Justin: There is only one way to reconcile free education for all children with freedom of (and from) religion: vouchers and school choice.

I wonder if this is the first time I’ve agreed with Justin.
Of course I disagree with the blinkered view of everything else he said.

Not if I have to pay for the secular school, then have the option of paying for a second education at a private school.

Justin, are you bitching about what your government spends your taxes on our do y’all get a separate bill for schooling? The former, yes?
I’d be more annoyed about many other things the gov’t wasted your money on - I won’t suggest a list but an unwinnable war would top it. 

Shelley: I get no “childless exemption.�?

That’s something which annoyed me when I was paying taxes, and the fact that churches are tax, including property tax, exempt. The gov’t gives millions in tax exemptions to churches.

I can not understand Justin and his constant reference to ‘secular’ schools.  Do you believe that all state schools should teach the bible as fact. Do you wish schools to hold two different Religeous Education classes- one which is a study of religeon around the world, as it is taught now as a sort of sociology, and one that teaches Judeo-Christianity as fact.

More importantly do you think that science should not be taught if it conflicts with bible teachings- evolution, age of earth, great flood etc. THIS IS NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING. The funding is really a side issue. If you had a chance to dictate national education policy (with unlimited powrs) what would you do? (please dont answer ‘thats not going to happen’- I want to know what you think is the ideal way to raise all you country’s children if the law could be enacted).

(PS you misinterpreted the question re: economy.  The question was ‘How would world business treat a strongly religeous US- would they see it as a good thing or bad thing, especially in light of developments in the other areas- not how do you see the current position.  Plus the rather side answer you gave ignored the fact that lots of world economists are worried about the abyss the neo-cons are leading the US into- massive national debt, a weak dollar, vunerability to oil problems and the threat of China)

PPS- thanks to Les for sorting my ‘guest post’ out- even bothering to find out my nick.

Les, we really need an option to silently subscribe. 

School choice will not force atheists to get a religious education. But the lack of school choice forces people who are religious to pay for a secular education (regardless of whether or not they use it). Clearly this dilemma is a non-issue for atheists, but I would hope that I can appeal to their fairmindedness to see that this situation is wrong.

I have no children and don’t want to pay for the school system at all. I’m my opinion, only people with children should pay a school tax.

In my city they take 1.5% of my income to pay for other peoples kids. Is that fair? From that angle I agree with you. Are you prepared to give me that? Probably not. You want my to pay for your kids to go to some christian school so they can be stupid, believe the world is only 4-5k year old and make wooden nails. At least if your kids go to a secular school, they may educate themselves and ask “what exo-biblical evidence is there for jesus?” Why do I believe what I do and the muslims, buddist, shinto, etc… believe differently?

Justice, I’ve been trying to get the folks at pMachine to add one for awhile now. I’ll go ask again.

Lucifer: “I have no children and don’t want to pay for the school system at all. I’m my opinion, only people with children should pay a school tax.”

While I understand the frustration over paying for something you don’t directly use, I wonder how smart a position that is to take.

1> Funding for our schools is crucial, and there is hardly enough as it is in too many areas. An under-educated country is bad news even for childless you.

2> If individuals paid taxes based on personal benefit/use, seems to me everybody would lose. Think of our roads, for instance. We would have to figure out who used what roads and how often, what type of vehicle they drove… We would have people paying outrageous sums of money in certain areas, while others in different areas paid not so much…

I’m just thinking if we went with your way of thinking, you would have a whole lot more to complain about than 1.5% of your income.

Cool, Les!

Lucifer: I have no children and don’t want to pay for the school system at all. I’m my opinion, only people with children should pay a school tax.

In my opinion, you’re full of ... ignorance and egotism.

If you pay any taxes at all, you probably pay federal income tax. Did you know that some percentage of that goes towards the maintenace of the Interstate system and you probably don’t travel some of these roads? Why shouldn’t you withhold a couple of bucks then?

And so on… What you’re asking for is full veto power over what use your tax dollars are put to. Brilliant idea, unless you consider that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Believe it or not, but it’s in your best interest to have well-educated kids. Kidless people that came before you helped fund the education of your employer and/or customers.

Lucky John, I beg to differ. The answer is not vouchers and school choice - more kids would get the kind of “education” that some parents want, as opposed to the education they all need. The way I see it, vouchers would just further weaken an already underfunded education system - precisely what the rightwingnuts want, of course. There’s a much simpler answer - give all kids a shot at a decent, standard, “secular” education. If that pisses off the religionists or if somebody wants an even better education, then they are and have always been free to supplement their kid’s education.

There’s a lot of stupid crap for which paying taxes makes my blood boil.  But then there’s schools.  Our schools aren’t perfect, Dog knows, but I am proud to contribute to the effort of an educated nation. Even (or perhaps especially) the kids of other people who are too jammed up in some occluded vision to want their kids to have a reality-based education.

Saying; “I gots no kids so I doesn’t want to pay for other peoples’s kids school-ifyin’” cuts no ice with me at all. You think bad roads are dangerous?  Contaminated water?  Nothing’s more dangerous than ignorance.

Elwed: I beg to differ.

I understand and even agree with some of the points you raise but after seeing the programme on America’s schools (at: http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA) compared to Belgium’s I thought a voucher system would be better as parents would want their kids going to the best performing schools. I could be wrong.

Interesting video, but here are three reasons why I would never trust John Stossel and think that he should burn in hell if it exists.

#1 He thinks people speaking out about gloabl warming are alarmists

#2 In his book he uses false assertions and supposedly facts to debunk “facts” on issues currently debated, such as minimum wage and global warming

#3 He is an asshole that purposely lets his $200,000 home be destroyed to show inefficiency within the US gov, at the taxpayer expense

Austria, like the UK, has no separation of Church and State, although there is no state church here.  My two kids grew up taking religion classes until the fourth grade of gymnasium (eighth grade American), and there was a crucifix hanging in every classroom.  The result?  They’re both confirmed atheists.

Now, of course there were other influences at work here too- I’m an atheist, European culture is increasingly atheistic, and both kids are well grounded in reality.  Also, from what I gathered, the religion classes were anything but dogmatic- as Hussar said about classes in the UK, they were more about being nice.  But it certainly is possible to have religious instruction in public schools without creating a nation of mullahs.

That said, this is a sticky and complex issue.  I could imagine having religion taught in American public schools, as an elective, paid for by the parents who want it for their kids.  Of course, there might be problems between kids who attend religion and those who don’t, although my kids said it was no big deal in their school.

It might be, however, that keeping religious instruction at home and in church is a better solution.  But therein lies the rub. “Secular” means “reality-based” to me, “religious” means “fantasy-based”.  For me as an atheist, “secular education” and “religious education” are not equatable- they are non-overlapping magisteria, in Stephen Gould’s phrase.  Not only that, but properly speaking, there’s only one kind of “secular” education, but myriad kinds of “religious” education.

Religious folk, however, usually recognize a certain amount of overlap, how much depending upon the particular flavor of their fantasy.  For instance, most believers also subscribe to gravity and algebra.  Many do not subscribe to evolution or an old Earth.  If believers want their kids to be taught that snakes talk, they should do this on their own time at their own expense.

But in any case, everyone should pay for “secular” education.  Gravity and geometry affect atheist and believer alike, and we keep our kids ignorant at our peril.

Zilch: Now, of course there were other influences at work here too- I’m an atheist, European culture is increasingly atheistic, and both kids are well grounded in reality.

Yes. Interesting. I think the main keys there were Your influence, and the ‘European culture is increasingly atheistic’, as I’m lead to believe that Kultcha (peer pressure) has a big bit to do with the outcome.
I’ve been bombarded with American Kultcha since we got TV in the late 50s but I was never tempted to be sucked in although I have always been interested in Why, What and How people get sucked into religion.
I just said: I was never tempted to be sucked in ... that’s not completely true - a coupla three times I wanted to be but ... I could never make that gigantic LEAP of faith.
I still remember a show (maybe the Oscars) when I heard someone say for the first time: I thank god for my win ... and then mentioned parents, et al. (Since then they ‘all’ seem to do it)
At the time I thought: What a fuckwit.
Even now, Australians rarely wear their religion on their sleeves.
I’m glad to assume that we are a much more secular society, although there are minor signs the xians are gaining a little power.
BUT, our Prime minister (he has said he’s a xian and attends church regularly - dunno which one but it is definitely PROTEST-ant) would never get on the world stage and make any reference to his doing anything in the name of dog. I don’t like the little prick but he’s a fuckin’ master politician.
Kultcha - Dad (89) just called to ask if he was weird in not accompanying his wife and some friends to see The Merchant of Venice. Ha-ha. He speaks the English language better than most but, being a Dutchman and a literalist, has no appreciation of the nuances.
He feels better now.
Obviously, my being his first-born, he felt better after talking to me.
All he remembered about the Merchant of Venice is Shylock and Shakespeare’s, seeming anti-Semitism.
I reminded him of the world’s view of the Jews in the 17th Century … not much has changed.
It’s funny about Shylock’s demanding ‘his pound of flesh’ – these days, money lenders (banks), taking ya fucking house, is no big deal.

