In early March, Sen. Joe Lieberman proposed an amendment to the Senate jobs bill that would reauthorize the "D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program," an initiative that forced American taxpayers to subsidize religious institutions through school vouchers. A July 2009 report by Rutgers University on the D.C. voucher program concluded that the program's structure "essentially push[es] students into Christian Association and Catholic schools, pricing out independent (non-religious) schools and Hebrew schools." Those of us who do not wish to subsidize religion with our tax dollars would continue to be forced to do so if the amendment passed.
After being alerted to the coming vote by the Secular Coalition for America, thousands took action, writing to their senators, and the amendment never made it to the jobs bill--though Senator Lieberman promised he would bring it back as soon as he could.
On March 16, 2010, Senator Lieberman managed to bring the amendment to the floor, attaching it this time to a bill funding the Federal Aviation Administration. Debate was heard, votes were cast, and the amendment was defeated, with 42 voting for the amendment to 55 against. It was a fantastic example of Secular Americans working together, helping to stop the unconstitutional public financing of religious education.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
21 comments:
May I offer another perspective?
"Secular Americans" and the Democratic party are working hard to ensure that poor families in D.C. are guaranteed a rotten education for their children in the district's horrendous school system.
The thing I find most reprehensible is that the Dems, who claim to be the party of education, are forcing these kids out of the voucher program without giving them any alternative for a quality education. It's one thing to end the program, but when you have zero alternatives to replace it, you're basically flipping the bird to the people you claim to serve.
By the way, it isn't "religious education." It's education at a religious school. And the parents have the choice to use them at any private school, not just religious ones.
Government backed vouchers should not be permitted to be used at a religious school. Period. Make it so that these vouchers can only be used at non-religious schools and perhaps more Dems would come around. Perhaps.
Lieberman, go to your favorite country, Israel, and drink some delicious water out of the Dead Sea... And die already!
Lieberman, you make me ashamed to be Jewish!
Why shouldn't vouchers be used for any accredited institution? We're not talking about seminaries. These are legitimate schools that submit to all the requirements necessary to receive the appropriate educational accreditation.
Is this an issue of "separation of church and state" to you? What about the other types of "assistance" that the government hands out?
If someone receives a welfare check from the government, are they forbidden from using that money in certain ways? No. They can go to a religious bookstore and spend the money if they choose. In fact, they can give the entire amount directly to a church if they choose to do so.
How about food stamps? Are the recipients only allowed to buy bread from non-religious manufacturers? No. They can buy whatever milk, bread, etc. they choose, even if it is distributed and sold by a church.
How about unemployment? How about farm subsidies?
What say you?
I say I won't play your foolish game. Yes, of course, it is absolutely a church/state issue. Only an idiot would think otherwise. I actually went to a catholic school and guess what, they taught about catholicism... and the kids went to church. So I have a bit of experience here. Regarding food stamps, if someone made the food stamp recipient pray to get a loaf of bread, then yes, I'd exclude that, too. But that is an assinine argument, really.
I dunno, as much as I believe in the separation of church and state, I still think we would be better off with well educated children, no matter where they are educated, than sending kids to schools with abysmal records at educating, the end result of having these kids as wards of the state as adults. Many parents believe this too. They want choice, and good choices too.
verification word: plasm
csm,
If the administration thought it was strictly a church-state issue then they could have simply altered the program so the vouchers were only valid for schools that aren't operated by religious organizations. They didn't, so their opposition to this program appears to be based on a compulsive need to exclusively support the "public" schools, no matter how bad they are.
And no, my argument isn't asinine at all. They don't force people to pray before they receive these vouchers either. Nor do they force them to go to any particular school, religious or otherwise. It is money given to the family for use at an accredited school of their choice. That is no different than giving welfare checks that the recipient can use as he or she chooses.
