| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"John D." |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 05:20:29 PM |
| Object: |
Four Questions (USA) |
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
2. At State level should legislation be crafted to bring this issue to the
voters?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
3. Would you support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of
choice in paying for your own child's education?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational system
that will ultimately train children to discount their (the taxpayer's)
religious beliefs?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 12:43:19 AM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school
taxes) for a school system they don't participate in?
The way atheists & childless people have been paying for over
one hundred years now?
In my neighborhood, parents pay less than 25% of the cost of
educating a single child, in the form of taxes. The difference
is made up by people without children.
For a single child, parents have to pay property taxes for 52
years BEFORE they contribute a single dime to police & fire
protection... garbage collection... maintenance of public roads...
parks... sidewalks... libraries... street lights...
If parents have two children, on the other hand, then they only
have to pay property taxes for 104 years prior to contributing
a single dime to anything other than public education.
There is *No* *Money* to hand selfish parents as voucher. There
is *No* "Fair Share" of the tax money that belongs to them, any
more than there's leftover voucher money for the people without
any children.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
03 Jan 2004 09:42:25 PM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in
news:O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes)
for a school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Yes. Religion should never be acceptable as an excuse to evade any law.
2. At State level should legislation be crafted to bring this issue to
the voters?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
No. The constitution doesn't allow for the gov't to support religion.
Also, we don't need more "tyranny of the majority" subverting the
minority rights protected by the constitution.
3. Would you support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom
of choice in paying for your own child's education?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
No. Not unless we also allow for a constitutional amendment allowing me
freedom to decide what specific gov't programs I'm willing to spend my
tax dollars to support and which I won't allow my tax dollars to support.
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational
system that will ultimately train children to discount their (the
taxpayer's) religious beliefs?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Yes. The smartest thing we can do for the future is teach children
rational and critical thinking and the end result of that would be for
them to discount and give up their indoctrinated religious beliefs.
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
NO!
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Owen Hughes" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 03:52:28 AM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
I have had this explained to me thusly:
Since I will benefit in the long run from the end product of the
school system (for example - the slack jawed semi-literate sales goons
at PC World. Where would I be without them?) I shouldn't mind paying
taxes towards it despite my loathing of all things children.
I think the same thing should apply to god botherers.
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational system
that will ultimately train children to discount their (the taxpayer's)
religious beliefs?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Well surely the alternative would allow you to decide you were a flat
earther or a creationist or something equally stupid and then demand
not to pay [i]n[/i] amount of taxes.
Once you've set that precedent do you then also allow pacifists to not
pay towards the defence budget or criminals to not pay towards the
police budgets?
As far as equiping children to discount their parents religious
beliefs... if school didn't do that it really would not be value for
money, would it?
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
I am a solipsist and believe myself to be the supreme being. You
(along with everyone else) are mere figments of my imagination.
--
#1883
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 07:54:40 PM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D." |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 08:07:48 PM |
|
|
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
jwk
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 08:15:45 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D." |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 11:23:24 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i6ihvv4itkkca8bml9lfg51udp932rom5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
This exact text was posted to two other groups it just wasn't cross-posted.
Perhaps, you should take this as an example that things aren't always as
they seem.
John D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "jwk" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 05:06:42 PM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message news:<jfqdnQhYaNRGaWWi4p2dnA@centurytel.net>...
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i6ihvv4itkkca8bml9lfg51udp932rom5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
This exact text was posted to two other groups it just wasn't cross-posted.
Perhaps, you should take this as an example that things aren't always as
they seem.
John D.
If you posted this text separately to aa then you should have edited
appropriately. Since you did not I'm afraid my criticism remains
valid.
jwk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 11:35:16 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:23:24 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i6ihvv4itkkca8bml9lfg51udp932rom5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
This exact text was posted to two other groups it just wasn't cross-posted.
Perhaps, you should take this as an example that things aren't always as
they seem.
Then it was remarkably stupid to post it to alt.atheism, as jwk
pointed out.
You have no excuse, and trying to cop out just makes it worse.
John D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 07:10:38 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:...
"John D." wrote:...
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote:...
"John D." wrote:...
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
This exact text was posted to two other groups it just wasn't cross-posted.
Perhaps, you should take this as an example that things aren't always as
they seem.
Then it was remarkably stupid to post it to alt.atheism, as jwk
pointed out.