But the lack of school choice forces people who are religious to pay for a secular education

Here’s the whole problem in a nutshell (pardon the pun). Some people seem to believe that education is either secular or religious.

In fact, religious education is merely an add-on—it is an ‘extra’ (something beyond a basic education that is required and taught in ‘secular’ schools).

When you pay for secular school, you’re simply paying for a basic education. If you want to add religion to your child’s curriculum, send you children to Sunday School—that’s the purpose for which it was intended, and as far as I can tell, most churches do not charge a fee for this service so you won’t be out an extra penny.

That is not to say that it is free—it isn’t. And like many others here, I resent the fact that I must pay extra taxes to compensate for the billions in taxes that are not paid by religious organizations.

Justin writes…

School choice will not force atheists to get a religious education. But the lack of school choice forces people who are religious to pay for a secular education (regardless of whether or not they use it). Clearly this dilemma is a non-issue for atheists, but I would hope that I can appeal to their fairmindedness to see that this situation is wrong.

I’m not happy with the $323 million taxpayer dollars in the 2007 budget allocated to Bush’s Faith Based Initiative programs (which is up by 36 percent over 2006’s $236 million). Personally, I think I can make better choices on which charities my money should go to than the government can and I’m not fond of my taxes being used to allow religious organizations to go on recruitment drives under the guise of helping the needy.

Problem is, I have no control over my tax dollars going to these programs as Bush decided to bypass Congress altogether and just declare that he was going to put this program in place whether anybody wanted it or not. If I want to contribute to any secular charities I have to do so in addition to my taxpayer dollars going towards Bush’s program with which I vehemently disagree. This situation is, I’m sure you’ll agree, wrong and should be corrected by providing us with Charity Vouchers that we can then direct towards charities that we feel will make the best use of our hard earned cash.

Can I count on your support for this voucher program? The situations are pretty much the same and you’re such a fair minded person, Justin.

I’m arriving a little late to the party, and there are lots of great comments here, so I’ll just add this to the list of responses to Justin’s comments:

Justin: (2) Even if it is a bad thing, granting the government the power to force our behavior to conform to certain standards is a dangerous thing

The government forced us to conform to certain standards that most people nowadays would agree was the RIGHT thing . . . things like civil rights, desegregation, anti-discrimination laws to name just a few.  The list goes on. 

Sometimes, only the power of government can exact change on dangerous behavior. Vigilant citizens help keep the government in check.

The problems usually arise when government unfairly takes or assumes power. Using Les’ example of faith-based initiatives, one only needs to see how Bush’s brother Jeb consistently blocks any attempts to have this dangerous and completely unfair system of monetary rewards challenged in the Florida courts. 

As for the “I don’t have kids, why should I pay school taxes?” argument, what elwed and DOF said.

Webs: “As long as there are multiple schools in your district you actually have a choice of where to send your child.”

Actually, it just ain’t so simple.

When this school year starts, I will have three kids going to three different schools (because of their grade levels), and not one will go to the school for which they are zoned. Every year it is battle, every year we face the possibility they will not “get into” the school they went to the year before. The school only has to say they are full with students in their zone. That has happened to us. (Just one example of why that statement oversimplifies the situation.)

I don’t have them out-of-zone because I like not having the option to put them on the bus, or because I like spending all my money on fuel and auto maintenance. I have them out-of-zone because the schools in this district simply suck. There is not a lot of money in this area, and it shows in the schools. The schools they are attending are in higher class areas, and it shows in the opportunities those schools offer, as well as in the condition of their buildings and supplies.

The answer is not asking only parents to shoulder the cost, nor is the answer in opening more problems schools on vouchers. Both those ideas will only cut funding for public schools, and as others already so eloquently put it: it is just stupid to support an (even more) under-educated country.

The answer is in leveling out the playing field, but it is so much easier said than done. Parents in high class areas DO NOT want funds for their schools going toward inner city schools, and so on. But again, it is not so self-preserving under the surface. With an under-educated country, we all lose.

Level the playing field to strengthen the basic education and to strengthen the schools offering that basic education. To my mind, it shouldn’t be this difficult.

I live in one of the lower-priced areas of Los Angeles and pay over $3000/yr. in property taxes, part of which go toward the schools in the LA Unified School District.  My daughter, however, attends school in the next town over, a higher-priced area that is not part of the City of Los Angeles and has its own school district, power company, police and fire departments. I have chosen to send her there, and to do the annual jumping through hoops to get an interdistrict transfer because the school system is superior both academically and in terms of being less crowded and/or dangerous.  While I’m not personally using the schools some of my tax dollars are helping pay for, I’m fine with knowing that those dollars are going to further the education of the kids in my neighborhood, as those kids may one day be my employees, or will be working in places where I shop, etc.

Now… there are more than 20 churches within a two-mile radius of my house, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that each of them is in a building and on a lot that is much larger than my little 1954 ranch house, but for the sake of argument, let’s say each of them would be assessed at the same $3000 annual rate of property tax that I am.  That’s over $600,000 in taxes that are NOT being paid toward schools (or anything else) due to the tax-exempt status of the churches.

Additionally, many of those churches run private schools. Although the parents that choose to send their kids there are paying tuition, the fact remains that I am paying taxes that subsidize THOSE kids’ private education, because the churches don’t have to pay their fair share of property taxes.

I’m quite sure that the scenario above is not unique to me or my area. So religious people bitching about having to pay for public/secular schools is simply fucking ridiculous.  I’m sure that there are more people who aren’t using the churches or private schools in their cities whose taxes are higher to make up for the taxes that aren’t levied on the properties of religious groups they don’t belong to, than there are religious folks subsidizing the public schools that are struggling mightily to properly educate their neighbors’ kids, which benefits everyone regardless of their religious associations.

I fail to see how vouchers would address, or even play into, this issue.  Even with vouchers, the people who pay property taxes are still getting fucked because they’re having to pay more in taxes to make up for the taxes that churches and religious schools are NOT paying.  Doesn’t sound religiously neutral or fair to me!

Ugh… I decided to widen the search to churches within FIVE miles of my house, and there are ONE HUNDRED SIXTY-THREE!  At the same (lowball) $3000, that’s almost a half-million tax dollars PER YEAR that are NOT being collected for various public services, most of which I’m SURE are being utilized on a regular basis by both church administrators and congregants.

I can only imagine how much better things would be in this area if religious groups were paying their fair share.

I can only imagine how much better things would be in this area if religious groups were paying their fair share.

Things might be materially better in the short run, OB, but that half-million bucks is buying souls for the Lord! How could you face all those kids you sent to Hell, if the tax exemption for churches were repealed?

Zilch, who cares about the actual kids. Think about all the sperm going to waste.

Not so fast OB.  Uour math fails to account for some factors.  When you figure up the cost of the services provided to your metro area by Catholic Charities alone, come back and tell us your math was wrong, because it is.

The services provided by all churches in helping to care for the downtrodden far outweighs any alleged loss of property taxes.  So, the religious in your community, they are boon to you.  They feed your poor, they pay their taxes for you to send your kids to a public school, and yet underutilize those same services.  Knock the religious, but don’t feed us a line about how overtaxed you are in comparison.

Consigliere, I’ve seen the consequences of some of the Catholic Church’s “kindness” upfront and personal. Yep. They can be kind. And horrible .. . . causing damage to others beyond measure.

Just because the public isn’t outta pocket for some of this stuff doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost to it.

I’ve seen how they treat those who work for the church.

I’ve seen how they treat those abused by the church.

I’ve seen how they treat some of those who minister to the church.

And at least here, I don’t see evidence that they contribute back anywhere near the value they receive from tax benefits.

You’d have to go a long way to convince me of how much value they provide to the community.

Consi, I will grant that the Catholic church tries to address social needs.  (Having no knowledge of the quality of Catholic services as Shelly mentions, I can’t address their cost/benefit) But you shouldn’t have too rosy of a view of Protestant services - when they exist at all.  The bulk of Protestant funding goes right into building programs and staff salaries whose main purpose is to produce the little entertainment sessions they call “church”.

That would be an interesting study, though.  If it could be conducted without partisan sunshine.

Consigliere:  You bring up an interesting point, but you are applying what you have witnessed with a small group of churches to a whole.  You assume that every church in OB’s area have the same impact as the specific church you are reffering to.  I know that there are some churches in my area that do good things for the community.  But I also know that some don’t.

Consi, just one question. How much money does the Catholic Chuch have?

I’m not even convinced that Catholic charities are loss leaders. And what DOF said. Why don’t we have a look at the balance sheet of churches far and wide and then debate if the loss of tax revenue is fully offset by whatever it is that these churches do for the general public.