Religious education, Public Education

[Mordecai]

CFR that "Choosing where to send your kids to school is as much a right as reproduction, according to the Supreme Court."

While I couldn't find the exact quote I was looking for, this will do:

...it is clear that among the decisions that an individual may make without unjustified government interference are personal decisions relating to marriage . . . family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 US 158 (1944); and child rearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510 (1925); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923).’

http://www.hslda.org/docs/nche/000000/00000075.asp

The original quote I was looking for specifically says that marriage is as much a right as choosing your child's school, but I couldn't find it again. I thought it was Skinner v. Oklahoma, but I guess not? I'll probably find it again some other time.

A US Citizen is entitled to a free and public education not a private education.

That's not in the Constitution, I promise.

Though vouchers that pay for private religious education are Constitutional, the Constitutionality of vouchers is a separate issue than your personal lamentations of entitlement to a private education.

I never mentioned religious education. I suggested people should have a right to send their school that may teach that neo-Darwinism is a weak theory and even to a school that suggests ID is a good theory. That's not religion, by any stretch of the imagination.

I want a house, I have been working since I was 13 years old (not withstanding child labor laws), I can't afford a house, will you buy me one.

False analogy. The gov't doesn't buy anyone a house. Of course, if they did, would you adamantly demand that anyone that lived in that house not be allowed to put pictures of Jesus on the wall? Or perhaps you'd ban pictures of Stephen Meyer or Michael Behe?

"The funding of schools shall be from the labor, feeding and care of children by only responsible parents."

What does it matter why the legislatures have voted for free education? The fact is, they did. The obvious reason being that education is of prime importance, so even those poor victimized singles (boo hoo) have to help pay for it.

Yet, in Utah Schools are funding by income tax, in Texas schools are funded by property tax - is it fair that I have to pay for schools when I do not live the state charging me for the use of schools?

I think all of your money is going to the military, roads and to pay liberal lawyers and other organizations that promote your liberal agenda, like NPR and PBS.

...all this angst against socialism yet you have spent many post arguing in favor of a socialist system to send your children to a non-public school...

Socialists put the state above the individual, including individual freedoms. No one is more against individual school choice than a socialist. That would be more like you than me. My argument is, if we're going to have the gov't overpay for really bad socialized/secularist schools, using the tax money of people who are against socialized, that's an injustice on a few different levels. I would like to fix that and stop the gov't from discriminating against people who don't like socialism and who prefer a more theologically friendly school.

Also, would you mind cutting out the juvenile lingo i.e. "bull" and "crap"...

No, I'm juvenile. Makes no logical sense to stop using words that signify my juvenility.

...Life isn't fair and never was meant to be fair...

Wow. That's deep. Who are you, Socrates? Maybe that'll be my response to your complaints that you don't want your money going to religious education: "Well, Frank, life isn't fair." Good argument.

You have yet to explain to how it is fair that someone else should pay the bill for your choices.

This a Democracy and yet, despite the majority not wanting the crappy school system we have now, that's what we get. No one wants teachers getting paid for nothing, but that is currently happening. But in a Democracy, what the people want should occur. See, school CHOICE is more about Democracy. Socialized homogenation of our childrens' education is totalitarian in nature and is contrary to the principles this country was founded upon.

Schools are funded by cold hard cash, not metaphors and emotionalism.

The state only exists due to the existence of people and common values. There is no point to giving the state any money at all without that. In that sense, parents and family pretty much own the state, being above it.

You always have choice.

Great. Then my choice is to implement the voucher system, so the gov't isn't using tax dollars to fund a failing school system, sending money to teachers who are utterly useless and promoting dogma like neo-Darwinism as an explanation for everything, when it's already been disproved.

[frankenstein]

That's not in the Constitution, I promise.

Free and public education, yep not in the Constitution, but what I was Free appropriate public education, not in the Constitution but is the law of the land. You are not entitled to have the government you rail against so much pay for your personal endulgce. You are free to choose to send you child to public or private school, depending on your State you are not free to cherry the public school, as many are neighborhood based attendance.

I never mentioned religious education. I suggested people should have a right to send their school that may teach that neo-Darwinism is a weak theory and even to a school that suggests ID is a good theory. That's not religion, by any stretch of the imagination.