MK. "Then" means something like "it follows", but I don't see that. 1)
jwk asserted "you only posted to alt.atheism, stupid". This is
factually incorrect. 2) It makes sense to post such questions in
groups devoted to (anti-) religious themes. Not "stupid". 3) Quite a
few people of faith seeks arguments in alt.atheism. The question was
not "stupid".
You have no excuse, and trying to cop out just makes it worse.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 11:52:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 05:35:16 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 23:23:24 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:i6ihvv4itkkca8bml9lfg51udp932rom5t@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
This exact text was posted to two other groups it just wasn't cross-posted.
Perhaps, you should take this as an example that things aren't always as
they seem.
Then it was remarkably stupid to post it to alt.atheism, as jwk
pointed out.
(Or since it wasn't cross posted, to not tailor it to the specific
group he was posting it to. Some people just haven't figured out
usenet yet.)
You have no excuse, and trying to cop out just makes it worse.
Why would you expect anything more from a theist?
John D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 12:12:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 02:15:45 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> posted to alt.atheism:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you owe jwk an apology.
He's using Outpuke Distress - what did you expect?
--
"The doctrine that the earth is neither the center of the universe nor immovable, but
moves even with a daily rotation, is absurd, and both philosophically and theologically
false, and at the least an error of faith."
- Catholic Church's decision against Galileo Galilei
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 08:12:14 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
From the headers of your original post, unedited:
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
It looks as though you pwe jwk an apology.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 08:56:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
Path:
uni-berlin.de!fu-berlin.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!intern1.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nntp.centurytel.net!news.centurytel.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:08:00 -0600
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Yes, he is right. Indeedy, thou art verily wrong!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
06 Jan 2004 07:08:37 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 20:07:48 -0600, "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>, Message ID:
<wJ-dncmOpu-dWmWiRVn-sw@centurytel.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"jwk" <jwkinraleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c6f5ba32.0401041754.649af6ac@posting.google.com...
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote in message
news:<O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>...
[snip questions with obvious answers]
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
You only posted to aa, stupid.
<sigh> No, you are wrong.
<BOGGLE>
/quote
From: "John D." <yawn@bfd.net>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Subject: Four Questions (USA)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0600
Message-ID: <O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>
/quote
Congradulations on providing objective supportive evidence jwk's
analysis of your mental capacity was accurate.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bogdan" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 10:15:26 AM |
|
|
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Yes, unless you stop using the services and goods of people,
including, but not limited to doctors, scientists, engineers,
politicians, entertainers, lawyers... etc who were educated at those
public schools. Likewise, you can demand your taxes not be spent on
highway infrastructure should you stop buying groceries and goods
(unless they are produced within walking distance without parts or
equipment that needed to be transported), mailing letters, using gas,
electricity, telephone, ambulances and any other services that rely on
transportation at one time or another.
In short, maintaining your way of life necessitates a very complex
interaction of various parts and processes. Part of the price we pay
for such luxuries as running water and basic medicine is that all
processes, not the least of which is the education of those who create
and maintain these services, be publicly supported.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andres64" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
03 Jan 2004 06:27:02 PM |
|
|
"John D." wrote:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
Yes. I pay taxes. Why shouldn't they?
BTW: Does *any* religion count?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
2. At State level should legislation be crafted to bring this issue to the
voters?
No. As alluded to above; how would schools be funded if nobody paid
taxes?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
3. Would you support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of
choice in paying for your own child's education?
What? Freedom of choice for what?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational system
that will ultimately train children to discount their (the taxpayer's)
religious beliefs?
Yes. They benefit from having educated citizens.
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
No.
Education's purpose is to replace an empty mind with an open one.
-- Malcolm Forbes
--
Andres64
a.a. #1624
Our greatest glory is not in never falling, but in rising every time we
fall.
- Confucius
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
03 Jan 2004 09:38:21 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sat, 03 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0600 didst John D. speak thusly:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
While there's an argument to be made that our experiment in universal
education has hit the problem of the commons and crashed and burned, there
is still that we're discussing something that--at least in
principle--benefits society at large.
Should the religious be allowed to "opt out" of paying for the maintenance
of this society while *keeping the benefits?
Hell no.
I never seen them asking to "opt out" of the *benefits. Just the bill.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Rathbun" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
03 Jan 2004 07:45:09 PM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0600,
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
I take it that you are of the increasingly popular opinion that the only
children in the USA who should be allowed to learn to read are the offspring
of wealthy Christian Republicans?
