Do you cut and paste NEA talking points without seeing how they relate to the post to which you are responding? ( Just wondering.)
1) Government schools are NOT religiously, culturally, or politically neutral. It is **impossible** for any school to be neutral. Therefore...All taxpayers are forced by the government to fund a government NON-NEUTRAL religious, cultural, and political worldview. ALL taxpayers support the establishment of the anointed government indoctrination camp religious worldview.
2) If a taxpayer refuses to pay for the government indoctrination camp NON-NEUTRAL religious worldview, armed police stand ready to force the issue. If the taxpayer would be so foolish and sufficiently resistant, the police will even **KILL** the citizen.
3) Behind every government school stand armed police that will use force ( even to the point of killing the citizen) to get that money. That money will be used to establish the government NON-NEUTRAL religious worldview in its kiddie indoctrination centers.
4) If a parent does not have access to private schools or homeschool, the parent and child are under police threat to be imprisoned in the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp ( oops! “school”).
5) The religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp is a price-fixed monopoly that is giving its religiously NON-NEUTRAL service away for the price tag of “free”. If private CEOs were to attempt to corner the market by price-fixing at below market rates they would be imprisoned, but it is OK for government school bureaucrats to do it. As a result of the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camp's price-fixing business practices, many, many counties have no private school option. ( My county does not). Police stand then stand ready to force students to use the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camps.
6) High taxes to feed the religiously NON-NEUTRAL government indoctrination camps make it necessary in many families for both parents to work. This makes homeschooling nearly impossible. If the child does not show up in his government assigned indoctrination camps ( which by they way is religiously NON-NEUTRAL) police will soon be at the door.
7) Lucky parents can **RANSOM** their children by paying a religious tax or freedom of conscience tax. They can pay extra in school expenses ( over and above what they have been forced to pay for the religiously non-neutral government indoctrination camps)to send their children to private school ( if all private schools have still not driven out of business by the religious NON-NEUTRAL, price-fixing, government indoctrination camps). Some people call this private school ransom by the term JIZYA.
Although your comment had almost nothing to do with my original post, thank you for the opportunity to explain the concept of government police force as it relates to our nation's system of police enforced, religious NON=NEUTRAL, government indoctrination camps.
Dmz,
Do you cut and paste NEA talking points without seeing how they relate to the post to which you are responding? ( Just wondering.)
<><><><><><><><><
Wintertime - do you simply cut and paste your talking points from your previous posts? (just wondering)
You have been posting this for years now. And I’ve been responding to them from time to time with the same boilerplate that you use to create the posts.
I mentioned 3 other avenues, legal avenues, of educating one’s children that have nothing to do with government run, public schools. Do you deny the accuracy of those statements?
Your response seems to be to change the subject from the religiously non-neutral schools to the fact that it makes you angry that you have to pay taxes that go to the maintenance of these schools. Death and taxes. The only 2 certainties in this life.
And since when does the NEA support the notion of homeschooling? (referencing your comment about my use of NEA talking points).
One of my parents’ friends was jailed in the early ‘70s for his tax protesting (he didn’t pay them - unconstitutional income taxes was his thing), so I’ve heard these arguments for close to 40 years. Nothing new in your views.