From: exuptr@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:10:31 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: Ericsson Network Systems, Inc.
X-Disclaimer: This article was posted by a user at Ericsson.
              The opinions expressed are strictly those of the
              user and not necessarily those of Ericsson.

In article <1527@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>In article <1992Oct09.152047.25890@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>
>>Well there's really two different issues here.  I don't care what
>>consenting people teach to each other, I just think that they should pay
>>for it themselves.  The Texas constitution is quite clear about
>>prohibiting sectarian schools from receiving any public education money.

Cool enough.  Then get the humanist "do-so" classes out of public
school!

>>The other issue is teaching superstitious mumbo-jumbo to children before
>>they've had a chance to develop their bullshit detectors.  I think it's
>>immoral to lay that mind-trip on them.  You can teach your children
>>whatever you want, but I think publicly-funded schools should be 
>>restricted to teaching factual information.

See above response.  Religion is not the only quasi-factual subject in
school.  Hell, what about Art classes?  Maybe the best approach is to
include religion, and cover all of it (all faiths, etc...).  Then again, 
maybe not.

>John, Christianity is not a superstition. Jesus did walk the earth.
>The question is: Do you believe that He is your savior? 

This is kinda irrelevant to the discussion, is it not?

>First of all, let's exclude non-religious private schools from our discussion. I think 
>we both agree that they should not receive public funds. Now, on to the religious ones.
>I don't think that a school run by a church receives public funds just because the
>church is tax-exempt. The school is not a business. No one profits monetarily from it.

>This makes me wonder how fair it is to those parents of children who are in private
>schools who still have to pay education tax.

>Or to those who have no children.

Socialism is not "pay for use".  And we are pretty socialist, now.  The idea 
is that if private schooling made you tax-exempt, then only the ones that 
could not afford private school would be taxed for public school, and the 
outcome is a lot less money for public school.

Perhaps this idea would work if it were modified to be a *partial* credit for
non-participation in public schools rather than "full credit".  Let's say
that for every child that does *not* participate in public school, you get
a $400 tax credit or so.  The actual dollar amount would reflect the school
systems reduced cost of not having to educate yur child, not what you pay
elsewhere.  

Maybe this is not a good idea, either, but it's more workable than a full 
write-off.
 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "This must be Thursday.  I never could get the hang of Thursdays"
                                                       - Douglas Adams
  - Patrick Taylor                                       (Arthur Dent)
    Ericsson Network Systems
    exuptr@exu.ericsson.se                       "Don't let the .se fool you"
    or exuptr@ZGNews.Lonestar.Org, exu.exuptr@memo.ericsson.se
Newsgroups: tx.politics