3 ms·

I am completely against home schooling for exactly that reason. And, I am against circumcision when it isn't done for medical reasons. I agree with having choi

I am completely against home schooling for exactly that reason. And, I am against circumcision when it isn't done for medical reasons. I agree with having choice in schools. I support vouchers and I support private schools. But, I don't support religious schools and I particular am against giving vouchers and other public money to religious schools. By the way, many (most) parochial schools already have their own financial aid systems. For example, my sister went to a Catholic high school for a year where she only paid $1,500 or so, whereas the wealthy students were paying many times that much in order to subsidize the less wealthy. Sometimes church funds go towards those scholarships too. That is why I am against public funding of religious schools; they effectively increase the church's general fund. Everybody should be free to contribute to their own church but nobody should be forced to pay even a penny to a church they oppose.

grandalf 18y ago
On the subject of "public money", would you also vehemently oppose allowing a welfare recipient to spend money out of his/her welfare check at a church bake sale? Such behavior only increases the church's "general fund" and would seem to be equally distasteful to you. What about spending money from one's tax rebate on a church raffle? Also, how is anyone being forced to contribute money to a church they oppose? Are you saying that if my tax dollars went partially to the $0.50 someone used to purchase that donut at a Presbyterian bake sale, that my tax dollars are now being used to support a church I oppose?
- briansmith 18y ago
  The cost (financially and ethically) of policing those things is not worth the cost of accepting them. I am not advocating a police state where every transaction is monitored. Instead, I am promoting individual freedom--the freedom for people to spend their money on only their own religion (if any). You keep using the word "distasteful" as though this is an issue of style instead of substance. It isn't; freedom of religion and the separation of church and state fundamental to our democracy.
  - grandalf 18y ago
    You didn't answer my question, though. It would seem that in theory you would oppose (or find offensive) the bake sale example, even if you didn't advocate enforcement. The question is, if I pay taxes and someone gets a school voucher or tax rebate, have they violated my freedom of religion by spending it at a Church? That seems to be the essence of your argument and I want to be sure I am clear on it. Please also note the US constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". So you would have to argue that by giving the recipient of the school voucher or tax rebate freedom to spend it at a church, congress has attempted to establish a state religion or prevent free exercise thereof.
    - briansmith 18y ago
      Items at a church bake sale are usually marked up to extreme levels. Purchasing these overpriced goods is not fiscally responsible. Anytime our tax money is wasted we should be offended. You bring up a good point; maybe allowing people to use tax rebates for parochial schools is illegal. I can't say for sure as I don't understand the law enough.
      - grandalf 18y ago
        It's a slippery slope... should government employees (whose salaries are paid by taxpapers) be allowed to buy goods at church bake sales? Should people be allowed to buy goods at church bake sales with the proceeds from US Government Savings Bonds? Should recipients of Federally subsidized student loans be allowed to use some of that loan money to buy church bake sale goods? These are all (in my opinion) equally absurd examples, yet they are perfectly analogous to your objection to vouchers being spent at parochial schools.
        briansmith 18y ago
        In all your examples, the person receiving the cash either earned it (bonds, government employees) or will pay for it (student loans). A voucher is a gift from the government (taxpayers) to an individual. That's the key difference. Usually, people earn their cash. When they earn it, we don't get to control what they do with it. In fact, we don't even get to know what they spend it on. That is the beautiful thing about cash. To restrict people from spending their money on their religion illegally restricts their expression of their religion. When feasible, the government shouldn't be giving cash to people who didn't earn it. That is a core principle of welfare and that is why we have WIC, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, and school vouchers. It isn't feasible to have coupons for everything so we have to give people cash for some things.

grandalf 18y ago

On the subject of "public money", would you also vehemently oppose allowing a welfare recipient to spend money out of his/her welfare check at a church bake sale? Such behavior only increases the church's "general fund" and would seem to be equally distasteful to you. What about spending money from one's tax rebate on a church raffle? Also, how is anyone being forced to contribute money to a church they oppose? Are you saying that if my tax dollars went partially to the $0.50 someone used to purchase that donut at a Presbyterian bake sale, that my tax dollars are now being used to support a church I oppose?

briansmith 18y ago
The cost (financially and ethically) of policing those things is not worth the cost of accepting them. I am not advocating a police state where every transaction is monitored. Instead, I am promoting individual freedom--the freedom for people to spend their money on only their own religion (if any). You keep using the word "distasteful" as though this is an issue of style instead of substance. It isn't; freedom of religion and the separation of church and state fundamental to our democracy.
- grandalf 18y ago
  You didn't answer my question, though. It would seem that in theory you would oppose (or find offensive) the bake sale example, even if you didn't advocate enforcement. The question is, if I pay taxes and someone gets a school voucher or tax rebate, have they violated my freedom of religion by spending it at a Church? That seems to be the essence of your argument and I want to be sure I am clear on it. Please also note the US constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". So you would have to argue that by giving the recipient of the school voucher or tax rebate freedom to spend it at a church, congress has attempted to establish a state religion or prevent free exercise thereof.
  - briansmith 18y ago
    Items at a church bake sale are usually marked up to extreme levels. Purchasing these overpriced goods is not fiscally responsible. Anytime our tax money is wasted we should be offended. You bring up a good point; maybe allowing people to use tax rebates for parochial schools is illegal. I can't say for sure as I don't understand the law enough.
    - grandalf 18y ago
      It's a slippery slope... should government employees (whose salaries are paid by taxpapers) be allowed to buy goods at church bake sales? Should people be allowed to buy goods at church bake sales with the proceeds from US Government Savings Bonds? Should recipients of Federally subsidized student loans be allowed to use some of that loan money to buy church bake sale goods? These are all (in my opinion) equally absurd examples, yet they are perfectly analogous to your objection to vouchers being spent at parochial schools.
      - briansmith 18y ago
        In all your examples, the person receiving the cash either earned it (bonds, government employees) or will pay for it (student loans). A voucher is a gift from the government (taxpayers) to an individual. That's the key difference. Usually, people earn their cash. When they earn it, we don't get to control what they do with it. In fact, we don't even get to know what they spend it on. That is the beautiful thing about cash. To restrict people from spending their money on their religion illegally restricts their expression of their religion. When feasible, the government shouldn't be giving cash to people who didn't earn it. That is a core principle of welfare and that is why we have WIC, food stamps, government-subsidized housing, and school vouchers. It isn't feasible to have coupons for everything so we have to give people cash for some things.