Vouchers are a fair approach to schooling
With interest and amazement I read “Five overlooked truths about education,” Erik Palmer’s recent Speakout column in the Rocky Mountain News.
I taught for 50 years, in both public and private schools in several states. Since my experience with both types of schools differed so drastically from the account Palmer gives, I am seriously curious about the studies on which he based his sweeping generalizations. Would he please give the reader a reference on which he based such statements as:
1. “A private school could reject [handicapped children] and use the voucher money on the elite children.” Any known cases?
2. “ ... there are no mentally retarded, autistic, behavior-disordered, emotionally disturbed, or special-education kids at [private schools] ... ” What study — with an adequate sample — investigated private schools to produce such a generalization?
And in answer to his question, “ ... should exclusive [private] schools get public money?” I offer this:
The money supporting public schools is tax money paid by all, not just by those sending their children to public schools. The parents who choose private schools for their children are paying twice — for the support of public schools which their children do not attend, and the tuition they must pay in addition to a private school. The purpose of vouchers is simply to return the tax money these people have paid. It is absolutely unfair not to use vouchers.
Theresita Polzin, Denver
So - is this author suggesting that those of us who have no children in school at any level should be allowed to deduct that portion of our property taxes which goes to education from our tax bills? I thought not.
Posted by Mary on September 27, 2007 03:09 AMThe taxes for public education are just that - a tax paid by all for the common good and not a user fee for those with kids in school. Mary is right on - the mentality that supports vouchers means that those of us with no kids in school should get our school taxes back 100%.
Every man for himself and may God take the hindmost!!
People who own homes deduct property taxes on their tax returns.
At least the ones who file tax returns.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 27, 2007 07:05 AMPeople who own homes deduct property taxes from on their tax returns.
At least the ones who file tax returns.
Posted by Can I get an AMEN! on September 27, 2007 07:05 AMMoney going to vouchers would still be considered contributing to the "common good." Vouchers would simply break the inefficient monopoly system we have now, force cuts in bloated administrations as money was actually spent to educate children as intended, and give parents a little choice in the educational philosophy (i.e., outcome based, modern nonsensical experiments, or basic).
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:18 AMDon't send my tax payments to church. No on vouchers plain and simple
Posted by tom on September 27, 2007 07:31 AMTom, would you be happy with vouchers if church groups were excluded? Or, would you still be upset that "your" tax dollars are going to private (secular) business (schools)?
Posted by on September 27, 2007 07:38 AMVoucher mean competition and competition means choice. That combination of free-markets is the very best way to guarantee that our failed public education sytem--where Blue Ribbon commissions still debate, study, investigate, analyze and examine the need to master the 3-Rs--gets upgraded.
Monopolies, including educational monopolies, are always hostile to the consumer and produce sub-par products. They are not answerable to anyone. Just ask the colleges being forced to offer courses in remedial writting and employers who hire kids who can't add--all promoted and all valedictorians!.
Posted by Hank on September 27, 2007 08:04 AMDon't worry Tom. We only want to give people their own money back so that they can choose what school to send their children to. We don't want your money. The separation of school and state is a good thing.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 08:11 AMVouchers would be fine if and only if the private schools had to follow all the rules and regulations that public schools have to deal with.
Otherwise it's an uneven playing field.
Posted by Tim on September 27, 2007 08:14 AMOnly the monopoly defenders consider a bloated, top-heavy, failing system a "common good."
Posted by B on September 27, 2007 08:18 AMthe government is all hot over anything that looks like a monopoly in business and breaks them up and fines them. now when parents want the choice of where they send their children to school, everyone one is up in arms about choice, well not everyone just the liberal left becasue they have to protect their indoctrination source. if public schools are as good as the teachers unions say and their followers say they are, why is education in the toilet?
a voucher can be used at a public school a private school or a church school. its the thought of money going to a religous school that has the anti voucher group up in arms.
oh and for saying no private schools take special ed kids you are all full of BS.
Mary and Liam,
What are you talking about? Under the current system, can you opt out of paying taxes for school if you don't have any kids? No. Why would that be different under a voucher plan?
Excellent letter, Theresita Polzin. I've heard that argument about handicapped students before. The voucher plan would put money in their hands as well. No school is going to let a student not be able to spend his/her voucher money. If the argument is that handicap students require more attention, I have no problem increasing the vouch for handicapped students.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 08:22 AMOk, some people (Hank, as usual) don't seem to understand this issue.
Everyone pays taxes that go to public schools.
People who want to send their kids to elite schools want their portion of the taxes to be paid back to them in the form of a voucher that they can then use to help pay for their kid's private schooling.
As already pointed out, this thinking is very self-centered. What about the millions of taxpayers who do not have children in schools at all? Why should the parents who choose to send their kids to private schools be getting SPECIAL RIGHTS? Why are they getting an exception that only benefits them?
No, Hank, it's not about monopolies or competition. People are sending their kids to private schools and demanding vouchers to pay for them even when excellent public school systems are available to them.
This is about elitism and entitlement. If these people truly believed in the voucher system THEY would have been making the points made above...that childless people shouldn't have to pay any school taxes in order to justify the exception they were seeking.
They didn't.
They have always only been concerned about themselves. What they wanted and what they were getting. They were never concerned about saving the public schools. They were just concerned about putting their kids in schools where they would only be exposed to their values...or that would be worthy of their status.
If ever there was a case to claim that someone was asking for SPECIAL RIGHTS it was school vouchers. Conservatives who came up with that rhetorical propaganda should be irate that someone is seeking SPECIAL RIGHTS!..but of course, since they are huge fans of special rights vouchers, they aren't. Do as we say, not as we do.
Posted by Thomas on September 27, 2007 08:25 AMThomas,
You are so flamingly dramatic. The voucher system allows parents to choose which school to send their child. In other words, it gives power to parents that they didn't currently have.
"What about the millions of taxpayers who do not have children in schools at all?"