I think all of your money is going to the military, roads and to pay liberal lawyers and other organizations that promote your liberal agenda, like NPR and PBS.

again, what does you perjorative use of political rhetoric contribute to dialogue and discussion....wait the answer is found in your own words "I'm juvenile. Makes no logical sense to stop using words that signify my juvenility."; I have known you are juvenile for a long long time, I am so glad you can admit to your juvenile behaviour.

Can you explain with juvenile pejorative rhetoric why, when school funding is paid for by state income tax, that a family that pays no state income tax can claim "my money" when it comes to school funds? I question whether you can do so without being juvenile, but might hopes are not that high.

[Mordecai]

Free and public education, yep not in the Constitution, but what I was Free appropriate public education, not in the Constitution but is the law of the land.

So your argument is that because it's currently the law, we should keep it that way? Why? It's not working.

You are not entitled to have the government you rail against so much pay for your personal endulgce.

Personal indulgence, meaning "liberty?" They're not paying for liberty. They're paying for schools. Vouchers don't cost more.

I am so glad you can admit to your juvenile behaviour.

Glad you're glad. What can I say? I'm an honest guy.

Can you explain with juvenile pejorative rhetoric why, when school funding is paid for by state income tax, that a family that pays no state income tax can claim "my money" when it comes to school funds?

Are you rich? If not, you're not paying for jack anyway. You have nothing to complain about. It's the rich that are footing most of the bill in Washington.

I question whether you can do so without being juvenile

What's there to question? I already told you I prefer to use words like crap. I enjoy it.

[thesometimesaint]

Mordecai:

That is a ridiculous assertion. I'm comparing dollars paid in taxes to dollars received in benefits. California gets back in benefits less than it pays in and Utah gets back more than they pay in on a dollar for dollars basis.

[frankenstein]

So your argument is that because it's currently the law, we should keep it that way? Why? It's not working.

No my argument is that you already have choice, you have even posted SCOTUS statement on the matter, You have choice, and your current choice seems to be not work hard enough to pay your own way.

Your choice is to complain about how it is unfair that attorneys have more money - isn't that the rally call of the a socialist; i.e. it is not fair someone has more money so lets take that money.

My argument also is that you have not put forth a sufficient statement as to why any particular State should enact socialism via vouchers - and it is socialism by your own words most people are not paying taxes that funds schools, thus we are stealing from the hardworking and giving it to freeloaders.

Lastly, claiming "school choice" is entirely dishonest, you already have 3 choices.

You have the choice, the parents can choose private, home, or public education - 3 choices for education. I will also say that you are not concerned with the poor, the poor, are just a easy poster child for the "pay for my indulgence" use.

Are you rich? If not, you're not paying for jack anyway. You have nothing to complain about. It's the rich that are footing most of the bill in Washington.

I am not rich, I am not even median income, but I can tell you for a fact that I pay the school funding tax for two states. So, I have a rightfully claim for to "my money".

[Pahoran]

Suppose there is to be a lecture and a test on the topic of racism that implicitly condemns the idea that Jews and Blacks are evil or inferior races. That is, the lesson plan will take it for granted that Blacks and Jews are equal citizens and fully human etc.

Now suppose some parents who happen to be militantly racist demand that their child need not hear the lecture, need not take the test nor in anyway learn the material.

No suppose this racist attitude becomes quite popular and represents a real problem or proportions exceeding what it already is in some quarters.

Suppose the occult looking symbols of algebra and geometry are deemed to be demonic by some parents? (This is far from impossible, trust me.)

The problem is this; the rights of parents and the best interests of the children are both real values and they are sometimes in conflict.

By the way, the only point of my post was that public education is sometimes effective and has as many virtues as it does problems. 99% of the content is basic reading writting and arithmentic and couldn't possibly be a liberal conspiracy.

It has the effect of moderating the weird ideas that some parent teach their kids (racism, anti-government extremism, social backwardness etc.)

I am glad I went to the public school I attended for many reasons, including cultural and social reasons.

To say this much is not the same thing as saying that parents should have no rights or that children are property of the state*. The fact that people bring this accusation into the discussion just shows how unwilling to they are to be reasonable.

*Children aren't the property of parents either--by the way.

I love the way you slip these little back-handed comments into posts even while you loftily pretend to ignore me.