Caution: in twenty years, you're gonna be in a helluva spot trying to find
kinds who can operate a cash register, make change, or figure out which bin to
put stock in.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 12:09:31 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:45:09 -0600, Michael Rathbun
<UBETrawler@operamail.com> posted to alt.atheism:
Caution: in twenty years, you're gonna be in a helluva spot trying to find
kinds who can operate a cash register, make change, or figure out which bin to
put stock in.
You're 20 years too optimistic. Most kids today can't make change if
they can't read the display on the register and, then, they still have
trouble counting out the amount the display indicates.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
06 Jan 2004 07:02:42 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 19:45:09 -0600, Michael Rathbun
<UBETrawler@operamail.com>, Message ID:
<nsrevv4tes17kgts9oohm7792fk8n2tn5d@4ax.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
In alt.atheism on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0600,
"John D." <yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
I take it that you are of the increasingly popular opinion that the only
children in the USA who should be allowed to learn to read are the offspring
of wealthy Christian Republicans?
Caution: in twenty years, you're gonna be in a helluva spot trying to find
kinds who can operate a cash register, make change, or figure out which bin to
put stock in.
Twenty years went quick as a couple years ago a store owner lamented
kids can't even make change without their hands being held.
The avalanche of education (meaning lack of) is gaining speed.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Kresch" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 10:30:57 AM |
|
|
In alt.atheism on Sat, 3 Jan 2004 17:20:29 -0600, "John D."
<yawn@bfd.net> let us all know that:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
Nope.
2. At State level should legislation be crafted to bring this issue to the
voters?
Sure.
3. Would you support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of
choice in paying for your own child's education?
I don't see why it's needed.
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational system
that will ultimately train children to discount their (the taxpayer's)
religious beliefs?
Since that's not what the public school system does......
Optional yes or no:
Do you consider yourself Religious?
Nope. Just for individual rights and the gradual withering of the
state.
Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean C" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
04 Jan 2004 01:18:12 PM |
|
|
In article <O7udnblkusBY02qiRVn-hA@centurytel.net>, John D.
<yawn@bfd.net> wrote:
1. Should people practicing religion be forced to pay (school taxes) for a
school system they don't participate in?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Yes, the same way we subsidize police and fire services even if we've
never been robbed and our house has never caught fire. Do you think
non-believers should be required to effectively subsidize churches
through religious tax exemptions?
2. At State level should legislation be crafted to bring this issue to the
voters?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
No, as I'm opposed to vouchers, and as these things are generally
determined at the local level, except where constitutional issues may
arise. There are pros and cons to state vs. local control, but that
discussion would be a bit too complicated here.
3. Would you support a Constitutional amendment guaranteeing freedom of
choice in paying for your own child's education?
If your answer is no please briefly explain why?
No, as you already have freedom of choice. What you don't have, is the
ability to get the government to pay for your choices, if they differ
from what the government is offering, which is public education. I
might like to have my own personal fire department to watch over my
house, and get a voucher to pay for it, but the government has a
responsibility to provide that service to as many people as possible,
not just me. Granting vouchers for an allegedly superior education to
some impairs its ability to give an education to all. And the jury is
still out whether private schools really do provide a better education
for a similar class of student, as they get to self-select students,
resulting in higher apparent success than might be the case if they had
to absorb the troublesome and dysfunctional kids. Where elite public
high schools also get to self-select their own students, they often do
better than many of the parochial schools in academic performance.
4. Should individual taxpayers be forced to pay for an educational system
that will ultimately train children to discount their (the taxpayer's)
religious beliefs?
If your answer is yes please briefly explain why?
Should secular public schools which shouldn't and usually don't take a
stance on religion one way or the other be replaced by religious
schools that do promote religion and which may conflict with a
student's beliefs? There is no reason to assume the totality of
available or potential parochial schooling will be sufficient to meet
everyone's preferred choice any better than the current system, and in
the absence of a neutral secular alternative, you may have Jewish kids
forced to go to Catholic schools, Muslims to the Yeshiva, and Catholics
to a Madrassa, because that's the only game in town (Of course, it
would be naive of me to suggest that most of the funding wouldn't go to
Christian schools, regardless of the religious make-up of the
community).
