From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Subject: Re: Government and religious freedoms
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 93 08:58:38 PST

In <nate.1121@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, Nathan Engle writes:

>J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM writes:
>>   Here's an observation I've made several times, and I direct it toward
>>those who oppose private school vouchers while favoring federally funded
>>abortion.

>    That's not me, but I have something to say here.

>[big snip]

>  Just for the record:  I favor vouchers for private schools, and I'm also
>in favor of keeping abortion safe and legal--but I don't want the government
>to fund it.

>    The thing that I'm curious about is how you reconcile the position
>of favoring vouchers for private schools while opposing funding of abortion.
>It seems to me that your position is just as flimsy as that of the people
>who favor funding for abortion but oppose vouchers. I'm obviously biased on
>the subject, but I would have thought that the only thoroughly consistent
>positions are to either oppose government funding of both (which, for the
>record, is where I stand), or to favor funding for both (the ultimate "Big
>Government" position).

From the standpoint of government funding, I agree with you.  I was arguing
the position from the "religious freedom" standpoint.  For despite the rhetoric
I hear against vouchers (Paying for religion?  Aiieee!), the point is that
*no one* is having their own religious rights abridged.  That is not true for
Pat Robertson, who watches his taxes pay for abortions.  My point was that all
who argue against for vouchers due to "religious freedom" doctrines are often
missing the point with respect to federally funded abortion.

As an aside, the "religious freedom" argument that fundamentalists can use
against paying for abortion could also be used by Arab-Americans watching their
taxes used for aid to Israel, for example.  Arab-Israeli conflicts throughout
history have been primarily religious in nature.  Now back to the issue at
hand...

I used to be against vouchers myself.  I thought something wrong about
government partnership with private enterprise (I never thought religion was an
issue as long as people of *all religions* can choose for themselves how to be
educated).  But as we see the failures of public education and the stranglehold
that the NEA has on the public school system, I see no other way out.  I think
education is too important for *all of us* to settle for less than what we
could possibly have.  We spent three times more per student (in constant 1990
dollars) in 1989 than we did in 1960, and I don't think anyone can claim that
our schools are better now than they were then (source:  U. S. Department of
Education's "Digest of Education Statistics--1991").  And all we hear from
the public school bureaucrats is "mo' money, mo' money."  I think the evidence
is fairly compelling that "mo' money" alone isn't the answer as much as a
shift in attitudes among parents and educators would be.

If I thought the public schools could be fixed, I'd be against private school
vouchers.  But I see no evidence that it can, and I don't claim that my own
position is 100% consistent.  However, I don't think it's as "flimsy" (in your
words) as the inconsistent positions I commented on before.  In any event, I
think that the argument against federally funded abortions is unassailable as
a "religious freedom" issue--regardless of how one stands on vouchers for
education.  I've never heard anyone refute it--they just don't comment on it
or change the subject.


Tim Irvin
*****************************************************************************
This .sig meets Greenpeace standards by using over 25% recycled pixels.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh