needs best. If too few families remain
interested to make the schools worth keeping intact, that is probably an
indication that we should start looking for other ways to meet the needs you
mention without tying them to where children go to school.

There is a difference between the results of white flight (which is a
definite choice motivated by racism) and the community saying "OK, it
happens, lets give money to schools which are already almost all White and
which serve a religious population which is 95% White (except for
Catholics,
which have a growing Hispanic population, which still often segregate into
their own churches)" and hope someone will build schools for these poor
minority kids.

I'd like to know where your "95% White" figure comes from. I'm sure there
are congregations that are that heavily polarized or even more so, but I'm
skeptical as to how many denominations as a whole are - at least in the
Southeast, where we live (assuming I'm remembering correctly about your
location).

Exclusion should not be given the validity of government funding.

What bothers me about this argument is that it makes no attempt to
differentiate between separation that results from pursuit of different
desires and separation that results from a deliberate attempt to exclude.
In essence, you are creating a presumption of guilt, a presumption that if a
school has a "wrong" racial balance, it must be because the school has a
goal of excluding minorities.

Keep in mind that in the absence of vouchers, private schools aren't cheap.
The one I attended as a child, for example, currently has tuition around
$4,000 per year for the first child, with a scale that lowers tuition for
additional children. Since a much higher percentage of white families than
minorities have high incomes, that creates an inherent skew through which
private schools are almost inevitably "whiter" than the underlying
population that they draw students from - at least in the absence of some
counteracting force. But the actual controlling factor is economic, not
racial.

Couple that with situations where a school draws students mainly from a
religion that is disproportionately white, and the racial balance in a
school can be seriously skewed whether most of the people involved actually
want the racial imbalance or not. The imbalance may just be a natural
result of private choices made for reasons that have nothing to do with a
desire to exclude, not a symptom of a dark conspiracy.

There is also one other factor that may be at work. From some of the things
I've read, a lot of minority families prefer schools where their children
will not be in too small a minority. So if economic factors and differences
in religious or other desires create a certain amount of racial imbalance,
that may make a school less attractive to minorities.

That's not to say that there isn't genuine discrimination or that there
aren't genuine attempts at exclusion. Even when racial imbalances start off
purely naturally, racists will tend to take advantage of them. (And that is
true in government schools too, not just in private ones, although there are
limits to how much advantage can be taken in government school systems.) An
admissions officer may be prejudiced, whether consciously or subconsciously,
at a school where both the official policy and the desire of most of the
families is to reject racism. And I imagine there are still schools where
racial exclusion is either an official policy or an unofficial but clearly
understood one.

But punishing the innocent along with the guilty is a gross miscarriage of
justice. Whatever measures we take to address discrimination, we need to
address them at cases where there is actual proof of genuine discrimination.
The Constitution neither requires nor permits arbitrary interference in
people's lives just because social and cultural factors cause people of
different races to tend to prefer different choices.

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...

Ah, but what if they don't want to be converted? Most of my students have
strong religious beliefs, but not necessarily those preached by, say Roman
Catholics. I don't think my COGIC or AME parents would want their child
in a private school (and since many COGIC and AME churches are small,
storefront or living room operations, I don't think they're going to be
opening their own schools anytime soon). I really don't think my Moslem
parents are going to want to send their child to a school run by a
Christian
group.

And the costs for starting up a school are immense. Which is why charter
schools generally require corporate or charitable start-up money. Only
fairly rich organizations can do it. IE-big, established churches.

Unfortunately, in an imperfect world, there are no perfect solutions. But I
strongly reject the philosophy, "If we can't make sure everyone can get what
they want, then no one should be able to get what they want." In my view,
laws designed on that basis are very serious violations of the equal
protection of the laws because they deliberately harm some people or groups
without really helping others.

On the other hand, I don't think the situation is as bleak as you're making
it out to be. Schools that are Christian but not sectarian could
potentially draw students from poorer churches and financial support from
wealthier ones by handling religion in a way that is compatible with the
desires of both. Christians whose churches are not particularly interested
in starting their own schools in poorer neighborhoods, and individual
members of such churches, could be especially good candidates to hit up for
donations for such schools. (Yes, I know that wouldn't help non-Christians,
but preventing Christians from getting something just because poorer or
smaller non-Christian groups can't afford it would itself be a serious
violation of separation of church and state.)

