However, I would also have a problem with schools teaching that homosexuality is an inherent evil that must be destroyed.
I think this sentence clearly illustrates exactly why the hell we need to keep Government OUT of the education business. Here's why:
* Public schools generally cost twice as much as their equivalent Private schoolks. Payment for these school systems is enforced by compulsory taxes on everyone, even those who do not use the public school system (Both those without children, and those who send their children to private schools/homeschool).
* Government will always fund programs by taking money from everyone. There are groups within the Government who will always seek to advance their personal agenda, at the cost of people who disagree with them (both Christians and secular humanists are guilty of doing this). This practice is morally reprehensible, and can ONLY be stopped by NOT TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM GROUP A TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO GROUP B.
* The education which our children receive in the Public school system is far (as if I need to _prove_ this to anyone here) below the standards which are met AND EXCEEDED by private educational institutions, RELIGIOUS OR NOT! (Recall - Not all private schools are Christian schools, even though Christian groups are the predominant force in private education today - There is nothing stopping secularists from setting up their own private schools, for the like-minded)
Therefore, abolish the public education system (this is funded on a state-by-state level, so the only way to eliminate the system is to have your State Legislature do so), and choose a school for your child which is in line with your beliefs. I will do the same, and neither of us will be upset at the stomping on of our beliefs by the other in a publically-funded institution.
:) ttt
Oh, I know, and I would never make that assumption towards any other poster. However, I've seen enough of Kevin "Pot Smokers should be gunned down in their own homes" Curry in the WoD threads to know how I feel about his brand of politics in general.
While I am not unsympathetic to the case you want to make, I must point out that, unless you plan to take this to its full-blown libertarian conclusion, this is a very weak argument. Virtually everything government does is funded in such a fashion. Public roads are paid for by people who don't drive, nuclear weapons are paid for by people who despise them, and so forth.
The rationale is simple - public roads benefit society-at-large (even those who don't drive) by facilitating commerce. Similarly, public education (ostensibly) benefits society-at-large (even those with no children) by providing for an educated, civilized population. We may certainly question whether it actually achieves those goals, but simply implying that it's bad for people to fund things they don't tangibly and immediately benefit from is not really a full picture.
If, on the other hand, you do wish to make that case - that people shouldn't pay for things from which they do not tangibly and immediately benefit - you certainly can, so long as you realize that the practical effect is that virtually nothing will be publicly funded.