From: jacksonk@fornax.cs.rpi.edu (Keith Jackson)
Subject: Re: Is this a socialist county?
Organization: Rertcelees Pacysutntit Islnohine, Troy, NY
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 23:43:44 GMT

In article <1992Aug12.172933.19943@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In article <1992Aug10.171453.9530@mcs.anl.gov> shaffer@achilles.ctd.anl.gov (Michael A. Shaffer) writes:
>>Providing money to a parent to
>>spend on education in no way constitutes "establisment of religion". It
>>seems to me that allowing parents to spend the money on the school of
>>their choice FACILITAES the free excersize of religion.

Precisely, unless of course you put an anti-theist spin on everything and
choose to interpret anything which is not completely devoid of religion as
bad.

>Then you haven't thought it through.

Well, obviously!  If anyone disagrees with you they're either ignorant or
have some ill-intent.  Sounds like Maoist reeducation to me!

>Schooling is required.  We know
>that Catholic schools (over half the private schools in this country)
>are SIGNIFICANTLY less expensive.  So the government allows vouchers,
>and the Catholic schools thrive while the others lose out (due to the
>inability to acquire all those cheap instructors who are doing it as a
>religious duty, for example).  You have just used Federal money to de
>facto require children to have a Catholic religious education.

Not if you require that the public schools stay open to whomever wants
them.  Maybe they'd be better off with smaller classes!  In any event,
that's quite a good argument against the effectiveness of public schools,
and hence all the more reason to allow parents the *CHOICE* to send their
kids to where they wish.  Note that if you don't want your kids exposed to
Catholic `indoctrination', DON'T SEND THEM THERE!  If it's so much better,
looks like you've got to decide between the more palatable of the two
choices (incidentally, I've known quite a few people who went to Catholic
schools who ended up with a great respect for them as educational
institutions but were not particularly religious -- some of them very
atheistic.)

>However, the fact that the religious
>classes aren't optional make government funding an interference in the
>practice of religion.

No!  The PARENTS DECIDE whether to send the child there, hence a CHOICE,
and therefore NOT MANDATORY.  Is your pea-brain surrounded by such a thick
skull as to prevent this from seeping through?  Please justify this
statement, or quit using it in your arguments!  You're obviously very
afraid that some child will be taught something religious that you use
crooked logic to attack a good idea.  Again, were you beaten with bibles as
a child?  Where does this anti-theist fervor come from?  Can't you accept
that individuals may wish to choose to pay for something which incidentally
has religion involved when they get the same thing for their money which
would be spent anyway?  That is complete freedom, you hypocrite!
-- 
            ^  >
            O o                                                 \_O
           >=-=<        Keith Jackson == jacksonk@cs.rpi.edu      |O
             U                                                  _/ \_
Newsgroups: alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.elections,alt.fan.dan-quayle