The irony is that ultimately my position is closer to yours than it is to Lehi's. I, too, had a public (taxpayer-funded) education. I, too, think it was a good thing, and that I did rather well out of it. I happen to be in favour of taxpayer-funded, non-user-pays education, because I think education is a public good, and because I think user-pays education would tend to solidify income inequality (which I have no problem with, since it is merit-based) into hereditary social classes over time.

Where you force me into Lehi's camp, Tarski, is when you insist that government bureaucrats have an affirmative duty to override the wishes of parents in deciding not only what subjects children should be taught, but also what attitudes they should be inculcated with.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: your stated qualifications tell me that you'd be able to teach my sons how to factor quadratic equations. However, your attitudes towards religious belief, and the arrogance by which you question the "sanity" of those who see these questions differently, make you a bad risk. Not only that, but they fully justify my characterising your view as an extremist one.

You are right that children are not the property of their parents. However, there's something fundamental you are missing: parents love their children; government bureaucrats do not. Except for their own children of course, and then they love them because they are parents, not because they are bureaucrats. Because parents love their children, it means that their interest in the wellbeing of those children is real, immediate and personal, and not merely one of a list of KPI's of their 9-to-5 job.

And that is what qualifies parents, or almost all of them, to make the decisions for their children that you would like to take away.

Given your attitude towards religious belief and believers, I am convinced that you think the world would be a better place if the next generation were to grow up as thoroughly indoctrinated in (heh heh) "scientific atheism" as the most thoroughly indoctrinated generation of New Soviet Men (and women.) By contrast, I think the power of taxpayer-funded educators ought to be carefully circumscribed, and if parents don't want their children to be politically "re-educated" -- or even, beyond the basics, to learn maths and science -- then that ought to be the parents' right. Because the only alternative -- at least, the only alterntive I've seen anyone offer -- is that the all-powerful state treats children as if they were its property.

The reality is that every family, however humble, has existed far longer than any nation-state, however powerful. The family of those unwashed, wild-eyed, placard-waving religious fanatics you so despise has been around as long as humanity has. Anything as ephemeral as a government really ought to tread very cautiously when it interferes with the one eternal institution even atheists have to admit does exist.

After all, there's always continuing education for adults.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Nathair/|\]

New Element Discovered

The fire at Los Alamos has had one significant consequence. A secret scientific document was discovered in a bunker whose security systems were mostly destroyed by the fire. This document was leaked to the public last weekend.

Actually it reveals nothing that we didn't already suspect. But it does show that besides arsenic, lead, mercury, radon, strontium and plutonium, one more extremely deadly and pervasive element is known to exist.

This startling new discovery has been tentatively named Governmentium (Gv) but kept top secret for 50 years. The new element has no protons or electrons, thus having an atomic number of 0. It does, however, have 1 neutron, 125 deputy neutrons, 75 supervisory neutrons, and 111 team leader neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by a force called morons, that are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons. Since it has no electrons, Governmentium is inert. However, it can be detected as it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Governmentium causes one reaction to take over four days to complete when it would normally take less than a second. Governmentium has a normal half-life of approximately three years. It does not decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the deputy neutrons, supervisory neutrons, and team leader neutrons exchange places. In fact, Governmentium mass will actually increase over time, since, with each reorganization, some of the morons inevitably become neutrons, forming new isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to speculate that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a certain quantity in concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as the "Critical Morass."

[Mordecai]

Mordecai:

That is a ridiculous assertion. I'm comparing dollars paid in taxes to dollars received in benefits. California gets back in benefits less than it pays in and Utah gets back more than they pay in on a dollar for dollars basis.

The question is, why? I already explained several reasons for that, all of which are fixable with just a little more responsibility. I guarantee, Utah residents will not mind the gov't making massive cuts. It's not like Utah has been begging for more money.

[Mordecai]

No my argument is that you already have choice, you have even posted SCOTUS statement on the matter, You have choice, and your current choice seems to be not work hard enough to pay your own way.

Pay MY own way? You're not rich, which means the % of taxes you pay is nothing. YOU aren't paying your own way either.

Your choice is to complain about how it is unfair that attorneys have more money - isn't that the rally call of the a socialist; i.e. it is not fair someone has more money so lets take that money.