Rememeber, that it was the absence of a truly secular public school
system in New York City in the late 1800's that led to the creation of
the Catholic school system there (the public schools were not secular
and heavily promoted Protestantism). I can see a similar thing
happening with vouchers, and people demanding the government fund
schools representing their own religion, if voucher money proves
inadequate to create them in the private market.
I would prefer to see religious tax exemptions removed for the most
part, and use that money to fund the religiously neutral public school
system.
Sean C
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 12:11:12 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 14:18:12 -0500, Sean C
<redhawk@burnspammersalivehvc.rr.com> posted to alt.atheism:
Rememeber, that it was the absence of a truly secular public school
system in New York City in the late 1800's that led to the creation of
the Catholic school system there (the public schools were not secular
and heavily promoted Protestantism). I can see a similar thing
happening with vouchers, and people demanding the government fund
schools representing their own religion, if voucher money proves
inadequate to create them in the private market.
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
--
"Every sensible man, every honest man, must hold the christian sect in horror. 'But what
shall we substitute in its place?' you say. What? A ferocious animal has sucked the
blood of my relatives. I tell you to rid yourselves of this beast and you ask me what
you shall put in its place?" - Voltaire
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 06:43:36 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
Sean C posted to alt.atheism:...
Rememeber, that it was the absence of a truly secular public school
system in New York City in the late 1800's that led to the creation of
the Catholic school system there (the public schools were not secular
and heavily promoted Protestantism). I can see a similar thing
happening with vouchers, and people demanding the government fund
schools representing their own religion, if voucher money proves
inadequate to create them in the private market.
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
MK. School vouchers good only for full-time enrollment at independent
or parochial schools give parents no reason to shop for lower prices,
though they still would shop for quality. Independent/parochial
schools might increase tuition --to-- the amount of a full-time school
tuition voucher. Exclusive schools might increase tuition --by-- the
amount of the voucher to keep their schools beyond the means of poor
minority parents. Still, poor parents who cannot now afford $4,000 in
tuition would benefit from an expanded range of options if your State
legislature mandated that districts allot to each student some
fraction 1/2 < a/b < 1 of the district's per pupil cost, if students
who would otherwise attend that district's schools were to attend an
independent or parochial school.
"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole
span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks,
new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense
and common decency." --H.L. Mencken
MK. Gerard Lassibile and Lucia Navarro Gomez, ["Organization and
Efficiency of Educational Systems: some empirical findings", pg. 16,
"Comparative Education", Vol. 36 #1, Feb 2000]. "Furthermore, the
regression results indicate that countries where private education is
more widespread perform significantly better than countries where it
is more limited. The result showing the private sector to be more
efficient is similar to those found in other contexts with individual
data (see, for example, Psucharopoulos, 1987; Jiminez, et. al, 1991).
This finding should convince countries to reconsider policies that
reduce the role of the private sector in the field of education".
MK. David ("Damn the torpedos") Farragut joined the navy at 9 and went
to sea at 10. Thomas Edison was homeschooled. David Hume was tutored
until university.
Take care. Homeschool if you can.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.ssri.niu.edu/dl/peterson.htm
http://www.libertyindia.org/pdfs/tooley_education.pdf
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c68c8207-770a-44e2-9878-1b5cc218e1a7
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/newslink/index.html?ref=1057673220
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
05 Jan 2004 08:35:36 PM |
|
|
On 5 Jan 2004 16:43:36 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted to alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:...
Sean C posted to alt.atheism:...
Rememeber, that it was the absence of a truly secular public school
system in New York City in the late 1800's that led to the creation of
the Catholic school system there (the public schools were not secular
and heavily promoted Protestantism). I can see a similar thing
happening with vouchers, and people demanding the government fund
schools representing their own religion, if voucher money proves
inadequate to create them in the private market.
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
MK. School vouchers good only for full-time enrollment
No such thing - they're for fixed amounts.
--
"I don't try to imagine a God; it suffices to stand in awe of the structure of the world
insofar as it allows our inadequate senses to appreciate it."
- Letter to S. Flesch, April 16, 1954; Einstein Archive 30-1154
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Malcolm Kirkpatrick" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
06 Jan 2004 11:32:28 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
MK. School vouchers good only for full-time enrollment...
No such thing - they're for fixed amounts.