What about them? Hey, if you're talking about giving folks the option of opting out of certain taxes, I'm all for it. But, as it stands now, taxpayers with no kids are already paying for a public school system that offers no school choice. Does that outrage you? All a voucher system does is put money into the hands of parents so they have more leverage over which school to send their kids to. I don't get the outrage. You would prefer that parents didn't have a choice?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 08:47 AMMy kids have grown and are out of school. Do I get my tax funds back? Why should I pay for public schools but someone else gets to designate where their tax funds go? Can I have mine so that I can go to a golf school? Seems fair to me. If you want to send your kids to Jesus Camp then pay for it yourself.
Posted by Tom on September 27, 2007 09:00 AM"Can I have mine so that I can go to a golf school? Seems fair to me. If you want to send your kids to Jesus Camp then pay for it yourself."
That's the way it should be. For example, if you want to send your kids to a socialist indoctrination school, you should pay for it yourself.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 09:04 AMFrom the website of our own Karl Fisch (From the FishBowl), Director of Technology, Araphoe HS:
9. Did you know . . .
10. Sometimes size does matter.
11. If you’re one in a million in China . . .
12. There are 1,300 people just like you.
13. In India, there are 1,100 people just like you.
14. The 25% of the population in China with the highest IQ’s . . .
15. Is greater than the total population of North America.
16. In India, it’s the top 28%.
17. Translation for teachers: They have more honors kids than we have kids.
18. Did you know . . .
19. China will soon become the number one English speaking country in the world.
20. If you took every single job in the U.S. today and shipped it to China . . .
21. China would still have a labor surplus.
22. During the course of this 8 minute presentation . . .
23. 60 babies will be born in the U.S.
244 babies will be born in China.
351 babies will be born in India.
24. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that today’s learner will have 10-14 jobs
. . .
25. By the age of 38.
26. According to the U.S. Department of Labor . .
Fisch is a rare educator who really understands the problem. America has the potential of being swallowed whole and eaten alive if we don't get our educational act together--we are severely outgunned! He didn't mention that by about 2045, China's economy is expected to be bigger than that of the USA.
On average, today's public educators have yet to introduce themselves to a rapidly globalizing world. Just look what happened to our own B-3 in Detroit.
Posted by Hank on September 27, 2007 09:24 AMDo you think that Ritter's "Blue Ribbon" commission on education gets it? After decades of failure (just ask the colleges and employers), they are still debating the fix! Its the entrenched educational establishment , unions and monopoly that are the problems, they are not part of the solution. They fear change, they fear choice, they fear COMPETITION.
Fisch is just one guy, and he's worh a dozen Ritter Blue Ribbon commissions. Such commissions will be still analyzing, investigating, examining an educational fix as our kids become employed by smarter and better educated Indians and Chinese running some of the planet's biggest and most successful companies of the 21st century.
The current educational establishment has no clue about globalization. And they appear ready to offer America yet another feckless "Big-3" solution while American workers rapidly migrate to Toyota, Nissan and Subaru right here in the USA! This is happening today, right now. We need to wake up.
Posted by Hank on September 27, 2007 09:49 AMFirst, I'd like to address those of you who have no kids, I think the idea is that everyone helps pay for the education of the future generations who will be the medical caretakers, political and business leaders an so on. Maybe if we allow an option to opt out of paying school taxes, those individuals who pay no tax should also be refused certain of society's benefits.
Now, along a different line, I'm not childless. My kids went to public school until 9th grade, then to a private Chrisitan high school. That school does have limited programs and accessibility for mentally and physically challenged students. "Limited" due to financial restrictions of course, because the school does not receive tax assistance. I'm sure they don't want any "general" tax assistance. I believe they would like their families to have an opportunity to stipulate the specific school for which their share of the school tax should be directed.
That particular school also has earned the "blue ribbon award," and has a reputation for excellent college prep and sending well over 90% of the students to college. My kids were given the opportunity to go to this school or to the local public high school, which has a reputation for drugs, alcohol and suicide.
Which school would any child truly aspiring for a bright future choose to attend?
I do think there's a way to make everybody happy. ACT and SAT have lists for high school codes, even the private schools. This can be accomplished for lower grades as well, the elementary and middle schools. For those who are happy with the public schools, they can indicate a school code on their tax form. Simple enough.
Don't get your hopes up though, because a simple solution won't be presented as long as the teachers' unions have so much clout with politicians.
Posted by Gail K on September 27, 2007 10:05 AMLiam,
Education is a common good, but that doesn't mean taxpayers must pay for it, nor does it mean it must be delivered only by a public school system.
Sheesh, I look at my last comment and wish I had edited it a little better. I guess I can't go back and correct a couple of things now.
Anybody want to propose a simple solution, using school codes on the tax form?
Posted by Gail K on September 27, 2007 10:15 AMtom,
Although I'd like vouchers over what we have now, I'm not a big fan of them either.
Education (just like the feeding, clothing, housing...) of a child is the responsibility of the parents. So, I'd prefer education to be paid directly by the parents in direct proportion to the number of children they have. Just like it's done for music lessons, tutoring, etc.
That way, you wouldn't have to worry about your taxes going to a church, because taxes wouldn't be involved in education at all.
Gail K (good post!)
First, I'd like to address those of you who have no kids, I think the idea is that everyone helps pay for the education of the future generations who will be the medical caretakers, political and business leaders an so on.
Being childless, I'd say that's pretty close.
Maybe if we allow an option to opt out of paying school taxes, those individuals who pay no tax should also be refused certain of society's benefits.
But what benefits would they be refused?
My kids went to public school until 9th grade, then to a private Chrisitan high school. ... I'm sure they don't want any "general" tax assistance. I believe they would like their families to have an opportunity to stipulate the specific school for which their share of the school tax should be directed.
Interesting idea.
I do think there's a way to make everybody happy. ACT and SAT have lists for high school codes, even the private schools. This can be accomplished for lower grades as well, the elementary and middle schools. For those who are happy with the public schools, they can indicate a school code on their tax form. Simple enough.
There's several possible variations of this - for example check an individual school or a public school district. One other thing might be have private schools that would want to participate could register to be listed. Write-ins could be included as well.
If vouchers become a reality, most will want to send to send their kids to the school that they choose. Pretty soon, all of the schools will have the same problem kids to deal with. So where will they send the problem kids? To public schools.
Our Senior Class President was kicked out of his Catholic school because he had too many "demerits".
Posted by Stan Broyles on September 27, 2007 10:31 AM
CL, "But what benefits would they be refused?"
I really haven't given that much thought. I would rather address the issue of stipulating which school would receive our share of the tax. You had good ideas too.
Vouchers have a history of working. Post WW-II we called it "The GI Bill" that sent millions of guys to their college of choice: Harvard, Notre Dame, BYU, Stanford, Cal, CU, CSU, SMU, TCU, Texas, CCNY, Alabama and yes, Podunk U.
What was the result? The most highly educated, productive and skilled work force that helped to produce the greatest and most powerful economy on Earth. It produced more wealth for more folks than at any other time in the history of mankind. The Fabulous 50s soon became the booming 60s.
The GI Bill--the best voucher yet--was an unqualified success, the greatest success in the history of education. And it was all based on choice that produced competition that ultimately upgraded all universities--the best college system on the planet resulted. And this is precisely what today's union educator and monopolist fears most. They have been the problem for generations and they remain the problem. Monopolies are bad for America.
Posted by Hank on September 27, 2007 10:39 AMStan >>> "So where will they send the problem kids? To public schools."
Well Stan, if more parents TRULY cared enough to choose their child's school they would also be more active in the child's education and life overall, and there would ultimately be fewer problem kids! There's a new concept.
Posted by Gail K on September 27, 2007 10:39 AMStan >>> "Our Senior Class President was kicked out of his Catholic school because he had too many "demerits"."
Well, he must have learned something from this experience, to have straightened out and become class president! Hooray for discipline!
Hank >>> "choice that produced competition that ultimately upgraded all universities-"
You're right.
As long as unions have so much power, competition isn't as effective as it should be.
Here's what the public schools are doing to our children: turning out strong, socialist girls while creating wimpy, clueless boys. Women are the ones leading the charge towards socialism.
Look at this photo: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5708731,00.html
The boys are holding the banner while the girls take the leadership role. I'm sure many women applaud this type of pussification of American boys, but do we really want a nation of wimpy men?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 11:09 AMI think its ridiculous to say that wanting my tax money to go to the same school I did is self centered. I went to public school until high school and went on to a private catholic school, though, I'm not catholic, the education was just better. The neighborhood high school was not an environment i wanted to be a part of having taken foreign language classes there in junior high. my family was not wealthy by any means. i was able to get financial assistance to attend and worked hard during summers to pay back my loans.
was I selfish for wanting to attend this school? Am I selfish for wanting my parents tax money already going to education to have covered my education? shouldn't everyone have the option of getting the best education they can?
I'm wondering where Thomas is living, "People are sending their kids to private schools and demanding vouchers to pay for them even when excellent public school systems are available to them."
no, i did not have a good school system available to me at the time. There are only a few in the area that are doing well. why should these students be stuck in their school district if the district is just continuing to fail them? shouldn't they have the option to go elsewhere until the school district gets the hint that things need to improve? i think it only makes perfect sense.
John II,
Parent DO have a choice about where to send their kids to school.
But what voucher proponents want is to be able to get their tax dollars diverted to their private schools which would not otherwise be supported by taxpayer funds for a variety of reasons.
For the religious based schools, it's their way of getting around the church/state issue.
The fact remains that voucher proponents are asking for special rights. They want to be able to take their taxes away from public schools and have them spent only on their kids.
Does anyone else have that choice, John?
Everyone has a choice where they want to send their kids, but if you CHOOSE to send your kid to a private school there is no justification for you to have the special right to divert your portion of the taxes all of us pay to public schools for the exclusive use of your child.
Nobody else has the option to get their taxes back to them to be used at their own accordance.
And for the record, I gladly pay my taxes and support public schools. I believe that the answer to our problems does not lie in abandoning public schools. On the contrary I think this trend of isolating children in exclusive schools may hinder them later in life when they have to interact with people outside the realm in which they were raised.
Just as some people claim that children raised in public schools lack certain behavioral disciplines, the same can be said for privately schooled children.
I agree with Gail that we need new solutions but adding to the already existing barriers while taking money away from public schools is not the answer.
Thomas,
You are not making any sense. I'm not even sure how to respond to your comments. It seems that you just don't understand what the voucher program is.
"The fact remains that voucher proponents are asking for special rights. They want to be able to take their taxes away from public schools and have them spent only on their kids."
Yes. What is wrong with that? It gives more power to the parent to decide on where to send their kids. The whole point of the program is to move away from a government-run public school toward a private school system. That's a good thing. It gives all parents my choices. I still don't get why you oppose that.
"For the religious based schools, it's their way of getting around the church/state issue."
What church/state issue would that be? If the child gets a great education, why should it matter whether or not it's a religious school or not?
"On the contrary I think this trend of isolating children in exclusive schools may hinder them later in life when they have to interact with people outside the realm in which they were raised."
Huh? Isolating? What are you talking about? I think you need to review for yourself (and not parrot left-wing websites) what a voucher system is. By the way, why do you get to have a say in how other parents want to educate their children? Maybe they don't want their girls dressing like sluts and their sons acting like wimpy morons. What right do you have in claiming someone else's kids should not be isolated?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:05 PM"They want to be able to take their taxes away from public schools and have them spent only on their kids.
Does anyone else have that choice, John?"
Umm, i think thats the point of vouchers, to give everyone an equal choice.
and it wouldn't mean taking money way, just allowing parents to use it where its best fit. if the public schools are good, then won't people stay there? if you have faith in the public school system, then there's no need to worry about money being "taken away".
Posted by on September 27, 2007 12:05 PMCorrection: "my choices" should be "more choices"
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:06 PMThomas >>> "isolating children in exclusive schools may hinder them later in life when they have to interact with people outside the realm in which they were raised. Just as some people claim that children raised in public schools lack certain behavioral disciplines, the same can be said for privately schooled children."
--------------------------------
Thomas, I know it can sometimes be a culture shock for Christian kids to enter a public univeristy.
However, they're not stupid, and their private school experience does not at all exclude them from the rest of society, or from having friends up the street who go to public schools. My kids have friends from both environments. Private schools tend to draw people from a larger radius than public schools do. My kids' private school in Denver has kids from the mountains, from cities adjacent to Denver in all directions. Since it's difficult to "mingle" with classmates after hours, they remain friends with those in close proximity to home, whatever school their friends attend.
