Blogcritics: Comments on Courting the conservative black voter

Comment by Al Barger

Sun, 23 Nov 2003 02:19:00 EST

You have a legitimate issue there, but it is not separation of church and state, since it's not the state doing the picking, but the individual. No, the quite legitimate issue here is that YOU don't want to be forced to pay for stuff that you don't approve of. I personally don't like paying for the government to teach sex ed to children- that's definitely a parent's job. I certainly don't wish to pay for swimming pools and other extravagant athletic programs. Some Christians object to having THEIR money taken to have their children forcibly taught evolution. Actually, there is a viable solution: get the government out of the school business altogether. Leave parents and families with the responsibility of paying for the education of their own children. You would certainly have no objection against the religious training in schools then. Of course, taxes would be MUCH lower all around, which would help a great deal. Also, childless people would not be robbed to subsidize other people's children- though they might choose to donate to scholarship funds and such. Yes, this would solve a great many problems, and open up many more avenues for innovation. On the other hand, you might object that some children would be left behind, that their parents wouldn't be able to afford ANY kind of school. That's probably overstating it considerably, but it is a legitimate concern. However, I would challenge the presumption that someone else's need constitutes a moral license to extract the money from others at gunpoint ie taxes.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:35:44 EST

Right, MD. The government would. Meaning we would, including citizens, nonreligious and religious, who believe in the separation of church from state. The use of vouchers for anything that could promote any individuals is wrong and anti-American, through and through.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sun, 23 Nov 2003 01:26:27 EST

Q: But who would be paying for the vouchers? A: The government would. That is why vouchers for religious schools would be government support regardlessly. As I said before, the only out is to 'unreligious' the religious schools which renders the point moot.

Comment by Al Barger

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:36:49 EST

You've got the issue just exactly backwards here, Diva. The only way a religious school would be entitled to government funds would be if it had nothing to do with religion, which would make it not a religious school. That is YOU insisting on favoring non-religion over religion. The neutral stance is to say that parents can choose totally secular schools, or schools with any kind of religious training that suits them. The key point is that it is PARENTS choosing amongst any religious or non-religious school, not the government.

Comment by Mac Diva

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:39:04 EST

Kudos to most of the BC crew. Y'all would get As if I were teaching Constitutional Law. Nat, Mark, Tal, etc., realize that it is not just favoring a given religion that is not allowed under the Establishment Cause but favoring religion over non-religion, period. The only way a religious school would be entitled to government funds would be if it had nothing to do with religion, which would make it not a religious school. I would be remiss if I did not say the magic words 'Trojan Horse' in regard to the voucher movement. Most of the foundations funding the movement are extreme Right -- Olin, Pioneer, etc. They have also funded eugenics enthusiasts and have, until now, shown no benign interest in the minority poor. Some people who have studied the issue believe that these people are using 'save the poor colored kids' as a pretext. If vouchers were actually approved, the beneficiaries would turn out to be white and middle-class, not minority and poor. An interesting thought. . . .

Comment by Taloran

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 01:44:21 EST

"everyday we posture more people suffer educational deprivation that we could be alleviating but for these sort of perverse anti-student ideologues." (comment 50) WTF? Wanna say it in English?

Comment by Taloran

Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:11:01 EST

I don't want my tax money going to send anyone's kids to Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or any other religious schools. I deliberately moved to a very fine school district before my kids were born, and before I could truly afford it, so the then-unborn children would have the opportunity to attend the finest schools the system had to offer. It has worked out well. My interpretation is that the government can't use any tax-based voucher program to send any children to any school with any formal religious foundation. Apparently that is not the interpretation of the current administration, and that's a shame.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 23:34:07 EST

mr. arabia just loves to put words in other people's mouths. one of his favorite activities. ...and i don't have a 'fondness for the government' either. you sir, are just full of shite.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 18:44:29 EST

And you refuse to read what I wrote. I already stated that teachers' unions are of no concern to me in terms of the voucher situation. Morality and principle are my concern and they, IMO, trump everything.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:59:46 EST

all of you will contort yourselves fifty different ways to avoid a solution that diverges from leftist orthodoxy, in this case subservbience to the teachers union and government school cabals. hooray for you, your status quo destroys kids! and mark, you are wrong on the first amendment. neutral aid is not establishment--it is the only way to slip in between establishment and free exercise. it is funny that peoples fears of money going to schools that educate, like parochial schools, is more important to people than helping underprivileged kids escape. hence the devotion to a (mistaken) view of the consitution from people who will tell you that equal protection = racial discrimination. and if it's class hatred, here's a flash, rich people can afford to get their kids good educations regardless--they are not the beneficiaries. people who are self-righteous with other peoples' money, kids, and lives are misguided, not admirable. leftists are always generous with other peoples money, but perish the thought that people get the free choice of getting their kids an education. everyday we posture more people suffer educational deprivation that we could be alleviating but for these sort of perverse anti-student ideologues. mark, the "my money argument" is nice and all, but the government expropriates money from people to waste on government schools--vouchers would simply let people use their money on better alternatives. if you believe that government money appears out of thin air and doesnt originate with taxpayers, i guess you'd be right. i'd be the first to admit that vouchers are progressive--poorer people would proportionately benefit a lot more. and i say, great! and mark, given your fondness for government, ever thought of moving south one state?