MK. My, Mr. Klein is compulsively argumentative. Look, I was
--agreeing-- with Mr. Klein. If school vouchers are good for something
--other-- than for full time enrollment (the amount is not
particularly important here) then parents have an incentive to shop
around. Consider: if your local school district gave to parents some
amount ($4,000, say) to spend on instruction in some chinese menu of
curricula, then certainly parents might shop around and buy language
instruction here, math tutorials there, voc-ed somewhere else. It is
only when parents --must- dump all of the school voucher subsidy on
one school that Mr. Klein's objection, that schools would set tuition
at the voucher amount or greater, maintains.
"The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it
is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe
level, to breed a standard citizenry, to put down dissent and
originality. School days, I believe, are the unhappiest in the whole
span of human existence. They are full of dull, unintelligible tasks,
new and unpleasant ordinances, and brutal violations of common sense
and common decency." --H.L. Mencken
MK. Take care. Homeschool if you can.
http://www.rru.com/~meo/hs.minski.html (One page. Marvin Minsky
comment on school. Please read this.)
http://www.schoolchoices.org (Massive site. Useful links).
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/egwest/
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11606 (School Reform News
on Sweden's school voucher policy)
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?c68c8207-770a-44e2-9878-1b5cc218e1a7
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/press.office/newslink/index.html?ref=1057673220
http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NineLies.pdf.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
07 Jan 2004 08:10:02 PM |
|
|
On 6 Jan 2004 21:32:28 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted to alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
MK. School vouchers good only for full-time enrollment...
No such thing - they're for fixed amounts.
MK. My, Mr. Klein is compulsively argumentative. Look, I was
--agreeing-- with Mr. Klein. If school vouchers are good for something
--other-- than for full time enrollment (the amount is not
particularly important here) then parents have an incentive to shop
around.
First do the numbers. If the vouchers are for, let's just take a
totally arbitrary number - $4,000/year, and schools raise their
tuition by $4,000/year, all that's been accomplished is that part of
the money you and I pay for taxes goes directly into the pockets of
the owners of private schools. Nothing else changes. A parent making
$2,000/year too little to pay for a private school would still be
$2,000/year short of the tuition for that school.
They'll have to put out of their pockets EXACTLY the same amount with
or without vouchers, so they can shop around now, without vouchers.
Vouchers won't make it easier for kids to attend private schools, it
will make the owners of the schools richer - and that's all it's
supposed to do. Bush isn't in office to educate kids, he's in office
to pay back political contributors.
Consider: if your local school district gave to parents some
amount ($4,000, say) to spend on instruction in some chinese menu of
curricula, then certainly parents might shop around and buy language
instruction here, math tutorials there, voc-ed somewhere else.
That's not how vouchers work. ONE voucher, ONE school. You pick the
school that has the curriculum closest to what you want.
It is only when parents --must- dump all of the school voucher subsidy on
one school that Mr. Klein's objection, that schools would set tuition
at the voucher amount or greater, maintains.
And that's the only way it'll work. No one's going to drive his kid
to 9 schools every day.
--
"So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye
shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it,
but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great
enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code."
- Mark Twain, a Biography
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at optonline dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
07 Jan 2004 08:20:24 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On 6 Jan 2004 21:32:28 -0800, (Malcolm
Kirkpatrick) posted to alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:...
Malcolm Kirkpatrick posted:...
Al Klein wrote:...
MK. Discussion deleted...
And can you see private schools NOT increasing tuition by whatever
amount the vouchers turn out to be for?
MK. School vouchers good only for full-time enrollment...
No such thing - they're for fixed amounts.
MK. My, Mr. Klein is compulsively argumentative. Look, I was
--agreeing-- with Mr. Klein. If school vouchers are good for something
--other-- than for full time enrollment (the amount is not
particularly important here) then parents have an incentive to shop
around.
First do the numbers. If the vouchers are for, let's just take a
totally arbitrary number - $4,000/year, and schools raise their
tuition by $4,000/year,
Gosh, how astute of you to *assume* that schools will raise their tuition.
all that's been accomplished is that part of
the money you and I pay for taxes goes directly into the pockets of
the owners of private schools. Nothing else changes. A parent making
$2,000/year too little to pay for a private school would still be
$2,000/year short of the tuition for that school.
And if the school doesn't raise it's tuition, then they'll have $2000
*extra*.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Four Questions (USA) |
07 Jan 2004 10:32:48 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote
Gosh, how astute of you to *assume* that schools
will raise their tuition.
It's not an assumption at all. It's an expected outcome.
Surely even the likes of you are familiar with remedial
economics: "The Laws Of Supply & Demand."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
