[GonzoII]

The state will have no equals.

[GonzoII]

NM Ping.

[Eva]

That’s what you can expect when you take government money.

When my daughter was in kindergarten in NJ, the school district refused all state and federal money because they didn’t want to be subject to the dictates that came with the money. Our property taxes were astronomical, but the education was superior.

We were paying $3,300 a year on a $33,000 home.

[nathanbedford]

Ever since the Supreme Court ruling in 1962 prohibiting prayer in the public schools, the justification for denying religious expression in the school system was that children of a different faith, or of no faith, would suffer by the exposure. But here, by definition, all the children are of the same faith and clearly their parents support the religious influence in the school and specifically the religious influence in these textbooks.

So there is no collateral harm to other children.

This intrusion by the state is presumably based on the theory that since the state is funding the school, the establishment clause prohibits the use of taxpayer funds because religion is encouraged. I suppose that means that some taxpayers might object because they are of a different faith, or because they are atheists, to the use of their funds to promote religion, or a different religion. I note Parenthetically that argument has not been found to be persuasive by Barak Obama on the issue of abortion.

I note also that the argument runs counter to a constitutionally recognized exception to establishment restrictions called "the child benefit theory" which says that taxpayer dollars which benefited children, albeit in a religious context, are nevertheless constitutional.

The perniciousness of a doctrine which says that state control of thought and expression should follow state allocation of money is obvious. As Obama moves America closer to autocracy, the prospect becomes frightening.

[Clintonfatigued]

Homeschooling ping