No, that's nothing like socialism. A socialist says, "Let's not let anyone own anything, unless you're the gov't. Then you own everything." All I said was that lawyers get paid too much. I never said the gov't should take their money away. See the difference? Because it's massive.

My argument also is that you have not put forth a sufficient statement as to why any particular State should enact socialism via vouchers...

So vouchers represent socialism? Vouchers are for people to go to PRIVATE schools, which is the opposite of socialism. Is this a joke? Wow. The CURRENT system is socialized in every way. There is no difference from our school system and those of the former soviet union. Lazy, bad teachers. Homogenized curriculum. Too expensive.

The voucher system represents the gov't giving people back the control they should have in a free society. It promotes competition. It is more efficient use of money. All of these are the opposite of socialism. Again, was that a joke? Was that supposed to be a real response?

...thus we are stealing from the hardworking and giving it to freeloaders...

Not paying taxes or not paying a lot of taxes doesn't mean you're not contributing or working hard. It may be appropriate to point out that, "The love of money is the root of all evil." If you think people's hard work raising children and managing to hold down a dirty blue-collar job is worthless compared to lawyer (D) money, you've got serious moral problems.

Lastly, claiming "school choice" is entirely dishonest, you already have 3 choices.

It's not a choice if you're poor or have a lot of kids. There is no choice, because you can't afford it, much of the time, even if you're working hard.

You have the choice, the parents can choose private, home, or public education - 3 choices for education.

Why are you demanding that people who don't use the public schools continue to pay the same taxes? That is just statism.

I will also say that you are not concerned with the poor, the poor, are just a easy poster child for the "pay for my indulgence" use.

Inevitable. Debate with a liberal and eventually, you'll get the old I-know-your-mind tantrum: "I know your mind! You will take the ring to Sauron!"

Well, not the Sauron part, but the knowing my mind and the "you're evil" part. Of course I care about the poor. I grew up poor, in fact. Why wouldn't I care about the poor? As I said, I could easily home school my kids (if I had them) or just move to Pleasanton. That would be much more difficult for a lot of poor people in this country. The current socialized educational system, ironically, is strongly favoring the rich. Yeah, that's fair. But you apparently love it? I don't know how you could get worse. All the evil of socialism and capitalism combined and only one good. Voucher system has all of the good combined.

I am not rich, I am not even median income, but I can tell you for a fact that I pay the school funding tax for two states. So, I have a rightfully claim for to "my money".

You're a beggar just like the rest of us non-rich folks (if you want to get religious/philosophical, rich folks are also beggars). You and I pay practically nothing, percentage-wise. Beggars have no right to point fingers at other people in the way you are. "Your money" doesn't even come close to funding the justice system in your area for the work they do to keep you safe. You don't have room to wine that the gov't chooses to use OTHER PEOPLE'S money to pay for education, which is, in today's world economy, a necessity. The school-choice aspect of it that I advocate doesn't cost more. I would say that giving people a choice for what school to have their kids attend, when they're paying taxes and/or at least working hard, is a moral imperative.

You say they have a choice, but I don't see a lot of private schools around that people can afford. In many areas, the charter schools aren't even there, so they'd have to move to get their kids going to one. They don't actually have a choice. Even middle-class families can't afford private schools, when they have two or three kids. It's too expensive. But a superior private school can cost less for the gov't to fund than a public school. Even the ones that are more expensive, a voucher could be used to cover part of the cost with families covering the rest. It's a vastly superior system to the broken one we have now.

[frankenstein]

You're not rich, which means the % of taxes you pay is nothing. YOU aren't paying your own way either. ... You're a beggar just like the rest of us non-rich folks

How about you attempt to FOCUS for just one post, well start off easy for you.

In Texas, Schools are funding by Property tax, in Arizona there is $0.03 tax on every purchase, that $0.03 is for School funding, in Utah School funding comes from income Tax. I pay property tax in Texas, which means I fund the school system in Texas. I make purchases in Arizona which means I fund the school system.

This is a FOCUSED discussion, see if you can follow along, we are discussion, school funding, not the justice system or anything else related to Gov. We have been discussing SCHOOL FUNDING. A person who does not contribute to the school funding coffer lacks any amount of honesty to say "my money" when it comes to school vouchers, why, because that person did not contribute to the school funding coffer.

