Parent-Child Negotiations

"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.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:MKCEc.9664$Qj6.8243@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

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.

Thank you. Because it *is* MY money you are asking for--mine and that
of millions of other Americans who don't want their tax dollars to support
your religion.

In essence, what you are trying to do is use the fact that SOME of the tax
money is yours as an excuse to hijack the tax money of other people who DO
favor religous schools. In a voucher system, what happens in essence is
that people like you pay enough taxes to pay for the nonreligious schools,
while people like me pay enough taxes to support the religous ones. Neither
of us is really forced to pay for the other's preferences, aside from
accidental fluctuations between wealthier and poorer groups.

What you want, in contrast, is a system where EVERYONE'S money is used to
fund ONLY the kind of school you favor. You are the one who deliberately
seeks to control the use of other people's money, not me.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:MKCEc.9664$Qj6.8243@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

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.

Thank you. Because it *is* MY money you are asking for--mine and that
of millions of other Americans who don't want their tax dollars to support
your religion.

In essence, what you are trying to do is use the fact that SOME of the tax
money is yours as an excuse to hijack the tax money of other people who DO
favor religous schools. In a voucher system, what happens in essence is
that people like you pay enough taxes to pay for the nonreligious schools,
while people like me pay enough taxes to support the religous ones. Neither
of us is really forced to pay for the other's preferences, aside from
accidental fluctuations between wealthier and poorer groups.

What you want, in contrast, is a system where EVERYONE'S money is used to
fund ONLY the kind of school you favor. You are the one who deliberately
seeks to control the use of other people's money, not me.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:10:46 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .

It is possible *when* the others can walk away. Children cannot
walk away in a classroom setting. And, aside from that, children
are coerced by peer pressure even when they may be able to
walk away if they are strong enough to withstand such pressures.

And one of the major concerns of religious families in regard to
public schools is that they don't want their children exposed to
peer pressure to violate the families' beliefs and values.

Which religious families. I haven't seen any Hindus or Jews or
Moslems having this problem.

How hard, and in how many places, have you looked? Are you really saying
that the peer pressure issue has nothing to do with why some Jews and
Moslems send their children to Jewish or Moslem schools? And if so, how do
you know?

If we allowed Moslems to pray to Mecca during class time, you
would holler bloody murder,

What makes you think that? You've fit me into a stereotype and you're
making assumptions based on that stereotype. (Indeed, your assumption that
I want public prayers in public schools is itself part of a stereotype and
is contrary to what I've said.) The reality is that I know that Moslems
have specific obligations regarding when they are expected to pray, so
something has to be done to accommodate those obligations or we're seriously
violating their religious freedom.

but you want Christian prayers to be
led by teachers in the schools.

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.
-----------------------
That's illegal, immoral, and fascist religious child abuse!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"toto" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 04:10:46 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .

It is possible *when* the others can walk away. Children cannot
walk away in a classroom setting. And, aside from that, children
are coerced by peer pressure even when they may be able to
walk away if they are strong enough to withstand such pressures.

And one of the major concerns of religious families in regard to
public schools is that they don't want their children exposed to
peer pressure to violate the families' beliefs and values.

Which religious families. I haven't seen any Hindus or Jews or
Moslems having this problem.

How hard, and in how many places, have you looked? Are you really saying
that the peer pressure issue has nothing to do with why some Jews and
Moslems send their children to Jewish or Moslem schools? And if so, how do
you know?

If we allowed Moslems to pray to Mecca during class time, you
would holler bloody murder,

What makes you think that? You've fit me into a stereotype and you're
making assumptions based on that stereotype. (Indeed, your assumption that
I want public prayers in public schools is itself part of a stereotype and
is contrary to what I've said.) The reality is that I know that Moslems
have specific obligations regarding when they are expected to pray, so
something has to be done to accommodate those obligations or we're seriously
violating their religious freedom.

but you want Christian prayers to be
led by teachers in the schools.

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.
-----------------------
That's illegal, immoral, and fascist religious child abuse!
Steve

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

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.

Oh - well it's like that! Oh, the schools have a big job, then - they
gotta
incorporate all those TKD classes, ballet classes, popwarner football,
little
league, computer camps - wow.

In a voucher system, private schools that offer ballet, TKD, or special
computer classes would be possible. Vouchers are about freedom of a lot
more than just religion, after all.

Nathan

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

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.

Oh - well it's like that! Oh, the schools have a big job, then - they
gotta
incorporate all those TKD classes, ballet classes, popwarner football,
little
league, computer camps - wow.

In a voucher system, private schools that offer ballet, TKD, or special
computer classes would be possible. Vouchers are about freedom of a lot
more than just religion, after all.

Nathan

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.
---------------------
Freedom, Education, Knowledge, and Truth is invariably "inconvenient"
for religion!! And no Free Nation should in ANY way give aid or comfort
to 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.
------------------------------
Nope, you're doing what you're supposed to pursue something that is
inherently anti-Learning, anti-Education, and anti-Knowledge!!

If you simply were to take your children elsewhere and systematically
contradict everything they learn in school and disinform them just
because of your vicious twisted sense of humor it would be not be
any different than your ****ing stupid religion in the eyes of a
secular State that is forbidden to take sides in matters of religion!!

But we have NO obligation to make that convenient for you, in fact
it would be against the Public Interest we already spent money FOR
and should be illegal after we have collectively paid to educate your
children!!!
Steve

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.
---------------------
Freedom, Education, Knowledge, and Truth is invariably "inconvenient"
for religion!! And no Free Nation should in ANY way give aid or comfort
to 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.
------------------------------
Nope, you're doing what you're supposed to pursue something that is
inherently anti-Learning, anti-Education, and anti-Knowledge!!

If you simply were to take your children elsewhere and systematically
contradict everything they learn in school and disinform them just
because of your vicious twisted sense of humor it would be not be
any different than your ****ing stupid religion in the eyes of a
secular State that is forbidden to take sides in matters of religion!!

But we have NO obligation to make that convenient for you, in fact
it would be against the Public Interest we already spent money FOR
and should be illegal after we have collectively paid to educate your
children!!!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

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

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.

Oh - well it's like that! Oh, the schools have a big job, then - they
gotta
incorporate all those TKD classes, ballet classes, popwarner football,
little
league, computer camps - wow.

In a voucher system, private schools that offer ballet, TKD, or special
computer classes would be possible.
-------------
There are so many things we would have to offer to meet everyone's
desires that the basic publically commissioned obligation to educate
in required subjects would be compromised. This is why we cannot just
"make room" for your stupid vicious religion in public schools.


Vouchers are about freedom of a lot
more than just religion, after all.
Nathan
-----------------------------
Yes, they are all about trying to hijack and reroute PUBLIC monies
voted for education into niche interest groups to try to get the
State to illicitly support people's hobbies, instead of them doing
it themselves! And that's merely illegal THEFT!!!

You see, to a secular State with freedom from/of religion, religion only
ranks as a hobby!!
Steve