Another interesting possibility would be "incubator" organizations financed
by private donations and aimed at helping new schools get started. With an
adequate voucher amount, such organizations could even be somewhat
self-sustaining if they make part or all of their assistance a loan instead
of a gift; that way, the same money could be used to start up a number of
different schools over time. (Obviously, that would require a voucher
amount large enough to cover operating costs with some money left over to
repay start-up costs.) An incubator could even arrange for the assets of
the schools it assists to serve as collateral so if the school folds, its
assets can be reused in another start-up effort. I wouldn't be surprised if
some of the organizations that currently provide privately funded vouchers
would shift their efforts in that direction.

And with a large enough voucher amount, there would be serious potential for
investment in schools on a for-profit basis. I would definitely want full
disclosure of profits (including any unusually large salaries) so families
know how much money might be being diverted away from eductional purposes.
But the possibility of profit can provide an incentive to put up money for
start-up costs, and successful for-profit organizations tend to be a lot
more interested in replicating their success elsewhere (whether through
opening new branches or through franchising) than successful non-profit
organizations.

One final thought is that if the private sector of education would grow
enough to create excess capacity in the public schools, the public system
could rent its excess capacity to private schools. That could create
potential to start private schools with very low start-up costs because they
would be using existing infrastructure.

ANd, there's also another difference. I've posted about the programs in my
public school-which you say most parents don't need. True. But these
programs are what the parents of the kids in my school say they need in
order for their children to benefit from school. No one has come to us and
said "My little Johnny needs to attend catechism classes every day to make
his first communion". Somehow, this need seems to have slipped below the
bandwidth of the parents here. But they have come to us and asked for help
in finding a safe place for their kids after the school day ended
(answer-provide extended day programming), with medical care (work with
the health department where we provide the space, and they send in the
personnel), clothing, etc.

There is nothing magical about public schools that makes them the only way
such needs could be addressed. As long as public schools like yours are
kept intact, they would remain available for families who feel like those
schools meet their children's needs best. If too few families remain
interested to make the schools worth keeping intact, that is probably an
indication that we should start looking for other ways to meet the needs you
mention without tying them to where children go to school.

There is a difference between the results of white flight (which is a
definite choice motivated by racism) and the community saying "OK, it
happens, lets give money to schools which are already almost all White and
which serve a religious population which is 95% White (except for
Catholics,
which have a growing Hispanic population, which still often segregate into
their own churches)" and hope someone will build schools for these poor
minority kids.

I'd like to know where your "95% White" figure comes from. I'm sure there
are congregations that are that heavily polarized or even more so, but I'm
skeptical as to how many denominations as a whole are - at least in the
Southeast, where we live (assuming I'm remembering correctly about your
location).

Exclusion should not be given the validity of government funding.

What bothers me about this argument is that it makes no attempt to
differentiate between separation that results from pursuit of different
desires and separation that results from a deliberate attempt to exclude.
In essence, you are creating a presumption of guilt, a presumption that if a
school has a "wrong" racial balance, it must be because the school has a
goal of excluding minorities.

Keep in mind that in the absence of vouchers, private schools aren't cheap.
The one I attended as a child, for example, currently has tuition around
$4,000 per year for the first child, with a scale that lowers tuition for
additional children. Since a much higher percentage of white families than
minorities have high incomes, that creates an inherent skew through which
private schools are almost inevitably "whiter" than the underlying
population that they draw students from - at least in the absence of some
counteracting force. But the actual controlling factor is economic, not
racial.

Couple that with situations where a school draws students mainly from a
religion that is disproportionately white, and the racial balance in a
school can be seriously skewed whether most of the people involved actually
want the racial imbalance or not. The imbalance may just be a natural
result of private choices made for reasons that have nothing to do with a
desire to exclude, not a symptom of a dark conspiracy.

There is also one other factor that may be at work. From some of the things
I've read, a lot of minority families prefer schools where their children
will not be in too small a minority. So if economic factors and differences
in religious or other desires create a certain amount of racial imbalance,
that may make a school less attractive to minorities.

