It’s a question of who you trust more – the parents or the local public schools?
Voucher-funded schools are actually held to standards considerably higher than public schools by the parents. After all, the parents generally have to pay part of the tuition at a voucher-supported school. They’d leave their kids in public school if they thought the public school was just as good.
My guess is that a parent will generallyl be more concerned about her own child than the school system is. I think voucher-funded private and parochial schools will NOT be better than public schools for most students, but they WILL be better for those students who choose to attend them.
Good points, MEBuckner. But in my mind, those points really don’t have anything to do with the barrier between church and state and the constitutionality of using vouchers for parochial schools. It’s more a condemnation of the voucher idea in general, which I agree with.
As for the Pledge issue, I don’t believe that the word “God” appearing in an oath, in a song, or on a piece of currency is a instance of the government “establishing a religion” or even “affirming a belief in God”; not in any serious way.
I believe that what the framers of the Constitution had in mind when they added this clause was to guard against what the Pilgrims had experienced which caused them to run from Europe. That was a situation where a particular religious denomination so completely controlled almost all the governments of that region that your only options were to belong to their church or die. The church gave an order and the government carried it out. If you didn’t like it, there was prison and death. There is no situation equivalent to that here; nothing anywhere near like it. The Pledge is not a State establishment of a religion as was experienced in middle-ages Europe.
As to the voucher issue, even if Johnny learns about the Bible in church school, as long as he has learned the ABC’s as well then the voucher money has served its purpose. Isn’t the school money MEANT to be used to teach kids “the three R’s”? If they learn something else at the same time, how are they harmed?
I agree with Mighty Maximino’s observation that government money always comes with strings. And after a few years I expect we’ll see at least some of the church schools refusing to accept vouchers because they don’t want the headaches that will come with them.
I also think MEBuckner is right, in short order every segment of society is going to have their own voucher school. But will this be bad?
The Book of Spells doesn’t even get interesting until you get up to the 3rd-level spells anyway. Fireball!Fwoom! 5d6 damage to all creatures within a 20 foot radius! (Saving throw for half damage.)
I suspect the voucher thing may have been a pragmatic decision. Consider it this way: my two siblings and I all went through private Catholic education. My parents were annoyed to no end that, in addition to paying tuition, they were responsible for paying school taxes which weren’t being used on us.
That’s kind of a loose understanding, of course–people without kids in school pay those taxes too–but the blue-collar mindset doesn’t care. Although having kids in private schools does theoretically give the public schools more money, since the financial resources aren’t being allocated towards those kids. (Or, think of it this way: if everyone in a private school suddenly went to public education, there’d be a bigger drain on the financial resources available to public schools.) I do know several blue collar folks with kids who are pretty happy with this decision–not because their kids are getting a religious education, but also because it’s less of a burden for them to do so now.
It’s more a condemnation of the voucher idea in general, which I agree with.
I too, wish to condemn the voucher idea. How about this reasoning: Since some parents are allowed to choose which schools will receive their tax dollars, why can’t all tax payers make this choice? I live in one school district and teach in another district. Why can’t I send my tax dollars to the school in the district where I work?
All the people that are upset about taking “under God” out of the pledge are going to sling a rod when they see schools like M.E. Buckner described in their neighborhood. Pagan High …hmmm.
Use the same standards as the local public schools. Don’t most districts have standardized curricula and tests for evaluating home-schooled and newly enrolled kids?
Not serious to you, but others seem to feel it’s pretty important.
Now that’s it been ruled unconstitutional there’s been quite a big stink. I guess to some people it must be pretty indicative of their religious beliefs. The very uproar that they cause is only proof of it’s importance and hence it’s unconstitutionality (if that’s a word).
Actually I don’t think most people really consider the pledge that much. It’s just what they’re used to. Getting rid of “under god” would not cause such an uproar, except that people are scared that they will lose everything that is similar, such as references to god on money. People are afraid of losing things that they are used to. They are angry that the question of if it is right or wrong even came up.
Maybe some people are, but I think they are a lot quieter than the rest.
Pres. Bush–(the US)“is a nation that values our relationship with the Almighty” …(Declaration of Independance says)“we receive our rights from God.”