As for Utah it has been shown that a family of four with an average income will not pay income tax. 85% of school funding in Utah comes from income tax, so someone who pays no income tax MIGHT only have a claim to 15% of the money used per pupil. Now is that fair? Is it fair that a person who only contributes 15% at best is entitled to claim 100%?

A socialist says, "Let's not let anyone own anything, unless you're the gov't. Then you own everything." All I said was that lawyers get paid too much. I never said the gov't should take their money away.

A socialist say "See the those people with more money, that is not fair, lets have them pay for you to go to private school" that is exactly what you advocate. You have not advocated restructuring of the Tax system to make it fair, you have already stated that most people are not paying taxes, and that lawyers have the money which you stated is not fair. You advocate socialism plain and simple.

If you think people's hard work raising children and managing to hold down a dirty blue-collar job is worthless compared to lawyer (D) money, you've got serious moral problems.

And weren't the one who said something about "reading minds"; you should read Matthew 23 on a daily basis until you understand what Jesus is saying.

It's not a choice if you're poor or have a lot of kids. There is no choice, because you can't afford it, much of the time, even if you're working hard.

The choice started when the person decided to have lots of kids that the person could not provide the best for. Now you are just asking for a bailout i.e. poor economic choice was made and someone else should have to pay for it.

Why are you demanding that people who don't use the public schools continue to pay the same taxes?

When have I demanded that? From my first response directly to you about the lie that is school choice, I have said First refund the childless, and refund those no longer have children at home. I do not advocate that those who do not use should still have to pay.

Inevitable. Debate with a liberal and eventually, you'll get the old I-know-your-mind tantrum: "I know your mind! You will take the ring to Sauron!"

First, you do realize that is a copyright image, and board guidelines prohibited posting copyright material.

Second, you are and do exactly what you rail against, you are the who goes into the "I-know-your-mind tantrum", because any one who does not agree with you, you childishly and pejoratively label a liberal, a socialist, or a communist; once again you should read Matthew 23 before you start casting stones again.

[Mordecai]

@frankenstein Frankly, I don't think you know what the discussion is about. You can't arbitrarily tell me what it is about, when you don't know what it's about. You miss a lot of my important points. While I meander and screw around, largely because you seem pretty oblivious to my major points, I know exactly what we're talking about. I also don't think your responses are worth my time, unless I get to meander and screw around.

You seem pretty confident that you're really smart. However, your undying support for the most broken school system in the world among developed nations tells a different story.

Also, that is not a copyrighted image. Where you got that idea, I don't know. But it's not. I got the pic from a board moderator on Golden State of Mind, where they have strict guidelines about that stuff. If a board moderator there can use it, I can use it.

...you childishly and pejoratively label a liberal, a socialist, or a communist...

There is ample evidence that you're a liberal. That you support socialized education is apparent. See, the difference between your I-know-your-mind rants and my claim that you are a liberal, is that I don't claim to know your mind. I just know what you write. Liberalism is measured by what you support, and I know what you support. Caring about the poor can also be measured by what I support. But when I support something that helps the poor, you immediately accuse me of having selfish motives. See the difference? ::Sigh:: Somehow, I doubt you grasp it, sadly.

Ironically, the fact that you can "read minds" is evidence that you are a liberal, to me. I learned by watching Fox News, where they bring on self-admitted liberals and self-proclaimed conservatives that there is a very strong correlation. If you ask intellectual conservatives about other people's motives, they typically say, "I don't know." If you ask pretty much any liberal what conservative people's motives are, they go on and on. Creeps me out.

[frankenstein]

I do not support someone taking that is not theirs - see the Utah example - and spending it how they please? Why does that make me a liberal? You childishly label those who do not agree with you liberal.

Another irrational ranting about liberals had to do with spending money on entertainment. I have a picture of President Monson sitting 8 chairs done from me at a Rodeo, since President Monson was out seeking entertainment that must mean he is a liberal, and we all know how much disdain you have for liberals.

Here are my stated claims:

1. "School choice" is a lie, and is banner used dishonestly. Parents have 3 choices, home, private, public.