I'm sure that most private schools that are operated by religious organizations include some degree of education in that particular religion. That doesn't mean that they don't provide a good education (in the majority of cases, it's better than the public schools). It also doesn't mean that families are indoctrinated against their will. The parents CHOOSE to apply for the program and CHOOSE the specific school.
Do you believe that you received a poor education at your Catholic school? Worse than the public schools that were available? Was it a CHOICE your family made, which they believed would benefit you? The voucher program in DC was simply making that same choice available to families who couldn't otherwise have afforded it.
While I don't personally think that vouchers are the best way to improve the education system, it's better than forcing kids in less fortunate circumstances to remain in abysmal public schools.
I did get a fine education at the catholic school. I was sent there because my mother was/is catholic and she wanted her children to get a catholic education. The public school in my home town was also very good.
If the DC school system is abysmal, then the better approach, of course, is to fix the public school system. I am all for children receiving a good education. I am not, nor will I ever be, in favor of tax dollars being spent on a religious institution.
The problem is that we don't have a public school system...we have a government school system. Those secular, public/government schools should stop worshiping at the altar of federal handouts for coerced behavior and we will not have abysmal schools.
While we are at it..shut down the Departemnet of Education.
..oh..and I am not, nor will I ever be in favor of tax dollars being spent on social engineering disguised as education.
This is actually one of the most ridiculous positions csm ever takes. Vouchers belong to the people with the people's money. They have a constitutional right to use their vouchers with any school organizations they desire. Secular countries around the world do it successfully and it is time for us to follow in the steps of common senses and drop the Crazy Sicko Malevolent (csm) ideology.
I have a question for you csm. Belgium is considering a outright ban on female Muslim headdress's with the penalty a fine or jail time. What are your thoughts on this?
Vouchers neither establish a religion nor do they limit the freedom to practice a religion...so this is just another round of politcal blathering with no constitutional basis.
Well, Bawdy, I do not know the issues regarding the Belgian ban of which you speak. In general, my opinion would be against such a ban. I am not in favor of banning people's right to worship as they wish (as long as they are not infringing on the right's of others). An "outright ban on female Muslim headdresses" seems to be too much.
Of course, there should be exceptions when a headdress that obscures facial features should be banned. For example, on a driver's license. If you don't want to take a picture of your face then you shouldn't be permitted to drive. Nor should you be permitted to fly without ID showing your face. Things like that...
"I am not in favor of banning people's right to worship as they wish (as long as they are not infringing on the right's of others)."
So what is the difference between a burkha and a Nativity scene out in public(a burkha isn't worn in the home and is essentially a public religious response)?
I am not trying to denigrate your position, I am just trying to see what exactly your position is. I will say I am no where near as militant as you are on this; I find it much more pleasant living to live and let live.
No problem Bawdy. Happy to have this conversation with you.
I have no problem with nativity scenes unless they are put up on government property. If a private citizen wants to put up a nativity scene during their holidays on their property, no problem. Of course, I get to put up my "I Hate Christmas" bulletin board on my property if I want (that'd never happen, the wife wouldn't let it).
My problem is when the government wants to get involved with religion. Why should atheist, hindi, muslim, shinto, jewish, etc. tax money be used to promote christian religion? It shouldn't. It is wrong.
That is my position, basically.
On a less serious note, I've also thought about what would happen if I replaced the baby jesus in one of those nativity scenes with a fat bastard doll.
Mike? "Vouchers belong to the people?" Have you become a socialist? And where exactly in the constitution does it discuss school vouchers? I'm curious (in a sicko, malevolent sorta way).
"And where exactly in the constitution does it discuss school vouchers?"
This argument could be used against much of the Progressive platform. And don't you believe in a "living" Constitution, able to be bent to one's liking? All someone has to do is mention the Commerce Clause and it is done. Presto!
Mike was talking about a Constitutional right in his comment, Bawdy. That was what I was responding to. You know my position on the constitution by now. But I will call folks out who use it as a crutch for their position without really knowing what is in the document.
Post a Comment