[Symix]

It is strange that in the first part Keyes was so adamant about the meaning of the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but in the second part he let Mr. Lynn get away over and over with a premise that it was "forbidden" for the government to support religious schools.

[Symix]

I just heard Michael Medved arguing with a caller about removing "under God" from the pledge. He had some good arguements like why the discomfort of the atheist minority should rule over the will of the majority - but he kind of accepted the caller's premise that the constitution prohibids religion.

The caller said "I do not want tax dollars going to religious schools". Michael responded that in that Ohio case the voucher is $2,500 while the taxpayers pay $8,500 per a public school student, and that therefore the taxpayers will save $6,000 on each student with society benefiting from the students better education. Sounds logical to a conservative but to a liberal it means that
a. They lose control of $6,000;
b. The tax payers will be "richer" by $6,0000 - an anathema!
c. They lose control over brainwashing of some seqment of the future generation;
d. The "enemy" - religion gets that segment!
e. They will lose control over indocrination as parents will naturally select what is better for their kids.