Isolation is not really an issue for Christian kids. What might be one of the hardest issues for them to deal with in college is learning how those who disagree with their Christian views often try to intimidate and coerce them into their way of thinking through peer pressure and mockery. We don't see this usually happening the other way around on most public campuses.
Posted by Gail K on September 27, 2007 12:13 PMWell Johnny 2 maybe the banner is REALY HEAVY, way to heavy for the girls to hold. God I am getting annoyed with your endless emotional ranting about women.
From what you see in this picture, it is time to tell you that you are obsessed. All obsessions are bad for your mental health.
I know you think I am just being nasty, but you are dangerously close to OCD and your world view is heating you up.
Before you blow up and hurt someone, you need to get a handle on why you fear women so much.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 27, 2007 12:17 PMBy the way Thomas,
Lots of Christians seem to think that if their Christian kids attend a public school, they are better serving as "salt and light."
I SERIOUSLY take issue with that sentiment. Nice idea, but the reality is, most of those "Chrisitan" kids are more influenced by the non-Chrisitan kids than they would hope. In fact, there are enough non-Christian, unchurched and uncommitted kids in Christian schools for the truly devoted Christian students to be salt and light in their very own school!
Also, Christian kids in Christian schools are not, as I said, "isolated" from public school kids. There are multitudes of activities they get involved with and places they go where they are mingling with people of other faiths, or no faith, for that matter.
Posted by Gail K on September 27, 2007 12:24 PMI think the problem is that the government believes that taxes for education are taxes for "public schools." Yes, all taxpayers should be responsible for certain things: roads, safety, K - 12 education, etc. But why should the money only go to "public schools?" If there was a monopoly on companies that do road work, there would be screaming. Companies must bid to get the contract to work on a highway or supply the materials/programs for public safety. The same should be done for education of the public. Rather than say all money must go to public schools, the statement should be that tax money will be used to educate the children. If a parent wants their child educated in a private or religious school, a voucher should be available.
Posted by idk on September 27, 2007 12:26 PMSharon B.,
It's not emotional ranting, Sharon B. It's simply an honest observation.
I do not fear women. I fear the result of a society that has begun to minimize the need for men while allowing women to run this country based on pure irrational emotionalism.
Women are transforming this country into a nanny state. Wimpy guys like Thomas, Stan Broyles and Harry Reid are the main supporters of this feminine movement. But, I have not observed that many of these women (and wimpy men) have the required knowledge and background to form an educated position on most topics. For example, Thomas is having a purely visceral response to a very simple concept of school choice. Similar responses come from Stan Broyles and most women in regards to economic matters. How many women have studied warfare? Yet, more and more women are running for elected office despite their obvious lack of knowledge in economics, education, warfare, competition,our Constitution, and tax policy. That is a problem.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:33 PMwomen applaud this type of pussification of American boys, but do we really want a nation of wimpy men?
Posted by John II
You have just invalidated any post that you have ever made. What a Neandrethal
Posted by Congratulations on September 27, 2007 12:34 PMSharon B
"...maybe the banner is REALY HEAVY, way to heavy for the girls to hold."
Perhaps you're right, Sharon, and chivalry is not dead; or, it could just be a couple of horny boys living in hope, only to later die in despair...
Posted by mongoose on September 27, 2007 12:36 PMHave you seen the photo? That's a thin paper banner they're holding. And here's another thing to rile up the masses: does anyone think the outfit that young girl is wearing is an appropriate outfit for school?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:47 PMJohnnie 2 said:
"Women are transforming this country into a nanny state. Wimpy guys like Thomas, Stan Broyles and Harry Reid are the main supporters of this feminine movement. But, I have not observed that many of these women (and wimpy men) have the required knowledge and background to form an educated position on most topics...more and more women are running for elected office despite their obvious lack of knowledge in economics, education, warfare, competition,our Constitution, and tax policy"
You prefer us to stay at home spread eagle on our backs for manly men like you?
Congratulations was wrong - you're pre-Neanderthal -- you're pathetic.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 12:49 PMI see where John 2 is decompensating again. The First Amendment establishes a wall of separation between Church and State, one which even Thomas Jefferson wrote about when he designed the Virginia Freedom of Religion Act. Now, Johnny always holds that the Constitution was chiseled in stone back in the 18th Century; and that nothing since that time is Constitutional, IF it disagrees with his fantasy.
Yet, here, he asks us: "What church/state issue would that be? And then goes on: " . . . why should it matter whether or not it's a religious school"?
One really has to wonder why anyone takes him seriously, since his position is sort of like playing at Dungeons and Dragons, or maybe Monopoly - or a little combination of both. As the "Great Empowered Lord High Wizard" in the one, he expects everyone to view the Constitution in the REAL world of the 21st Century as he proclaims it to be in his own fantasy game; while in the other, he distributes "taxes" as if they were something the Civil Government just sort of "manages", like the game banker.
Too bad the REAL world has long since passed him by, and left him with nothing more than a kind of sad nostalgia for the "good old days" that never were to begin with.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 12:49 PMmongoose said:
"t could just be a couple of horny boys living in hope, only to later die in despair..."
You're right, mongoose. That is exactly my point. There was a time when horny boys were rewarded with the affection of girls when the boys took a stand for something; when they led a team or spoke profoundly. Now, they look for affection by stepping aside and letting girls take the lead while the boys do the cheerleading.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:53 PMRegarding the value of a Christian education versus public school education for Christian kids...
They do learn about world religions in Christian school. In their junior year at this particular school that my kids went to, they study comparative religion and are required to attend a church of a different faith and report on their experience.
This was preparation for life in an incrteasingly non-Christian world. Public-educated Christian kids get what, a little lesson on comparative religion once a month in their youth group? I doubt it. They don't have to go to youth group, or sunday school for that matter. Only those who are personally motivated to study the topic could actually face someone of another faith with a well-prepared apologetic response.
When my oldest was only 18 or 19, she sat on the porch for two hours discussing her faith with a pair of cultists peddling their religion door-to-door. She could not have even known where to begin if she did not have daily Bible instruction for the previous four years of her life.