That's not to say that there isn't genuine discrimination or that there
aren't genuine attempts at exclusion. Even when racial imbalances start off
purely naturally, racists will tend to take advantage of them. (And that is
true in government schools too, not just in private ones, although there are
limits to how much advantage can be taken in government school systems.) An
admissions officer may be prejudiced, whether consciously or subconsciously,
at a school where both the official policy and the desire of most of the
families is to reject racism. And I imagine there are still schools where
racial exclusion is either an official policy or an unofficial but clearly
understood one.

But punishing the innocent along with the guilty is a gross miscarriage of
justice. Whatever measures we take to address discrimination, we need to
address them at cases where there is actual proof of genuine discrimination.
The Constitution neither requires nor permits arbitrary interference in
people's lives just because social and cultural factors cause people of
different races to tend to prefer different choices.

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

You're missing the central difference: where the money comes from. If
you offered money out of your own pocket to educate my children on
the condition that I send them to a nonreligious school, that would be
your right because it's your money. If the condition really bothered
me, I would probably resent it and think it's not very nice of you to
impose it, but I would have no basis for viewing your action as a
violation of my rights. On the other hand, if I didn't especially care
whether my child attended a religious school or a nonreligious one,
I would probably be grateful for the opportunity to benefit from
your money and not care all that much about the strings.

The problem with the public school monopoly system is that the money
it attaches strings to is TAX money, not private money, and includes tax
money from people who prefer to have children educated in religious
schools, not just from those who prefer to have children educated in
nonreligious ones.

That's an inaccurate protrayal. It's not people who want secular vs.
people who
want religious, two groups. It's people who want secular vs. people who
want RC
vs. people who want Islam vs. people who want Methodist vs. all the
different
Baptist groups (separately!) vs... vs.... vs...; many groups, each with
agenda.
I like agenda that the kids get educated, and the family and churches tend
to
what they consider their religious needs.

What's inaccurate? Don't all these groups you list divide out into my two
basic categories?

It's a public need for education, making available a neutral place for
education
as an opportunity for all.

Not an opportunity for all. An opportunity for about 90%. The other 10%
view it as something worth spending thousands of dollars per year per child
to avoid, and people don't spend that kind of money to avoid an
"opportunity." (And actually, even some of the 90% may view the public
schools more as something forced on them by compulsory education laws than
as a true opportunity.)

A voucher system would come MUCH closer to supporting education for all, and
public schools would continue to offer a "neutral" place for families who
truly prefer a "neutral" place. But government would no longer tax people
who prefer for children to be educated in religious schools and use the
money to bribe families to choose a "neutral" educational environment over a
religious one.

Those people who are so uncompromising to insist on
some thing specific to them, need to weigh the alternatives. But, like
you said, some 80 - 90% choose the public schools.

It's amazing what bribing people with the equivalent of a free house can
accomplish.

Thus, it uses people's tax money to impose restrictions that are
directly contrary to what some of them want in regard to how religion
will be dealt with in children's lives during school hours. That is
exactly
the same kind of sin and tyranny that was once the province of state
churches, only focused in a different direction.

Bad analogy. So many of yours depend on the absence of something being
made equivalent to the presence of a different (and sometimes hostile)
variety
of that something. It's a categorical logical error.

You're missing the point of the analogy. In both cases, government provides
a financial advantage for people who make some religious choices at the
expense of those who make other, competing religious choices. Whether the
choices government favors involve the presence of something or the absence
of something is not particularly important. What is important is that
government is favoring some people over others based on what religious
choices they make.

That favoritism not only is inherently unfair, but it tends to cause at
least some people who would really prefer to make one religious choice to
make a different one instead. Thus, religious groups and factions that like
making a choice that is acceptable to govrnment are established in a favored
position over those that prefer to make some other choice.

The fact that the groups government favors are defined by the absence of
something rather than by the presence of something does not change the
fundamental nature of the unfairness. Government is still favoring people
who make some choices over those who make others.

The problem with state churches in education as a monopoly is the present
of
ONE PARTICULAR - THEIR - religion, overriding others' beliefs and making
the partake of inappropriate rites.

That does not compare with a system which is not hostile to religion (see
the
link I posted about the current state of the law, signed by a wide
spectrum of
religious groups), but otherwise makes sure the practice of religion is
either
private or completely voluntary and non-disruptive.