House Speaker Hastert–“The Pledge of Allegiance is a patriotic salute that brings people of all faiths together to share in the American spirit.”
'Cept of course the faiths he probably doesn’t consider important and atheist of course.
I think these politicians are trying to capture what they feel is the current mood of the country, which is that the “under God” part is very important to them. While they say it doesn’t do other people harm to listen, they think it does them harm to not be able to say it in public schools.
But I see this as a policy issue rather than an argument that the program is unconstitutional. The First Amendment prohibits government establishment of religion. It does not protect churches from making potentially bad choices.
If a church willingly accepts vouchers they know their obligations ahead of time. The regulations might be contrary to the goals of a church, but the government isn’t forcing anything on them. The school can choose not to accept vouchers.
Doesn’t the government already provide funding, in terms of scholarships and student aid, to religious colleges like Notre Dame and Baylor? Wouldn’t this raise the same issues as vouchers to religious grade schools? Why haven’t we heard complaints before? I think the answer is that the fuss about vouchers is largely being stirred up by teachers unions.
The reponse of the public educational establishment to news of lower test scores and students who don’t learn has traditionally been “Give us more money”.
How do you think they would respond to the suggestion “Do a better job or you’ll get less”?
Prof. Eugene Volokh has been quoted quite a bit about this decision because he does a lot of church/state stuff. He makes the same point. The GI Bill is a voucher that allows a veteran to attend Notre Dame to become a priest if he so chooses.
His general point is that the government indirectly gives money to religious organizations all the time. The money flow of taxpayer to government to citizen to church happens a lot. If somebody gives a tax deductible donation to a church the government effectively subsidizes whatever percent of that donation they would have normally collected in taxes.
If there was a free rope distribution program;
Some resourceful people would make clotheslines
Some practical people would store it in the gargage or trunk of the car
Some kinky people would use it in the bedroom
And some depressed people would hang themselves
Alright, silly analogy but…
Just as some parents would use vouchers to give their children the best possible educational foundation for success in life,
others would squander those means at L Ron’s Battleship school for clears.
Eventually, market forces will influence most parents decisions.
Children who are sent to the KKK institute for unenlightened studies wouldn’t have had much of a chance in life anyway due to their poor home environment and upbringing.
Perspective, I stand by what I said that this issue is not very serious compared to the standard I use about what’s important. This matter would never have even been filed in court, much less become a national debate topic overnight, if people had more serious troubles to worry about. It’s precisely because we DON’T have to deal with many critical problems that we have the luxury of time to worry about trivial matters.
Picture, if you will, a bunch of snobs sitting in a tea room debating whether a sofa should be recovered in taupe or ecru. Contrast that with a family in a third-world country digging through a garbage dump hoping to find something to eat that day. Then tell me if you think these two groups of people will consider the same things “important”.
We in the United States DO NOT have much to worry about that I would categorize as grave. Perhaps you may mention the threat to our country from organized terrorist groups. The attack on the WTC is only the first individual “ding” of the clapper on the bells of the cosmic alarm clock telling us it’s time to WAKE UP! The shake up on Wall Street and the first signs of collapse among major corporations once thought to be invulnerable is another ding. There is so much more about to break on our country that we can’t even begin to comprehend it.
When we’re neck deep in troubles so thick that we begin to question the possibility of our continued existence, then a particular turn of phrase in a school recitation will take its place among the least of our worries.
But then, as you can see, I have a rather “gloom and doom” outlook.
Perspective, I do agree with what you seem to be saying about the politicians. I think they watch to see which way the crowd is moving, then they run around to the front to give the appearance that their leading.
I’ve got no objections to government loans and scholarships going to folks destined for religious schools – if the government gives them the money, it’s theirs to use as they see fit. Heck, they could burn their scholarship if that’s what makes them happy.
Dunno about zev or Munch, but my objection to school voucher programs stem from the simple observation that they don’t work – that is, they don’t improve schools, make kids more educated, blab blab blab. I see them as subsidizing private schools for upper-middle-class families at the expenseof poorer families; the nature of the school is irrelevant to the disparity involved.
But you said earlier that you don’t agree with the Supreme Court ruling. Are you saying that the Supreme Court should invalidate laws because they are bad policy? There’s a big separation of powers issue there.