Perhaps Thomas (or Old Grouch) can enlighten us with the words of the 1st Amendment.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 12:55 PMjohnnie 2: "...does anyone think the outfit that young girl is wearing is an appropriate outfit for school?"
What would you prefer -- something along these lines?
1. Clothing must cover the entire body, only the hands and face may remain visible (According to some Fiqh Schools) .
2. The material must not be so thin that one can see through it.
3. The clothing must hang loose so that the shape / form of the body is not apparent.
4. The female clothing must not resemble the man's clothing.
5. The design of the clothing must not resemble the clothing of the non believing women.
6. The design must not consist of bold designs which attract attention.
7. Clothing should not be worn for the sole purpose of gaining reputation or increasing one's status in society.
The reason for this strictness is so that the woman is protected from the lustful gaze of men. She should not attract attention to herself in any way. It is permissible for a man to catch the eye of a woman , however it is haram (unlawful) for a man to look twice as this encourages lustful thoughts.
slam protects the woman. It is for this reason that Allah gave these laws. In today's society womankind is being exploited, female sexuality is being openly used in advertising, mainly to attract the desires of men and therefore sell the product. Is the woman really free in today's society ? The answer is obviously no, the constant bombardment by the media as to how the ideal woman should look and dress testifies to this.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 12:57 PMjohnnie 2 said: "...There was a time when horny boys were rewarded with the affection of girls when the boys took a stand for something; when they led a team or spoke profoundly."
Maybe johnnie would like to borrow An American's red cape and purple to tights to impress the girls with in order to get laid (that may be his problem -- not getting laid).
I think we can count out his receiving any affection for profound speech.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 01:04 PMI just want the dollar amount I've paid towards Boulder Valley returned to me or reduced each year for me to apply towards my childs private education.
Vouchers would be worth far more to me so I'm willing to do this as a more realistic alternative to all you public education hawks out there who refuse me to spend my tax dollars on the school of MY CHOICE. You guys know that word CHOICE, but it only applies to those issues you agree with.
No choice with my public school money. School as a God free zone, or you pay.
Please John II keep posting, you just dig that hole deeper and deeper every time you do.
But you are right, women are trying to take over and since we outnumber men, at birth, and live longer, and now can get our hands on men's money after they die, well, your kinds manly, in control days are numbered.
That was a feminine version of John II.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 27, 2007 01:25 PMI went to a private school K-8, my mother and father worked bingo 2 nights a week throughout the entire year and participated in fundraising at every opportunity. We were not a wealthy family by any means, they could not have afforded to send my sister and myself to private school without diligence and hard work. They paid their property taxes and never complained about the sh*ty Denver schools in Montbello, where their money was being redirected.
I was accepting to a prominant private high school and bingo was no longer an option, so I inquired about assistance and was informed that there was a work study program that would cover half of the $10,000 tuition. My parents sacrificed and we made it.
For all of you entitled people out their get off of your lazy as**s and work for what you want, the problem with kids these days is that they are lazy, spoiled little bastards and their mommys and daddys are just enabling them to be that way (they seem to be lazy as well).
Posted by J-Mac on September 27, 2007 01:47 PM
J-Mac,
While I take offense at your illiterate appearances by the use of foul language to explain your point, I do tend to agree with you to some extent.
My kids' private Christian school provides student grants (funded by donations) and has opportunities for the families to work off their debt by providing various services for the school.
The First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
If we give money to parents to send their kids to whatever accredited school they choose, even a religious one, where does Congress come into play? It's a local issue. Congress has passed no law concerning the establishment of religion. So, how can it be a constitutional issue?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 02:08 PMSharon B. said:
"No choice with my public school money. School as a God free zone, or you pay."
School as a socialist indoctrination free zone, or you pay.
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 02:21 PMI went to school in Wisconsin. I went to private school from Kindergarten through High School. I attended the University of Wisconsin - Madison for my BA and MA. The city of Milwaukee was one of the first in the nation to use vouchers for both religious and non-religious schools (school year 1990 - 91)
What happened? The vouchers worked. They continue to work. The public school system has improved, the drop-out rate in the city of Milwaukee has declined, while the rate of graduates who not only attend, but actually graduate from university has increased.
All of these "issues" that you are all discussing, mostly without research, or any idea of the subject matter, have already been debated, contested, withstood constitutional challenge, and has proven to succeed, at a much cheaper price tag than the failing public schools. It is fairly simple to do a little bit of homework, and look at the success of Cleveland and Milwaukee. But don't just look at the benefit to the students but also the positive forcing to the public school system.
To recycle my favorite quote: "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results." -Albert Einstein.
It is beyond time to stop the insanity of just throwing more money at the public schools. The time has come for the liberation of our children, and the liberty of their parents, to decide for themselves the best avenue for their children to gain the best education available, regardless of socio-economic status.
Posted by Dan2 on September 27, 2007 03:53 PM
Well said, Dan2. It seems the progressive party is standing in the way of educational progress. They just want the status quo; they don't want change. How conservative the progressives have become!
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 04:01 PMJohn 2,
Unfortunately for your position, sir, it so happens that the Constitutions of each State and Commonwealth must conform to the Constitution of the United States in essentials as well. You may not like that; but it is the Law. Thus, Legislatures are also prohibited - as are any and all forms of Civil Government - from "establishing a relgion", a point which applies to the expenditure of tax monies for schools other than those that are themselves part of the CIVIL government's works.
I have cited, time and again: "Cases on Church and State", a Harvard Casebook, and John Wilson & Donald Drakeman, "Church and State in American History", MJF Books, New York, NY, 2003.
Now, whether or not you happen to agree with the Law, or even acknowledge it as being such, I do think it totally dishonest of you to continue to present positions that flout the Law as if they were of some kind of "superior" standing to the Law itself.
But, sad to say, basic honesty is most conspicuous by its absence in your postings on Constitutional Law.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 27, 2007 04:47 PMOG,
The way around your theory that this is a separation issue (which it isn't no matter how you try to spin the constitution) would be to exempt those of us who choose to send our kids to a private school (regardless if secular or non-secular, home schooled, whatever) to not have to pay those local tax dollars to the local school district in the first place.
