Teachers Union Threatens Private Schools With Lawsuit Over Vouchers

[Spungo]

Wow, I looked at teacher salaries for Louisiana and see that they're right in the middle. Yet they suck educationally. I wonder how much of the difference is cultural?

Maybe it's the climate. I remember having trouble thinking when I drove a car that didn't have AC. Lack of school air conditioners = hard to think?

 

[Atreus21]

That is kinda the point, those types of schools don't teach any type of critical thinking.
It isn't in their best interests to do so.
What it leaves you with is a bunch of indoctrinated button pushers who couldn't think for themselves if they wanted to.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[DrPizza]

So you're going to not give those students with parents that care a chance to succeed, so that you can force them into schools with students whose parents don't care and they can all get a terrible education together? That means you'd rather have all of them have a lousy education than some of them (the ones with parents who care) have a good one while the others have a lousy one. That seems very illogical to me. That's back to the whole "downgrade them all to the lowest common level" instead of "figure out how to get the crappy ones up to the level of the better ones".

There's also the issue of parental choice in terms of how and what kids are being taught. If parents think the public school system sucks and is pushing politically correct drivel, they should have the opportunity to choose another school for their kids.

Lets face it -- public, private, charter, none of that stuff matters half as much as having parents that care. If the parents don't care, the kid is likely not going to care either and nothing we do will fix that problem.

But, you're forgetting one thing: outcomes for the students sent to charter schools are no better than the outcomes for those same students in the public schools. It does not result in an inferior education. If the kid was going to succeed in the charter school, it's likely they would succeed in the public school as well.

Again, if you want to pull out the best students and give them a better education - I'm all for that. But currently, our society says that you need to educate all the children. That means you need to still adequately fund the students remaining in the public schools. The whole "$x,xxx dollars spent per student" is a gross misrepresentation. That's what it averages to per student when all expenses are taken into account. What it ignores is that you still have fixed costs (building maintenance) which are now spread over more buildings (when you include the charter schools), and that many of the special education students left behind cost FAR more money than the average student. IIIRC from some stats thrown around in this local area, when you consider the extra aides, etc., and divide that among the special ed students, they each cost more than double what a regular student costs to educate.

 

[woolfe9999]

The poor and minorities are primarily affected by failures of the public school systems. Why should they be denied vouchers so they can get a decent education? Shouldn't people be given a free choice of whether or not they want to attend a particular school...regardless of whether it's at a religious school, a private school, or a school in the suburbs? In my opinion, the government should not interfere with our first amendment rights or people wanting to get a good education for their children...especially the poor who are incredibly disavantaged in our current system.

Not a very good argument. Pokerguy's argument was flawed but better than this. You're essentially arguing that by not providing money for kids to go to religious schools, we are interfering with First Amendment rights? Sorry but no. Parents have a choice to send their kids to religious schools either way, and the state should not interfere with their freedom of choice. Nor should they fund it.

The rest of the argument simply ignores the Constitutional objection I articulated. The government is supplying money to assist parents in religiously indoctrinating their children. Furthermore, the conservatives who back the voucher system are in the main religious conservatives who also support injection of religion into the public schools.

The significance of that fact is that not only is assistance in religious indoctrination an effect of these voucher programs, but is also at least part of its purpose. What we have here is conservative legislators and governors, who are on record as believing in creationism and being skeptical of evolution, and being frustrated that the SCOTUS has disallowed the teaching of creationism in public schools, deciding to divert funds from public schools into a voucher system which they know will overwhelmingly fund schools that teach creationism. I can hardly think of a more cynical and egregious abuse of the Establishment Clause than this.

Now, if they really want to help the poor get better education, there are many other, constitutionally sound, ways that this can be approached. A voucher system can be structured to exclude religious private schools. Or it can place rules on the private schools who want to participate. For example, they can teach creationism only in optional religion classes but not in science class, or else they cannot participate in the program.

Or here's another wild idea. The failing public education system is their fault and their responsibility because it is funded and governed by them. How about they try to fix it instead of starving the beast to make it even worse so that they can turn the entire Louisiana educational system into a mechanism for religious indoctrination? We all know the answer to that - it's because this is their intended result. They do not like public schools, per se, because religious indoctrination is not allowed there.


- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

By giving the parents money without requiring them to use it on a particular school, the government is leaving the choice completely up to the parents. The parents can choose the kind of school (completely secular is perfectly fine), I don't see how you could possibly call that entanglement. The govt is not involved with the religion at all at that point. If welfare recipients use their money to donate to a church, does that mean the government is entangled as well? Why is welfare different than assistance to pay for school?

Yes, this restates the Zelman majority rationale. The problem I have here is that the government is doing indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. Take my example of the cops influencing a private citizen to conduct a warrantless search. Let's add that the inducement is that they pay the citizen to do this, the way they pay informants for information. This, BTW, has been done in the real world and has come up in court. The citizen is not bound by the 4th Amendment. He may or may not be trespassing, but what he does is not unconstitutional per se. Except it is, if the state induced him to do it by paying him to, because the state may not do indirectly what it isn't permitted to do directly. Here, the state is not allowed to indoctrinate children into religion, but it can pay parents who want to indoctrinate their own children?

Everyone well knows that there are religious, conservative parents out there who do not want their kids in public schools because they do not approve of the absence of religion in said schools. Yet many of them cannot afford the private religious school. No problem, the state will solve that for them. We'll pay them so that they can more easily indoctrinate their children into religion.

This isn't really choice. The kids have no choice. While the state can play no role in prohibiting the parents from indoctrinating their kids, it certainly should not be actively assisting them.

Welfare money is a bad comparison, because it can be spent on anything. This money must go for education, and the state knows that the bulk of it will go to religious education.

It's very different. You might call it religious indoctrination, and many parents would call the PC garbage taught in many schools indoctrination as well. It's not up to the state to decide what type of indoctrination is OK. The parents should decide what their kids are taught and how.

Sorry, but no. The Constitution says that the state cannot engage in religious indoctrination per se. It's irrelevant that someone might term something secular being taught as "indoctrination" because if it isn't religion, it's not a Constitutional issue. And I'm not saying they should stop parents from sending their kids to religious schools. I'm saying they should not financially assist them in doing so, because that means the state has become an instrument of religious indoctrination.

- wolf

 

[Atreus21]

Not a very good argument. Pokerguy's argument was flawed but better than this. You're essentially arguing that by not providing money for kids to go to religious schools, we are interfering with First Amendment rights? Sorry but no. Parents have a choice to send their kids to religious schools either way, and the state should not interfere with their freedom of choice. Nor should they fund it.

The rest of the argument simply ignores the Constitutional objection I articulated. The government is supplying money to assist parents in religiously indoctrinating their children. Furthermore, the conservatives who back the voucher system are in the main religious conservatives who also support injection of religion into the public schools.

The significance of that fact is that not only is assistance in religious indoctrination an effect of these voucher programs, but is also at least part of its purpose. What we have here is conservative legislators and governors, who are on record as believing in creationism and being skeptical of evolution, and being frustrated that the SCOTUS has disallowed the teaching of creationism in public schools, deciding to divert funds from public schools into a voucher system which they know will overwhelmingly fund schools that teach creationism. I can hardly think of a more cynical and egregious abuse of the Establishment Clause than this.

Now, if they really want to help the poor get better education, there are many other, constitutionally sound, ways that this can be approached. A voucher system can be structured to exclude religious private schools. Or it can place rules on the private schools who want to participate. For example, they can teach creationism only in optional religion classes but not in science class, or else they cannot participate in the program.

Or here's another wild idea. The failing public education system is their fault and their responsibility because it is funded and governed by them. How about they try to fix it instead of starving the beast to make it even worse so that they can turn the entire Louisiana educational system into a mechanism for religious indoctrination? We all know the answer to that - it's because this is their intended result. They do not like public schools, per se, because religious indoctrination is not allowed there.


- wolf

I don't think it infringes on our first amendment rights. What it does do is consign the poorest to the worse schools and the richest to the best. Not all private schools are religious, anyway.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Not a very good argument. Pokerguy's argument was flawed but better than this. You're essentially arguing that by not providing money for kids to go to religious schools, we are interfering with First Amendment rights? Sorry but no. Parents have a choice to send their kids to religious schools either way, and the state should not interfere with their freedom of choice. Nor should they fund it.

Agree...Pokerguy is much better at supporting his arguments than I. Articulation is definitely not my forte.

Anyway, I'm NOT arguing that by not providing money for kids to go to religious schools, we are interfering with First Amendment rights. I'm saying that a voucher system parent's should be free to make choices that don't interfere with their 1st amendment rights. Big difference.

You say "Parents have a choice to send their kids to religious schools"...tell me, just how do parents at the poverty level really have a choice when it's everything they can do to put food on the table and keep the lights on? Don't kid yourself, there is no freedom of choice here.

The rest of the argument simply ignores the Constitutional objection I articulated. The government is supplying money to assist parents in religiously indoctrinating their children. Furthermore, the conservatives who back the voucher system are in the main religious conservatives who also support injection of religion into the public schools.

"The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." - Chief Justice Rehnquist

The significance of that fact is that not only is assistance in religious indoctrination an effect of these voucher programs, but is also at least part of its purpose. What we have here is conservative legislators and governors, who are on record as believing in creationism and being skeptical of evolution, and being frustrated that the SCOTUS has disallowed the teaching of creationism in public schools, deciding to divert funds from public schools into a voucher system which they know will overwhelmingly fund schools that teach creationism. I can hardly think of a more cynical and egregious abuse of the Establishment Clause than this.

This is all your personal speculation as to motives of others. No point in going down that road in my opinion.

Now, if they really want to help the poor get better education, there are many other, constitutionally sound, ways that this can be approached. A voucher system can be structured to exclude religious private schools. Or it can place rules on the private schools who want to participate. For example, they can teach creationism only in optional religion classes but not in science class, or else they cannot participate in the program.

So long as voucher recipients have nonreligious school choices and the government doesn't encourage the use of vouchers for religious schools, the voucher system is constitutional. Excluding religious schools interferes with our first amendment rights.

Or here's another wild idea. The failing public education system is their fault and their responsibility because it is funded and governed by them. How about they try to fix it instead of starving the beast to make it even worse so that they can turn the entire Louisiana educational system into a mechanism for religious indoctrination? We all know the answer to that - it's because this is their intended result. They do not like public schools, per se, because religious indoctrination is not allowed there.

Again, this is all your opiniated speculation as to motives of others and presupposes a significant religious indoctrination conspiracy. Perhaps there are a few who have such ulterior motives. However, it's not hard to imagine that the vast majority of people advocating a voucher system in Louisiana are actually interested in getting a better education for their children. And if that choice happens to be a religious school, then so be it...the First Amendment reigns supreme.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anyway, I'm NOT arguing that by not providing money for kids to go to religious schools, we are interfering with First Amendment rights. I'm saying that a voucher system parent's should be free to make choices that don't interfere with their 1st amendment rights. Big difference.

What do you mean, choices that "don't interfere with their First Amendment rights?" You mean, the choice to not send their kids to a non-religious school? Since when does the Free Exercise Clause mandate that the state fund religious education, in violation of the Establishment Clause?

You say "Parents have a choice to send their kids to religious schools"...tell me, just how do parents at the poverty level really have a choice when it's everything they can do to put food on the table and keep the lights on? Don't kid yourself, there is no freedom of choice here.

They have a choice in the only way that is relevant to the Constitution: because the government is not barring them from doing so. The government cannot preclude them from attending religious schools, or close said schools down, because of the Free Exercise Clause. Similarly, the government shouldn't be funding said schools either, because of the Establishment Clause.

"The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits." - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Remember, I do not dispute that the Zelman majority argued this position. Quoting it doesn't really change anything. I do not believe for one minute, BTW, that advancement of religious education is "incidental" to the voucher system. Regardless of its purpose, its effect will be an extremely large migration of students from secular public schools to religious private schools.

This is all your personal speculation as to motives of others. No point in going down that road in my opinion.

This is not rank speculation. These are highly educated guesses. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who signed this voucher law, also signed a law that permits creationist criticisms of evolution in public schools. He has stated that he believes in creationism and is skeptical of evolution. You seriously expect me to believe that there is no relationship between this and signing a law which he knows will have the effect of shifting large numbers of student to schools that teach creationism? You'd have to be naive to conclude otherwise.

So long as voucher recipients have nonreligious school choices and the government doesn't encourage the use of vouchers for religious schools, the voucher system is constitutional. Excluding religious schools interferes with our first amendment rights.

No, excluding religious schools would not violate our First Amendment rights. It would support them. The First Amendment prohibits the state from religious entanglement. If you're suggesting that the Free Exercise clause is violated because there is no religious option, then by that logic, the present public school system is per se unconstitutional.

Again, this is all your opiniated speculation as to motives of others and presupposes a significant religious indoctrination conspiracy. Perhaps there are a few who have such ulterior motives. However, it's not hard to imagine that the vast majority of people advocating a voucher system in Louisiana are actually interested in getting a better education for their children. And if that choice happens to be a religious school, then so be it...the First Amendment reigns supreme.

What "conspiracy?" Social conservatives openly admit that they want children to receive a religious education that is skeptical of evolution and supportive of creationism, and they are frustrated with the fact that the Constitution will not allow this in public schools. Is any part of that inaccurate? So you're saying it's a big speculative leap for me to conclude that when these same people support a system which encourages migration of students out of public schools and into religious schools, there is a connection? I'm thinking this is more in line with common sense than conspiracy theories.

- wolf

 

[CrackRabbit]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Alright, then tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[Atreus21]

Alright, then tell me why I'm wrong.

I apologize. Had I bothered to read your entire posting history in this thread, I would've been better informed before I jumped to conclusions. I thought you were saying something you weren't.

My bad.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What do you mean, choices that "don't interfere with their First Amendment rights?" You mean, the choice to not send their kids to a non-religious school? Since when does the Free Exercise Clause mandate that the state fund religious education, in violation of the Establishment Clause?

I mean that when the government gives citizens benefits it has no authority under the 1st amendment to limit those benefits to only non-religious institutions.

They have a choice in the only way that is relevant to the Constitution: because the government is not barring them from doing so. The government cannot preclude them from attending religious schools, or close said schools down, because of the Free Exercise Clause. Similarly, the government shouldn't be funding said schools either, because of the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause doesn't apply as the government is not making the choice...the individuals are making the choice which is protected by the Free Exercise Clause.

Remember, I do not dispute that the Zelman majority argued this position. Quoting it doesn't really change anything. I do not believe for one minute, BTW, that advancement of religious education is "incidental" to the voucher system. Regardless of its purpose, its effect will be an extremely large migration of students from secular public schools to religious private schools.

If individuals choose to have their children go to religious schools...that is their Constitutional right. If the public schools are horrible...an extremely large migration of students from secular public schools to religious or private schools should be expected. Most parents want a good education for their children.

This is not rank speculation. These are highly educated guesses. Bobby Jindal, the governor of Louisiana, who signed this voucher law, also signed a law that permits creationist criticisms of evolution in public schools. He has stated that he believes in creationism and is skeptical of evolution. You seriously expect me to believe that there is no relationship between this and signing a law which he knows will have the effect of shifting large numbers of student to schools that teach creationism? You'd have to be naive to conclude otherwise.

Opining on the motives of Bobby Jindal is rank speculation at best. Highly educated guesses? LOL. Believe what you want to believe, I have no expectations regarding your beliefs regardless of how highly educated you perceive them to be.

No, excluding religious schools would not violate our First Amendment rights. It would support them. The First Amendment prohibits the state from religious entanglement. If you're suggesting that the Free Exercise clause is violated because there is no religious option, then by that logic, the present public school system is per se unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS believes there is no religious entanglement when individuals make the choice of where their government benefits are spent. Tell me this...should welfare recipients be prohibited from giving some of their goverment money to their church every Sunday? Think about it.

What "conspiracy?" Social conservatives openly admit that they want children to receive a religious education that is skeptical of evolution and supportive of creationism, and they are frustrated with the fact that the Constitution will not allow this in public schools. Is any part of that inaccurate? So you're saying it's a big speculative leap for me to conclude that when these same people support a system which encourages migration of students out of public schools and into religious schools, there is a connection? I'm thinking this is more in line with common sense than conspiracy theories.

You see conspiracy. I see most people wanting a better education for their children regardless of whether an institution is religious or not.

 

[woolfe9999]

You see conspiracy. I see most people wanting a better education for their children regardless of whether an institution is religious or not.

We don't disagree about what the Zelman case says. The disagreement apparently comes down to this. You think when social conservatives who want kids to be taught creationism back a program with the effect of pulling kids out of secular schools and putting them into religious schools, it is just a coincidence and that I'm a conspiracy theorist for thinking otherwise. You also seem to think that politicians should be taken at face value regarding what truly motivates them, at least when they back a program you also happen to agree with. Not a chance you would apply this kind of strict "we can't speculate about what's in someone head" logic in other contexts.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

We don't disagree about what the Zelman case says. The disagreement apparently comes down to this. You think when social conservatives who want kids to be taught creationism back a program with the effect of pulling kids out of secular schools and putting them into religious schools, it is just a coincidence and that I'm a conspiracy theorist for thinking otherwise. You also seem to think that politicians should be taken at face value regarding what truly motivates them, at least when they back a program you also happen to agree with. Not a chance you would apply this kind of strict "we can't speculate about what's in someone head" logic in other contexts.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

I think you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. Perhaps I value religious freedom a tad higher than you...I don't know. Yes, it appears that we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[monovillage]

That's why the last 2 Democrat presidents made sure their children go to public schools. You have to have respect for public officials that don't take advantage of their high pay and benefits and keep their children in the same schools as their constituents.

 

[CrackRabbit]

I apologize. Had I bothered to read your entire posting history in this thread, I would've been better informed before I jumped to conclusions. I thought you were saying something you weren't.

My bad.

No problem.
:thumbsup:
It's nice to have a more or less civilized thread for once.

 

[PokerGuy]

Yes, this restates the Zelman majority rationale. The problem I have here is that the government is doing indirectly what it is not permitted to do directly. Take my example of the cops influencing a private citizen to conduct a warrantless search. Let's add that the inducement is that they pay the citizen to do this, the way they pay informants for information. This, BTW, has been done in the real world and has come up in court. The citizen is not bound by the 4th Amendment. He may or may not be trespassing, but what he does is not unconstitutional per se. Except it is, if the state induced him to do it by paying him to, because the state may not do indirectly what it isn't permitted to do directly.

Hang on, there's a very clear distinction between your example and vouchers. You don't seem to appreciate the intent behind the action as being different. In your example the state wants to do something, but it is not allowed to do it directly. It then gets a private citizen to do it (through payment, enticement, whatever). The issue is still that the state is seeking to indirectly do something it's not supposed to do. With vouchers, the state seeks to provide education. It can do so in many ways, including giving vouchers to the parents so the parents can decide where to send their kids. The state is not seeking to fund religious activities, it is to educate. It's up to the parents to decide how best to do that.

In your example, the goal of the state is to do something it can't do, and it tries to indirectly do it to circumvent the restriction. With vouchers, the goal of the state is not something it can't do (establish religion etc), the goal is to provide education for the people. Where the parents decide to use the vouchers (religious or not religious) is not a state matter and in fact the state has no preference either way. I think that makes it clear there is no entanglement, even if the parents ultimately choose to use the vouchers on some religious school. The state is not seeking to fund religious schools, it is seeking to fund education, the parents decide where to send the kids, and there is no incentive created to send them to religious schools over non religious schools.

Here, the state is not allowed to indoctrinate children into religion, but it can pay parents who want to indoctrinate their own children?

No, the state is not paying parents to indoctrinate anything, it is providing assistance to pay for education. What form of education the parents seek out is completely up to them, the state is not involved at all. As I said, it's no different than a welfare recipient donating money to a church. The state goal is to provide a minimum level of funding for the welfare of the people. How they choose to spend it is not the state's concern.

This isn't really choice. The kids have no choice. While the state can play no role in prohibiting the parents from indoctrinating their kids, it certainly should not be actively assisting them.

You call it "indoctrination" simply because you don't like what they are learning, but who is to say that sending someone to Catholic school is any more "indoctrination" than sending them to a public school? That's up to the parents. You're right, the kids have no choice, nor should they, and nor should the state -- that's up to the parents.

Welfare money is a bad comparison, because it can be spent on anything. This money must go for education, and the state knows that the bulk of it will go to religious education.

Ok, instead of welfare, use food stamps. Parents can use food stamps to buy things that are not good for them or the kids. Many do. Just because some of the parents choose to spend the vouchers on religious education doesn't mean they all do, and it certainly does not mean that the state is indirectly violating the establishment clause -- the state does not have any involvement in the choice of where to send the kids.

Sorry, but no.

Sorry, but yes. The court got this one 100% right.

The Constitution says that the state cannot engage in religious indoctrination per se. It's irrelevant that someone might term something secular being taught as "indoctrination" because if it isn't religion, it's not a Constitutional issue.

There is no constitutional issue because the state is not pushing or otherwise incenting anyone to send their kids to religious schools. It is providing funding, with absolutely no bias as to how that funding should be used.

