Sometimes it's just difficult to believe what people come up with.
Case in point:
Proposal: Missouri parents to get public money for religious schools
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- A state House member wants to amend the Missouri Constitution to let parents receive public funding to send children to religious schools.
The proposal by Republican Jay Barnes, of Jefferson City, would repeal a prohibition on public money going to religious schools. If approved by the full House and Senate, it would go on a statewide ballot.
Barnes's measure would allow parents to get a state stipend to help pay for their child's education at a religious school or any other accredited school outside of their assigned district. The stipend would be equal to the amount of state and local funding a public school would have received for their child.
The proposed amendment would also let the government donate money or items to religious schools, but not real estate.
Well, isn't that comforting? It would "let the government donate money or items to religious schools but not real estate." What a relief that is. At least we're not giving them real estate, too.
Let's realize religion for what it is in America, too, by the way. It's a business with very little overhead since most of the workers or staff are volunteers, the money comes in at least every week and, finally, it's all tax-deductible.
And now we're going to give them money, too?
I have to get in that racket, I have to tell you.
Then, this is to "amend the State Constitution"?
What about the much older, national Constitution the country is based on? Don't you think we should amend that, first?
What part of "separation of church and state" do these people not get?
You want to know what the biggest problem with this is, folks?
Sure, you start by putting this in the constitution and you begin giving "money or items to religious schools" because right now, what you're thinking is those nice Christian, Protestant and Catholic. right? Right?
But down the road, when a Muslim or Buddhist or Zen or Wiccan school wants y'all to pony up some money, watch all the hypocrites down there in Jeff City--and all over the state, really--go blood-red-in-the-face-crazy because they don't want their money going THERE.
Besides the fact that in case no one was noticing, we have a budget crisis already. Why would we start giving "money or other items" to one more group in a time of budget deficits?
And these people, these Republicans, are fiscal conservatives?
I don't think so.
Link to original post: http://www.kmov.com/news/local/Proposal-Missouri-parents-to-get-public-money-for-religious-schools-116298019.html
Posts
Cartoon: Resign!
28 minutes ago
5 comments:
I'm conflicted about this--A major problem with education is that the state has an effective monopoly. There should be more choices in education, but in most places the only economical choice is a church-run school.
We should encourage ways that middle class parents can have real choice in what school they send their kids to--the important thing is that the kids get educated, and in my area the church-sponsored schools have better academic records than public school. I wish there were commercial rather than religious options, but the reality is that the choice is almost entirely between public and religious--Choice and competition are more important than anti-religion here.
Dude, come on. You're a Libertarian and you're for government giving money to one more agency--in this case, religious schools?
Please.
I would also like to see the statistical data on any religious school having better progress with kids than public. I guess it could happen but I find it somewhat difficult to believe.
Finally, I have to say, again, that if this is to go through here in Missouri or in any state in America, just wait until some Islamic school gets in that same line for state money for their school. I can't wait to hear the howling. I will then say they are both bloody hypocrites and "I told you so" to whomever would listen.
I'm not a lock-step libertarian, and education is one of the places where I differ from standard libertarian doctrine--they wouldn't have publicly funded education at all. I think a population with a basic education is a public good, and should be supported with tax dollars, at least to an extent.
The goal is the children though--not the well-being of teachers.
Ohio has a post-secondary education program, where high school students can take college classes and they count towards both high school and college. Most high schools dislike the program, and our local school adds roadblocks, because the funding for those classes goes to the college rather than the high school.
Ohio also has standardized testing, and church schools tend to do much better than public. This obviously isn't entirely due to higher quality teaching, it is also selecting parents who care enough about their kids education to pay extra for it.
I'm concerned with kids learning the Bible instead of evolution-but the public school stance of 'submit to authority, even obvious legitimate self-defense will be punished' is equally concerning.
...and you are right that many of the Christian school people would scream if it was an Islamic school. I'll point at the screamers and laugh.
I'm not certain what you mean when you say "the public school stance of 'submit to authority, even obvious legitimate self-defense will be punished' is equally concerning." It's not clear what you're referring to.
Back when I was in school, if the staff could determine who started a fight, and the defender quit when appropriate only the initiator of the violence would be punished.
Now we have zero tolerance rules in most schools, so even legitimate self defense is punished--in some cases, it is interpreted as against the rules to get beat up, you were 'involved' in violence.
I don't think there is a grand conspiracy to indoctrinate--rather that idealistic but paternalistic liberals are drawn to education, while conservatives and especially libertarians take other career paths.
Post a Comment