As I've said earlier, the vouchers would be worth more to me, but I'd rather opt out of the local tax altogether and spend those saved dollars towards my childs education and that difference would also be out of my pocket.
If they never collect my tax dollars in the first place and I'm not recieving any state or federal money why the hell does it matter to you where I send my kid?
It is a very simple proposal, It is not vouchers, it is not public education it is my choice and I still pay out of pocket, it is me using MY money how I want to to educate my child without funding the system they are not using. Once they are in college I resume paying my normal property taxes.
I just don't pay into the local public ed system with my tax dollars while my kid is in private school- regardless of what type of private school it is.
Old Grouch,
If I use a school voucher to send my kid to a Christian school, how does that represent a governmental establishment of religion?
Posted by John II on September 27, 2007 05:24 PMWhat's wrong with a family using a school voucher for attending a publicly accredited parochial school?
It's the families choice - no other kids who are also receiving vouchers to attend the school of their choice is forced to attend a parochial school. It's freedom of choice which you want to deny due to your beliefs.
"...freedom of choice which you want to deny due to your beliefs..."
The freedom you speak of is only available if it fits within the parameters of the self appointed guardians of societal values. You know, some of the animals are more equal than others.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 06:16 PM
The entire issue of vouchers is easily handled if you look at it as funding for education both as to the physical maintenance of the public school buildings with support of the personnel part of the infrastructure as well. The second half is for the education of the individual child. I propose then that the cost per child in public schools be calculated and half that amount be made available to each parent in the form of a voucher. That voucher would be for every child in school. The result would be that for every child choosing a non-public school the system would gain about 2800 dollars. I believe the last per child cost statement was 5600 dollars per student. Federal tax benefits already are given to non-public students with disabilities by having public school or government employees provide such services as aide, speech therapy, physical therapy and various other learning related programs.
So, a voucher would pay a small part of the tuition in a non-public school and all of the "tuition" in public schools. It would permit me to give our local Public School, Federal Heights Elementary, the voucher for my granddaughter because they are doing a great job.
As for "getting my tax money back" you already get it back in the existence of an educated public which increases the level of all society by creating a group of people with the education and the nurtured abilities to solve problems and create new things. That is why we all must pay for a public education system.
But, if you think that the private education system is not benefiting the public education system look at Pueblo. A number of years ago the Catholic Bishop of Pueblo closed all of the Catholic schools in the diocese. I won't mention, mostly because I don't know the accurate amounts and words, what was said and the order in which things happened, but the public schools were in a panic because they didn't have the resources to handle those kids. Look it up. Private schools reduce the burden on public schools so it is a two way street.
I love our public school. I would also like to see every parent, and that includes illegals, given that voucher to determine which school the kid will attend. Many will just sign the back of the voucher and drop it in the mail so that the local public school will get it. Those who are involved will probably spend some time selecting a school. Many schools will spring up. I advocate that any school receiving vouchers and all home schooled kids take the CSAP and the scores should be posted. (home schooled kids will take the tests at a common location away from home) There will be a level set and any school that does not meet that level will face the same conditions as a public school. The only difference is that if a school ends up "failing" CSAP, after all chances to improve, that school no longer qualifies to receive vouchers. It would take at least 5 years after that, with CSAP all five years, for a private school to be re-qualified.
Simple plan, half to the schools, half to the parents. All must face the same tests and the same consequences. It's not the perfect solution because it will take years for public schools, which have the potential to wipe the floor against all comers, to shake off the layers of legal fears, political correctness, no-brainer rules and top heavy management. The great majority of our good teachers voluntarily chose to earn less money than they could have commanded to do a job they knew they would love. Those teachers face a situation, in public schools, where they are the last one asked about anything and the first one blamed for everything. Vouchers would fix this by forcing the public schools to compete. Competition makes you get rid of dead weight whether it be physical, human or philosophical. Our schools were once the envy of the world. Turn the teachers loose and they will surpass all previous successes.
Posted by momma y on September 27, 2007 08:09 PMGive my public ed tax, etc.,
You have presented an idea that merits consideration. It could be a potential foundation upon which to erect a structure of tax reform that might be of great benefit in the future.
There are, of course, problems, which I am certain you are well aware of. Perhaps the first - and one might even say, the most mightmarish - of these would be the problem of the immense amount of record keeping that would be necessary to separate those taxed from those using the tax monies for the purpose of education in other than public schools.
But, a rethinking of both the tax base and the use of the monies derived from the tax is, I believe, in order today. Your thoughts here might well serve as a basis for a very instructive forum topic.
On the matter of separation:
Anyone who feels that he, or she, has been "injured" by the repeated Supreme Court decisions concerning the application of tax dollars to parochial education is always free to challenge the decisions.
Fantasy and imagination used as theoritical arguments concerning the "ought to be" of the matter are pointless, useless, and time wasting. The decisions are there. The books recording the decisions are available. This is the REAL world of the 21st Century.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 11:02 AMOld "Dodger" Grouch dodged:
"Anyone who feels that he, or she, has been "injured" by the repeated Supreme Court decisions concerning the application of tax dollars to parochial education is always free to challenge the decisions."
You dodge more questions than Mrs. Clinton.
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 11:15 AMI guess I have changed my mind, I am all for vouchers.
My church of the Moon Goddess can now start some storefront school and open for business.
And the Islamist who have those dreary madrases can open a school next to us.
With all that lovely tax money available to anyone who can teach the core requirements, forget the religious teachings, we will get competition in the best form.
Public money, for private loony ideas. All equal at the tax trough.
Yep, I have definitely changed my mind here.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 11:41 AMSharon B.,
You are free to spend your voucher on a religious Moon Goddess school. I will not protest.
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 11:54 AMIs dodging a few questions even comparable to dodging an entire community like Thompson, McCain, Romney and Giulani have done?
Posted by J-Mac on September 28, 2007 11:58 AMJohn II, did you look up the word sophisticated yet?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 12:19 PMOld Grouch:
Anyone who feels that he, or she, has been "injured" by the repeated Supreme Court decisions concerning the application of tax dollars to parochial education is always free to challenge the decisions."
