Vouchers

[ohwilleke]

Can separation of chuch and state be maintained in a voucher system?

For example, suppose that you create a private school tuition tax credit of 80% capped at say 80% of the cost of a public school spending? (Not unlike the current Hope and Lifetime Learning Scholarships which apply to both religiously controlled and private secular and "public" college tuition). Similarly, you get a tax deduction for contribution to any non-profit, secular or sacred, and non-profits don't have to be religious to be tax free but can be. And, health tax deductions and Medicare and Medicaid can be used at religiously affiliated health care facilities (e.g. Jewish National Hospital and an Adventist Hospital in my town).

Canada has a similar sort of opt out system in its public schools (Canadians can speak up and explain it). The opt outers are actually increasing funds available to the public school kids since the credit makes more funds available to the kids who remain.

Assuming that the schools must meet minimum standards to keep funding (perhaps a statewide graduation exam) even if as much as 20% of instruction is religious, who cares? That much has been privately funded. This is arguably simply neutrality towards religion, and as pointed out by California opponents of such an approach, any group that can round up a few dozens kids, from pagans, to Muslims, to Jews, to Hindus, to Quakers, to Unitarians, to secular humanists, would have equal rights to the funds if they could get the students to come to their school. Let's say that to qualify, however, the funds must also be used only by non-racially discriminatory schools (a problem in the civil rights era). Indeed, at the college level we have seen that a great many, especially of the best private schools, have remained secular, and that if anything schools that were once pervasively religious (Yale, Harvard, Oberlin, etc.) have grown secular with age. Also, most major metro areas already have at least one secular K-12. And, as most of us admit, religion in the schools is far less objectionable when it doesn't represent a government endorsement of the religion of the school because it is a private school. As long as there is a secular option, why shouldn't we let theists go do their own thing?

If it happened, how do you think it would play out? Now strong religious believers tend to be the only ones to private school (aside from the very rich), but if this was present, we might see more secularized private schools as less religious and non-wealthy people sought to have private schools. Does the likely result matter?

[Deleted]

Originally posted by ohwilleke:
Can separation of chuch and state be maintained in a voucher system?

No.

For example, suppose that you create a private school tuition tax credit of 80% capped at say 80% of the cost of a public school spending? (Not unlike the current Hope and Lifetime Learning Scholarships which apply to both religiously controlled and private secular and "public" college tuition). Similarly, you get a tax deduction for contribution to any non-profit, secular or sacred, and non-profits don't have to be religious to be tax free but can be. And, health tax deductions and Medicare and Medicaid can be used at religiously affiliated health care facilities (e.g. Jewish National Hospital and an Adventist Hospital in my town).

Isn't that the way it already is?

Canada has a similar sort of opt out system in its public schools (Canadians can speak up and explain it). The opt outers are actually increasing funds available to the public school kids since the credit makes more funds available to the kids who remain.

How is that? Explain, please.

Assuming that the schools must meet minimum standards to keep funding (perhaps a statewide graduation exam)

Texas already has one; many districts and schools run the risk of a shutdown every year.

even if as much as 20% of instruction is religious, who cares?

I care.

That much has been privately funded.

You can't prove that.

This is arguably simply neutrality towards religion, and as pointed out by California opponents of such an approach, any group that can round up a few dozens kids, from pagans, to Muslims, to Jews, to Hindus, to Quakers, to Unitarians, to secular humanists, would have equal rights to the funds if they could get the students to come to their school.

That's idealism in its highest form; it won't ever happen that way.

Let's say that to qualify, however, the funds must also be used only by non-racially discriminatory schools (a problem in the civil rights era). Indeed, at the college level we have seen that a great many, especially of the best private schools, have remained secular, and that if anything schools that were once pervasively religious (Yale, Harvard, Oberlin, etc.) have grown secular with age.

Alright, only 200 more years to go!

Also, most major metro areas already have at least one secular K-12.

But why should I be compelled to pay for it just because Suzy's mommy doesn't think the curriculum at the local school is rigorous enough?

And, as most of us admit, religion in the schools is far less objectionable when it doesn't represent a government endorsement of the religion of the school because it is a private school.


That makes no sense. Religion doesn't get ANY endorsement, or shouldn't get any endorsement, in a public school. In a private school, all bets are off. Even if it's a secular school, they'd still be free to set aside time for prayer (unconstitutional) and hang the ten commandments in classrooms (also unconstitutional.) I don't want to risk sending my tax dollars to an (another) institution that is not answerable to or held accountable by the government.

As long as there is a secular option, why shouldn't we let theists go do their own thing?

They can do their own thing on their own dime. This country does not guarantee a free religious education for all. That's the downfall of most good liberals; too quick to compromise. You can't CONSTANTLY compromise with a group that DOES NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF THE WORD.

If it happened, how do you think it would play out? Now strong religious believers tend to be the only ones to private school (aside from the very rich),

That's an incorrect generalization. Visit a Catholic school in Orange County CA sometime and see how many kids there come from non-religious blue collar families.

but if this was present, we might see more secularized private schools as less religious and non-wealthy people sought to have private schools. Does the likely result matter?

It matters because I, as an American who believes in the first amendment, will not stand to have MORE of my tax money go to fund religious education. I'd rather move out of the country than subsidize religion with another dime of my hard-earned money.

[Deleted]

Originally posted by ohwilleke:
Can separation of chuch and state be maintained in a voucher system?

I don't have a problem with it, but there should be more secular private schools to make it seem less like a perk for the religious. I think all schools should eventually be privatized and not funded with tax dollars anyway.

The voucher might be a step between privatizing schools. I am biased though, I am not going to send my kid to a public school because they suck so badly. I understand the point about giving more tax money to religion, but in this case I see it differently.

Have a good one!
Amber

[ohwilleke]

In the U.K., any religious denomination can demand that the local school board create a denominational school for them that the denomination controls. The local humanist organizations are trying to change this as described on their website under the heading Educate Them Together.
http://www.humanism-scotland.org.uk/index.html

It provides an interesting example of how a voucher system might work out here.