Comment by Eric Olsen

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:46:33 EST

Schools are one of, if not THE top consideration in where people with children choose to live. Property values are considerably higher in districts with "good schools," and it is something of a self-perpetuating cycle, which goes back to the original impetus behind desegregation via busing, etc. It's a tremendously difficult issue.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:37:43 EST

Actually, if I didn't have kids, I would do that. My kids go to a good school too, Debbie. We sacrifice mightily to make it happen -- without you paying one damn dime for it. You're welcome. And we may be on the bottom of the financial heap, Debbie, but we're aiming for the top of a more important one.

Comment by debbie

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:28:28 EST

Then I guess they will always stay at the bottom of the heap, because they are never going change government schools to be competitive with private schools. But if that's ok with you I guess it shouldn't bother me either, my kids go to a good school. I still don't see an issue, the government is not "establishing any religion" they are giving parents a choice on where they want their kids to go to school. There's lots of things the government does with my money that I don't like either...hhhmmm, maybe we should just revolt and not pay taxes at all any more, then we could do what we want with our money. Yeah, that's the ticket....

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:29:04 EST

Then they never really had those morals to begin with. It would be swell to have more money and creature comforts and medical insurance, but is it worth the cost of my soul, integrity, and self-respect? Nope. Ends often do not justify means.

Comment by Mac Diva

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:14:05 EST

Wow, that's conviction, Natalie! The minute money enters the picture most people reshuffle their morals.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:10:04 EST

IOW (hit send too soon), if the choice is between poverty and having the government violate my principles using my money, I gladly choose poverty.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 13:07:56 EST

"we should be looking for any way to liberate any kids" I can agree that something must be done, but any way? Not if it violates what is right. And using goernment money -- which is the collection of individual taxpayers' money -- to fund religious schools is not right. That will never be right.

Comment by Taloran

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:35:08 EST

Absolutely, Mark. Couldn't agree more. And neither could the Constitution.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:25:54 EST

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." not sending my tax dollars off to a private religious school is NOT prohibiting the free exercise of religion. people are free to send their children there, just not with my money.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 12:03:32 EST

the religion clause has 2 parts, to the dismay of some--you can't single religion out for special consideration, positive OR negative. all you're doing is freeing people from being compelled to piss money down the government school drain. and this "our government argument" is not compelling. "our government" takes huge quantities of resources and produces a really crappy product (poor government school education) which ruins young lives--a product that people could better if allowed to make their own choices. what we have here is people who would rather have people get a crappy education than actually get something of value for their tax/voucher money, especially if parochial education might help the disadvantaged. nat, your decisions are admirable, but i don't think we should be forcing people to choose between good educations and poverty, which is what the anti-voucher position does to too many people. given the options of empowering people or adopting a "be like natalie" posture, i'd prefer to put power in the hands of the people (although a "more natalies" experiment might be worth pursuing in a different forum). nat could be a charter person. in the short term, we'll get more poor and disadvantaged people getting educations, and in the long term, even moreso, through private schools and competitive government schools. the status quo is a failure for those who need it most. pouring money on the pile hasn't really helped. so we should be looking for any way to liberate any kids, not searching for excuses to maintain the status quo.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:46:41 EST

"I might agree with you if they were going to force parents to send their children to a "religious" school. But they aren't, the parents get to make that choice themselves." Yeah, with my money. No. "I for one, am glad that you are able to provide a private school for your kids. What is wrong with giving poor parents the same option?" Excuse me, we are poor parents. We just funnel nearly every penny we have into education because it is so important to us. I haven't had health coverage in years. It's one thing for me to spend my money for my kids on the religious school of my choice. It's another matter entirely for the gummint to spend my money at a religious school I do not support. It's bad enough the gummint uses my money against my will to finance violence; I don't want my money paying for a poor family in Lynchburg, VA, to send their kids to Jerry Falwell's preschool.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:12:28 EST

i guess there's an inherent conflict in allowing people to use tax dollars to send their kids to a religious school vs. the establishment of religion clause. i just don't happen to see this as discrimination.

Comment by JR

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:08:58 EST

"One more small comment --- it's not government's money, it is our money." Yeah, well it's supposed to be our government.

Comment by Chris Arabia

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 10:04:16 EST

discriminating against people who send their kids to catholic or other parochial schools is BS and it goes against the idea of optimizing educational benefit. the first amendment goes both ways. "negative argument" is a relatively simple rhetorical concept. a positive argument would be "government schools are better." gee, i labeled something (accurately), i guess my position must be invalid.

Comment by Mark Saleski

Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:52:20 EST

Nobody is forcing anybody to send their child to a religious school. How is this "establishment of religion"? my tax dollars are being sent, via the vouchers, to a religious organization. no thank you.