I believe that exceptions allowing vouchers to be used in parochial schools are now established by Court decisions, pertaining to a case, or cases, brought in either Milwaukee or Cleveland due to their use of vouchers.
I'll admit I'm a little fuzzy in this area and will do some research over the next few days to either substantiate or retract this position.
While still working in the fuzzy mode, I seem to recall that parochial schools were eligible to participate if certain criteria were met; including, but not limited to; 1) curriculum following and approved by the State(s); 2) any and all religious instruction not normally found in a secular public school (i.e., survey of world religions) would be restricted to specific classes and such classes would be optional attendance, and; 3) no proselytizing, witnessing, etc. was allowed in general class or school functions.
Again, over the next few days I'll take a closer look at this question and report back to the thread (or similar thread) on my findings.
Posted by darfor on September 28, 2007 12:24 PMdarfor,
Thank you for bringing up the example(s). I have not followed up here, mostly because, as memory serves, they were entangled with Appeal(s), both as to the separation concept and to the matter of tax uses as a whole. As time progresses, and the processes result in decisions, they may serve as precedents for similar action elsewhere. But, I think that is some time in the future.
The provisions, and/or restrictions, are, I believe, those which were presented to the lower Court by those seeking approval - or worked out through Court mediation for the purpose of presenting the case. And, insofar as they are presented, they are based on earlier U.S. Supreme Court decisions concerning tax aid for use in funding NON-rleigious programs - such as school lunches, and bus servicees - found in the public schools as normative standards; but generally lacking in parochial settings.
We are also dealing here with the Bush Administration's so called, "Faith Based" programs and tax monies; which tends to greatly cloud, confuse, and muddy both the issues and the waters surrounding.
Generally speaking, tax monies for religious schools remains a NO-NO! And, it will be interesting to see what develops, if the current matters cited manage to change that.
Again, thank you for adding to the topic.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 12:52 PMJ-Mac,
Are you referring to that all black group called the NAACP? I don't think any candidate is required to visit a group that prides itself on being entirely of one race.
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 12:55 PMOld Grouch
This is the track I'll be following:
"public education advocates assumed that vouchers could not become a serious threat because of the Constitution’s First Amendment clause prohibiting the government “establishment” of religion.In June of 2002, however, that wall was breached when the United States Supreme Court ruled that voucher programs in Ohio do not violate the establishment clause of the Constitution."
Thursday, January 05, 2006
Florida Supreme Court strikes down school voucher law
[JURIST] The Florida Supreme Court [official website] on Thursday held that the state's 1999 school voucher law [text] violates the state constitutional requirement of a uniform system of free public schools....
In November 2004, Florida's 1st District Court of Appeal had ruled [JURIST report] that the law violates the state constitution ban on the use of tax dollars on religious schools. Currently, 700 children are attending private or parochial schools on the voucher program but 24,000 more attend such schools on similar programs not directly affected by Thursday's ruling.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/01/florida-supreme-court-strikes-down.php
Posted by darfor on September 28, 2007 01:27 PMOld Grouch
The 2002 decision applying to Ohio. Will establish precedent if new/additional voucher programs are designed in accordance to this program.
ZELMAN, SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION OF OHIO, et al. v. SIMMONS-HARRIS et al.certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit
No. 00-1751. Argued February 20, 2002--Decided June 27, 2002*
HOLDING:
In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause.
Full Opinion, with two concurrences and three dissents:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=00-1751
More to follow in a few days.
Posted by darfor on September 28, 2007 02:23 PMBusy schedule lately.
Great job darfor. The issue of the establishment clause of the first amendment was indeed decided in your correct link above, as the "Government" is returning tax collected monies to the individual who then makes the choice where that returned monies (in the form of a voucher) will be spent. That completely removes the "state" from the process.
I am surprised by the comments of Sharon B a bit. While still entertaining, she has demonstrated over and over again her ability to at least have some grounding in reality and rule of law, expect it would appear, when the issue is the first Amendment and specifically the establishment clause.
Sharon, you may want to actually do a tad bit of research on this. I think once you actually understand the implications of vouchers, you may honestly change your tune. It is about choice for parents and the ability to provide the best possible education for their child(ren).
Posted by Dan2 on September 28, 2007 03:10 PMdarfor,
Thanks very much for following up on your contribution, and for providing the hyperlinks. I see where Florida's case is from the State Supreme Court, while Ohio's is from the 6th Circuit Federal. Did Ohio stop there, or did it go up to the U.S. Supreme?
There is certainly a great deal of material for consideration and debate here. You are to be highly commended for offering this to the website.
Just as a sort of "by the way", for anyone interested, there is a new set of 2 volumes out, entitled, "The Debate on the Constitution". It comes from The Library of America, 14 East 60th Street, New York, NY 10022; and appears to be a kind of "subscription" approach to getting people interested in collecting works pertaining to American culture.
The books appear to be made up of excerpts taken from sources such as "The Federalist Papers", as well as presentations made at State Conventions of the era, 1787-88; and they should be a good overview of the pros and cons for what we now know as our United States. An opportunity to see what the Founding Fathers thought, on both sides. And there were sides, not just blind acceptance of the idea that something was to be chiseled in stone, or fossilized forever according to a single point of view.
Thanks again, darfor, for your postings.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 28, 2007 03:31 PMDan 2: darfor better to a good job -- and provide more info as promised -- he's an appellate attorney who actually stalemated John II and his constitutional challenges for everything.
Posted by carl on September 28, 2007 03:37 PMCarl: very interesting. Thanks for that information.
OG,
Thanks for the information. I just ordered the book.
Posted by Dan2 on September 28, 2007 03:41 PMDan2, mostly I try to give folks a bit of a laugh. But I do not want my money to go to a religious school, no matter who the God/Goddess, myth or marvel.
Private, non-religious schools could get vouchers. But I see Christians pushing this to have their cake and eat it too.
Their kids go to private school, and we pay for it.
Until that changes, neither will I.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 03:50 PMOld Grouch
The case reference provided in the 2:23 PM Post is the US Supreme court ruling when it over tuned the 6th Circuit Court. The ruling of the 6th was challenged before the Supreme Court where The judgment of the Court of Appeals was reversed.