2. Those who claim that a voucher is their money , should first make sure to check what amount of money they put into the School funding tax coffer. I do not utilize the public school, yet I put money into the school funding coffer in two states.

3. The childless and those who do not utilize the public school system, should first be reimbursed for the money they put into the school funding coffer, because by your reasoning, it is only fair that people get their money back.

4. After those from #3 are paid first, then, a voucher seeker is only entitled the amount of money they put in - that is only fair.

5. Those claiming school choice are using the poor as a pawn, and the education of the poor is the least of the concern by right leaning school choice advocates.

Those are my claims, no where did I state a position on the public school system, because I disagree with on school vouchers, you automatically assume my position. And because I disagree with you, you label me a liberal.

You use this label so that you do not have to have dialogue, you start using "liberal" then stomp and whine like Rumpelstiltskin. And since I have not stated a position on the public school system you attempt to read my mind as to my position, so again, please read Matthew 23 before you make claims of mind reading or start casting stones.

and I have not missed your points, a parent raising a child - feeding, shelter etc. - those acts do not pay for a school, do not pay a salary, do not keep a building clean, do not provide bus services. Schools are funded by cash not metaphorical emotionalism.

[LeSellers]

I do not support someone taking that is not theirs - see the Utah example - and spending it how they please?

But you do. That's what taxation in support of schools is: taking something from one person (by force or threat of force) and giving it to another person to whom it does not legitimately belong. The fact that men in fancy hats with shiny badges take it does not transform the theft into charity or anything else.

When a mob takes something from its rightful owner for uses it deems more appropriate, it is theft, irrespective of whether the mob appointed itself to do it, or acts merely on whim. The theft is still theft even if the mob asks the true owner to "vote" on the matter.

Education is far too important to entrust to the hands of the state. A very wise man (not me in this case) said,"I don't want my children fed by the state, I do not want them clothed by the state. But I would prefer either of those to having them educated by the state." Hal Jindrich has since died, but his words are powerful and evoke the spirit of champions and lovers of liberty from time immemorial.

Lehi

[Walden]

Ironically, the fact that you can "read minds" is evidence that you are a liberal, to me. I learned by watching Fox News, where they bring on self-admitted liberals and self-proclaimed conservatives that there is a very strong correlation. If you ask intellectual conservatives about other people's motives, they typically say, "I don't know." If you ask pretty much any liberal what conservative people's motives are, they go on and on. Creeps me out.

Actually, what creeps me out is someone stating that they actually "learned by watching Fox News".......

[thesometimesaint]

Walden:

The ultimate oxymoron Fox News.

[Jeff K.]

Fox News, MSNBS, others, they all tend to be different sides of the same coin. Dogmatically what one states about Fox goes just as well with others. I tend towards the BBC myself, and CNN, though most of my reading goes to "The Economist". So when one chimes in "Fox News" that merely paints them with the same laser that people who point out MSNBC and others do. It doesn't add to their credibility, only their ability to go point at stations they don't like.

The ultimate oxymoron "television news". Consider that no more than 10 - 30 seconds of a single news issues is provided for your understanding, and after that you consider yourself "well informed". Next time you watch the news, any news, get our your stopwatch. You'd be amazed.

[Walden]

Fox News, MSNBS, others, they all tend to be different sides of the same coin. Dogmatically what one states about Fox goes just as well with others. I tend towards the BBC myself, and CNN, though most of my reading goes to "The Economist". So when one chimes in "Fox News" that merely paints them with the same laser that people who point out MSNBC and others do. It doesn't add to their credibility, only their ability to go point at stations they don't like.

The ultimate oxymoron "television news". Consider that no more than 10 - 30 seconds of a single news issues is provided for your understanding, and after that you consider yourself "well informed". Next time you watch the news, any news, get our your stopwatch. You'd be amazed.

I second "The Economist"....a first-rate magazine that truly gives balanaced reporting on all of the current world issues.

And I also agree that anyone who gets all their news from MSBNC is in the same boat as those who get all their news from Fox News....you're only getting half the news.

[Tarski]

But you do. That's what taxation in support of schools is: taking something from one person (by force or threat of force) and giving it to another person to whom it does not legitimately belong. The fact that men in fancy hats with shiny badges take it does not transform the theft into charity or anything else.

What nonsense.

All governments tax. We have a government by the people and taxing is something we (or our duly elected representatives) decided to do.

What is done with tax dollars is we the people acting together. Once we decide what to do as a democratic society we obviously can't let just some disgruntled people opt out.

You will always have to pay taxes. It is fair that you do so. We will always have government programs to benefit the community and these will be put in place by the men and women we elect to represent us.

Those whom you say have no authority are exactly the ones that do have authority if anyone anywhere has any authority.

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

[Mordecai]

All governments tax. We have a government by the people and taxing is something we (or our duly elected representatives) decided to do.

What is done with tax dollars is we the people acting together. Once we decide what to do as a democratic society we obviously can't let just some disgruntled people opt out.

While I agree with this in principle (and this is something Frankenstein doesn't seem to understand), if a gov't is no longer representing the people, they are essentially stealing. They spend money on huge amounts of garbage for special interests. In that sense, they are taking money that doesn't belong to them, e.g. spending millions to follow insane and self-defeating rules set by the teacher's union.

[Jeff K.]

Well gee, aren't lobbyists the people?!?!?

[frankenstein]

While I agree with this in principle (and this is something Frankenstein doesn't seem to understand)

you have not brought this up. I pay taxes, I have not anything about not paying, you want people who do not pay into the school funding tax to get free money. I have express support for vouchers, if and only if, those without children and those who do not utilize the public school are first refunded the amount of money they paid into the school funding tax coffer - as it is only fair to not penalize people who do not use a service.

What you can not grasp is that I have not said anything against taxation.

last comment to your juvenile use of liberal,

Utah rejected vouchers by a 62% majority, the measure failed in every county, are you going to tell me Utah's political majority is the pejorative term liberal?

-----------

Jeff K., I heard the same in my gov. class in 1994. When McDonaldization has taken over large parts of society I wonder if 30 seconds is all people need? (provided the pertainent details are included - who, what, where, why, when. I am much more concerned with the unbiased why in my news, hence I seek the "news" from several sources.

[Mordecai]

1. "School choice" is a lie, and is banner used dishonestly. Parents have 3 choices, home, private, public.

How many times do I have to repeat this: if you can't afford it, you don't have a choice. MOST people can't afford it, so they have no choice but to send their kids to socialized, failing, homogenizing, left-leaning, dysfunctional and broken schools

2. Those who claim that a voucher is their money , should first make sure to check what amount of money they put into the School funding tax coffer. I do not utilize the public school, yet I put money into the school funding coffer in two states.

You do not put money into school funding coffers. You get taxed like everyone else. You don't control where that money goes and can't demand that the gov't changes it, unless the majority of voters agree or if the legislature is breaking the law.

3. The childless and those who do not utilize the public school system, should first be reimbursed for the money they put into the school funding coffer, because by your reasoning, it is only fair that people get their money back.

I never said they should get their money back. I said people should have a choice. As you've demonstrated repeatedly, you hate choice, but that's what free societies tend to tolerate. I don't think you belong in a Democracy, personally. You lack the maturity, it seems. The childless, like everyone else, pay what the state deems fair, based on the rules that make sense and are for the greater good. Poor, victimized single people can actually afford to pay more taxes, so the state taxes them more. In fact, they really can afford to pay more. That's j.ust the reality. People with four kids can't possibly afford to pay more than single people making an "average income" only. They give all their time and work into raising children, which again, is a good and service infinitely more valuable than money is in itself. What good are you doing for the state other than putting a few pennies in the state piggy bank? Relative to good parents, you provide nothing to the state.

4. After those from #3 are paid first, then, a voucher seeker is only entitled the amount of money they put in - that is only fair.

What's fair is Democracy, not what you want. You pay what makes sense (or at least what elected representatives ask you to pay), which is what everyone does. That's what's fair. If you have another system of government, where everyone in the entire country is happy with what the gov't does with their money, let's hear it. I guarantee, it doesn't exist.

5. Those claiming school choice are using the poor as a pawn, and the education of the poor is the least of the concern by right leaning school choice advocates.