 

[woolfe9999]

Hang on, there's a very clear distinction between your example and vouchers. You don't seem to appreciate the intent behind the action as being different. In your example the state wants to do something, but it is not allowed to do it directly. It then gets a private citizen to do it (through payment, enticement, whatever). The issue is still that the state is seeking to indirectly do something it's not supposed to do. With vouchers, the state seeks to provide education. It can do so in many ways, including giving vouchers to the parents so the parents can decide where to send their kids. The state is not seeking to fund religious activities, it is to educate. It's up to the parents to decide how best to do that.

In your example, the goal of the state is to do something it can't do, and it tries to indirectly do it to circumvent the restriction. With vouchers, the goal of the state is not something it can't do (establish religion etc), the goal is to provide education for the people. Where the parents decide to use the vouchers (religious or not religious) is not a state matter and in fact the state has no preference either way. I think that makes it clear there is no entanglement, even if the parents ultimately choose to use the vouchers on some religious school. The state is not seeking to fund religious schools, it is seeking to fund education, the parents decide where to send the kids, and there is no incentive created to send them to religious schools over non religious schools.

A given government act may violate the Establishment Clause if its effect is excessive government endorsement of, or entanglement with, religion. Proving intent can be helpful in the Constitutional analysis, but it isn't required.

You are, of course, correct that there must be intent here for my particular analogy to hold. I think there's ample circumstantial evidence of intent here, but I've just gone through arguing that point with another poster.

To, the state is not paying parents to indoctrinate anything, it is providing assistance to pay for education. What form of education the parents seek out is completely up to them, the state is not involved at all. As I said, it's no different than a welfare recipient donating money to a church. The state goal is to provide a minimum level of funding for the welfare of the people. How they choose to spend it is not the state's concern.

At a minimum, the state is giving money to parents, while knowing that it will assist them in indoctrinating their children into religion. At a maximum, said indoctrination is the point of it. Either presents an Establishment Cause problem, IMHO of course.

You call it "indoctrination" simply because you don't like what they are learning, but who is to say that sending someone to Catholic school is any more "indoctrination" than sending them to a public school? That's up to the parents. You're right, the kids have no choice, nor should they, and nor should the state -- that's up to the parents.

I call it indoctrination simply because that is the best word for it. Children are indoctrinated into religion. They may also be indoctrinated into other things, including things I agree with and things I do not agree with. Of all of them, only religious indoctrination presents a problem under the Constitution. The remainder are matters for public discussion with parents, teachers, school boards, and state officials.

Ok, instead of welfare, use food stamps. Parents can use food stamps to buy things that are not good for them or the kids. Many do. Just because some of the parents choose to spend the vouchers on religious education doesn't mean they all do, and it certainly does not mean that the state is indirectly violating the establishment clause -- the state does not have any involvement in the choice of where to send the kids.

Yet they know precisely what percentage of private schools in their state are religious, and it's pretty similar nationally. Most private schools are religious.

There is no constitutional issue because the state is not pushing or otherwise incenting anyone to send their kids to religious schools. It is providing funding, with absolutely no bias as to how that funding should be used.

Yeah, and it's only a side benefit that Jindal also achieves his goal of using public money to teach creationism to school kids and to ensure that they pray while at school, both of which he not only advocates but has sponsored and signed legislation on. Jindal isn't going to try fixing the public school system. Instead, he defunds it then throws up his hands and says abandon ship. Let's send them off to a private school system which is 90% religious. Mmm hmm.

- wolf

 

[cybrsage]

It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Just thought I would point that out, since people tend to forget.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Of course...however, if I do a lousy job, I get fired. The public educational system has fail miserably in Louisiana and, instead of the teacher's union offering solutions, they attack those who offer educational alternatives. This is all about teacher's protecting their jobs...they could care less about providing good education for the children. I'm just calling a spade a spade.

Hahaha yeah like the Peter Principle isnt alive and well in Private industry.

Please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-Harris
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris[/QUOTE]

"the program must have a valid secular purpose"


Tricky that.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Just thought I would point that out, since people tend to forget.

And Freedom(tm) from Government sponsored religion, just thought Id point that out.

 

[lotus503]

Less government is what is needed

It starts with you,

Stop using roads and other services provided with public money.

Lead by example

 

[lotus503]

It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. Just thought I would point that out, since people tend to forget.

Separation of church and state, if your using tax payer money to teach religion. That's not separation.