The Florida case forced the proponents of vouchers to go back to the drawing board and restructure their program. It hasn't been returned to prominence as of yet.
Posted by darfor on September 28, 2007 03:50 PMcarl,
Where was I stalemated? Please provide a link. Otherwise, I think you are that anonymous coward guy that keeps calling me a racist.
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 03:58 PMFor anyone interested in reading the court decision referenced above, click on the URL and sign up for Find Law -- it's a free membership and opens the door to virtually all case law in the US.
Where a case is subtitled "certiorari", it means a higher court has provided a writ to a lower court for all records pertaining to the case in question. In simpler terms, the higher court has agreed to review the constitutionality of the lower court's decision.
Posted by darfor on September 28, 2007 04:02 PMJohn-Deuce,
I was refering to the first GOP debate tailored to the concerns of black voters, held Thursday night at Morgan State University in Baltimore. The debate was attended by was attended by Brownback, Huckabee, Duncan Hunter, Ron Paul, Tancredo and Alan Keyes.
For years Republicans boasted of expanded outreach to minorities (in particular Blacks but also including Latinos and Asians). They've claimed to renounce the Southern strategy which included racially divisive campaign tactics. Now when it's time to show up, the front-runners for the Republican nomination are missing in action.
John II:
I don't know who you are referring to as your "anonymous coward guy that keeps calling me a racist." I've never posted anonymously, nor have I called you or anyone else on this forum a racist.
I'm not going to dig back looking for historical posts, but will offer a brief description of the discussion.
You were trying to bait anyone into debating your somewhat narrow, or "precise" view of some constitutional issues. darfor refused to bite, but did explain the different stances taken by members of the court in applying either a strict original intent, or original intent with consideration for subsequent case law.
When I say he stalemated you, I was not putting you down; but rather, pointing out that he had a discussion with you without either of you attacking the other. Essentially, a very civil discussion which was also informative to some of us watching it.
He held you to a non attack mode and had a good give and take with you as to how constitutional law was evaluated and interpreted. In fact, I actually learned something from you while you were out of your usual attack mode.
It pretty much ended when you accused him of arguing whichever methodology gave him the best chance to win due to financial considerations, whereas you only argued on principle. He countered that by describing some of the work he does which didn't include fees based on winning.
Like I said, it was an informative discussion from both you and darfor; unusual for you.
I consider this issue settled. I was not trying to put you down, only explain that it was a very even, give and take discussion.
Posted by carl on September 28, 2007 04:23 PMSharon B.
"But I see Christians pushing this to have their cake and eat it too."
Can't it be argued that you want your cake and eat it too, also? Besides, it can be argued that by allowing the "religious" (Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc.) to segregate themselves, they won't be bothering secular oriented people with their proselytizing.
The systems that have vouchers, (i.e., Cleveland) have found that they have a large segment of non-catholic students attending catholic parochial schools, without religious classes, due to either the location of the school, or the method of teaching, discipline, etc.
Freedom of choice from, also means freedom of choicefor religion in their respective educational setting.
Posted by mongoose on September 28, 2007 04:45 PMMongoose, the without religious classes is interesting. If that could be assured then it might work.
I don`t want to segregate religious children or fear their proselytizing.
I just don`i want to pay for their religious education, especially when they are fighting the teaching of evolution wherever they can.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 28, 2007 05:44 PM
Sharon B
Ok, why was I attracted back to this page just as you post to me..spooky!
"...without religious classes is interesting. If that could be assured then it might work."
In both Milwaukee and Cleveland this is very strictly monitored and enforced. Although I can't recall the particular instance, in one of the two cities the largest (or near largest) catholic schools lost their certification to accept vouchers due to "inappropriate" religious influence in the classroom.
I'll see if I can dig more info and particulars regarding this situation.
Posted by mongoose on September 28, 2007 05:52 PMWhy is it "socialism" to pay for other people's children's health care but "fair" to pay for other people's children to go to God school?
Posted by Hans Christian Brando on September 28, 2007 06:00 PMMr. Brando:
"Why is it "socialism" to pay for other people's children's health care but "fair" to pay for other people's children to go to God school?"
You're comparing apples and oranges.
We are already paying to have the children educated at public expense and are only talking about redistribution of the money already committed. Freedom of choice of where to be educated by the families and/or students.
Health care is about a new tax structure to pay for something currently non existent.
Where did I miss somebody in this thread saying that we shouldn't pay for health care, but should pay to send them to "God's" school?
The discussion has been about vouchers in general, parochial schools ONLY if students were NOT required to be subjected to religious instructions UNLESS desired by the student.
Posted by carl on September 28, 2007 06:26 PMJ-Mac said:
"They've claimed to renounce the Southern strategy which included racially divisive campaign tactics. Now when it's time to show up, the front-runners for the Republican nomination are missing in action."
Let me get this straight: you are criticizing the Republicans for being racially divisive because they didn't attend a debate sponsored by a blacks-only group?
carl,
I apologize for accusing you of being that anonymous coward character. He seems to shadow everyone one of my comments with accusations of racism.
Posted by John II on September 28, 2007 09:14 PMdarfor,
A belated, THANK YOU for answering my question there. I went out to dinner last evening, and didn't come back to the Internet.
Another belated THANK YOU to "carl" for your contributions to the debate.
I have not always expressed great admiration for those who practice Law - what Old Grouch does? - but the entrance here of established legal precedent is most commendable; and it has certainly focused the participants on the topic itself, something that has made for a far more interesting and productive experience than often happens when responses are nothing more than expressions of personal feelings.
I hope to see both you gentlemen, "carl" and "darfor", again here on the website. And I look forward to your contributions.
As with others, my reservations concerning parochial education - and use of tax monies for such, by voucher or other program - are rather deep seated, and based on experience. It will take time, I believe, before many of us can be convinced that the part about not forcing religious classes on pupils not of the cult can really be enforced, or made a part of the system. But, the principle, once firmly established, does have potential.
The problem lies not in convincing the taxpayers, but rather, in convincing the cult leaders, that this should be an essential part of the whole. And here, I can only say: ""Good luck!"
But, we have a working example now; which is more than we have had before. And that's worth more than anything else in attempting to go forward.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 29, 2007 09:39 AM