The difference is more a matter of degree than a matter of kind. In a way,
it is similar to the difference between the establishment of the Church of
England, where everyone's money went to a single church, and a bill
introduced by Patrick Henry in Virginia that would have allowed people to
choose what church their money would go to or, if they prefered, earmark
their tax to go to fund "seminaries of learning" instead of a church.
Patrick Henry's bill was far less intrusive and tyrannical than the way the
Church of England was supported, but it still violated religious freedom.

Similarly, the public school monopoly system does not do anywhere near as
much damage as if it forced people to participate in religious activities
that violate their own religion, or if it banned even completely voluntary
and non-disruptive religious activity. But it is still considerably more
restrictive to religious freedom than if government left money and choices
in private hands, or if government funded children's eduction without
imposing any conditions at all on religious activities in the children's
lives during school hours.

James Madison did not view Patrick Henry's legislation as acceptable just
because its violation of religious freedom was dramatically less than the
violation involved with the Church of England. Similarly, I do not view the
public school monopoly system's violations of religious freedom as
acceptable just because they are not nearly as great as they could be.

If all goes well, enough people will donate to enough different kinds of
schools that everyone can find something they're reasonably satisfied
with.

(Why izzit that you want your religion as a background to education, but
many others are supposed to settle for 'reasonably satisfied'??)

A voucher system would not guarantee either me or anyone else exactly what
we want. I might very well find myself stuck compromising my religous
preferences because I decide that some other consideration (for example, a
special academic program of some kind) is more important. Since I don't
have kids yet, I don't really know what my situation will be when and if I
do have kids.

The limiting factor in a voucher system is essentially the same thing that
would be the limiting factor if government were not involved at all:
economics. Schools need a certain number of students to operate
efficiently, and larger schools can offer a wider variety of programs than
smaller ones (although small, specialized schools could match larger schools
in a specific areas). A voucher system would allow families to get as close
to what they want as can be provided with an equitable share of tax money
within those natural economic constraints. But a voucher system would not
allow families to demand extra tax money to get something more expensive.

Thus, my words "reasonably satisfied" reflect the economic reality that
getting exactly what we want won't always be possible - especially for small
groups with only a few children. Small groups do not have the right to
demand disproportionate funding per student to get what they want, nor do
they have a right to say, "We can't have what we want, so you aren't allowed
to get what you want either." But they could, nonetheless, choose whatever
option is best for them out of what is practical. They might send their
children to a government school, or they might send them to a private school
that is closer to what they want than a government school would be, or they
might even get together with other small groups to start a school that fits
all the groups reasonably well.

The real point is that government would not take on the role of picking who
wins and who loses, of saying, "If you are willing to settle for X amount of
religion in your children's school, we'll fund your children's education,
but if you insist on Y amount, you have to pay yourself." Government would
provide the same support for everyone, and leave the question of what is
practical and what isn't in private hands.

What you're proposing is to add YOUR money to PUBLIC money, to set up a
school, with part of the express purpose being to make converts.

If that PUBLIC money wasn't going to YOUR school, with just YOUR religion
being presented, it would be available to make a better school which would
fit
the needs of a much wider range of children. Including very religious
ones who
aren't in YOUR religion.

You're missing the point. The only time my money could be used that way is
if the child's parents decide that sending the child to the school I help
fund would be better for that child than sending the child to a government
school - or any other private school - would be. That directly contradicts
your presumption that if the tax money were not used for my school, it would
be used for something that fit that child and the child's family better.

You know darn well the public money won't mulitply to make all those
demoninations and religions available as alternatives to those families.
There
is an expensive infrastructure for each individual school. You're
diverting
necessarily limited public funds to your specific purpose. If you want to
convert, fine - do it on your own dime.

How is it that a voucher system that funds all families' chosen schools is
"diverting" money but spending everyone's taxes on the kind of school you
want is magically not "diverting" it? It seems to me that you are far more
interested in diverting people's money away from what they want in order to
support what you want than I am. Take a look at what percentage of the
population favors each type of school, and at what percentage of the tax
money would go to each type of school in each of our approaches, if you
don't believe me. I'll give you a hint: any difference between people's
preferences and where the money actually goes indicates that money has been
diverted.