There it is again. Regardless of good actions (and the voucher system really does help the poor more than anyone), clearly our hearts are evil. The old I-know-your-mind rant. Where's that "copyrighted picture" of Sauron again? Seriously, we're not taking the ring to Sauron. Caring about the poor is not a Herculean feat of strength. It's actually quite easy, if you care about the most basic principles of morality. Do ya' think Mormons don't read their scriptures or something? Only the most wicked people don't care about the poor. Am I Hitler, just because I'm against gay-marriage dogma and socialized education?

Those are my claims, no where did I state a position on the public school system, because I disagree with on school vouchers, you automatically assume my position. And because I disagree with you, you label me a liberal.

You're a moral liberal. I know that from other posts. Because of that, you're a liberal. It's not like a ridiculous name like frankenstein is hard to keep track of. You may be a fiscal conservative, but I find that much less important, personally.

...and I have not missed your points, a parent raising a child - feeding, shelter etc. - those acts do not pay for a school, do not pay a salary, do not keep a building clean, do not provide bus services. Schools are funded by cash not metaphorical emotionalism.

Clearly, you missed the point. Cash is worthless in itself. It represents goods and services. Cash itself is sort of a metaphor. What is real are the goods and services it represents. Since raising children doesn't just represent goods and services, it is a good and a service, it's better than cash. Not only that, how much do you think it costs to raise children, covering health care, feeding, clothing and providing shelter? All of that feeds the economy and is the reason why they can't afford to pay more taxes. That's why there is no penalty tax for people with kids, as you seem to advocate.

Again, the love of money is the root of all evil. It seems you have an incredibly profound love of money, which makes me pity you.

What you can not grasp is that I have not said anything against taxation.

What you've spoken out against is the supposed injustice of single people having to pay more taxes, relatively speaking.

Utah rejected vouchers by a 62% majority, the measure failed in every county, are you going to tell me Utah's political majority is the pejorative term liberal?

Yeah, I know. The legislature passed it, but the people got tricked by the "this is helping the rich" rhetoric. Sad. Utah is incredibly conservative, in that they don't want change. Utah's public schools aren't that bad compared to a lot of states, so it's going to be tough to get public support there. Actually, the voucher system seems to have a lot of appeal among a certain sub-section of liberals, because a lot of them (unlike me, seeing as I'm apparently incredibly evil) care about the poor.

[Mordecai]

Well gee, aren't lobbyists the people?!?!?

I'm going to have to say... no. heh heh

[frankenstein]

You do not put money into school funding coffers. You get taxed like everyone else. You don't control where that money goes and can't demand that the gov't changes it, unless the majority of voters agree or if the legislature is breaking the law.

how many times it need to be repeated. School funding comes from a .03 in Arizona, in Texas school funding comes from property tax, in Utah 85% of school funding comes from income tax. I a person in any of those states is not paying the tax which is designated to fund school that person has not claim

Again, the love of money is the root of all evil. It seems you have an incredibly profound love of money, which makes me pity you.ce, it's better than cash. Not only that, how much do you think it costs to raise children, covering health care, feeding, clothing and providing shelter? All of that feeds the economy and is the

I have oft heard said that if you kill a parents child you have saved the parent 100k, thus you have done the parent a favor and the parent has not suffered a monetary loss.

As for the love of money, you are one who wants money for nothing. You are the one who wants to take money you may not have a rightful claim too. It is obvious you are the one who loves money.

[Mordecai]

how many times it need to be repeated. School funding comes from a .03 in Arizona, in Texas school funding comes from property tax, in Utah 85% of school funding comes from income tax. I a person in any of those states is not paying the tax which is designated to fund school that person has not claim...

Yes, that was the decision of elected officials. I can see why there's a complaint there, but I don't think the problem is the voucher system nor school choice. As I said, elected officials, including yours, have made the rules. This is an entirely separate issue, having nothing to do with the voucher system.

I have oft heard said that if you kill a parents child you have saved the parent 100k, thus you have done the parent a favor and the parent has not suffered a monetary loss.

If that's a joke, that's in very poor taste.

As for the love of money, you are one who wants money for nothing. You are the one who wants to take money you may not have a rightful claim too. It is obvious you are the one who loves money.

Actually, I think money is worthless in itself, unlike what you think, which is that money is above the work parents do for their children. COO COO I also don't want to take money from anyone. People pay taxes. That's part of what it means to live in any nation. Am I tax collector? Do I make the rules? No. Everyone pays taxes. That's just how it is.