Colorado Students Walk Out and Protest

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

And the state provides a free education to do so.

Of course you are perfectly free to choose - and pay for - a different option.

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

Well for one thing I don't think everyone there makes that kind of money. Second vouchers are income based. D.C. had a voucher program but Barry killed that. D.C. itself has a lot of lousy schools and poor people. All the federal workers and congress live out in the Virginia subburbs. All those D.C. residents are stuck with a pitiful school and no way to get their kids out.

I think DC spends more per pupil than any school system in the country and the system is rated low. The politicians living in DC all send their kids in DC to private schools. Carter tried sending Amy carter to a DC public school for awhile. She was followed by secret service agents all the time and in class too.

Not to say you're wrong, but citations please.

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

Then the parents can pay for it on their own and not have it subsidized by taxes. Then according to the article this is a area that has a average home income of over 6 figures.

Well for one thing I don't think everyone there makes that kind of money. Second vouchers are income based. D.C. had a voucher program but Barry killed that. D.C. itself has a lot of lousy schools and poor people. All the federal workers and congress live out in the Virginia subburbs. All those D.C. residents are stuck with a pitiful school and no way to get their kids out.

I think DC spends more per pupil than any school system in the country and the system is rated low. The politicians living in DC all send their kids in DC to private schools. Carter tried sending Amy carter to a DC public school for awhile. She was followed by secret service agents all the time and in class too.

So? Anyone who can afford it can do the same thing if they want to.

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.

show me where I said that they could. This is not a violation of the constitution.

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.

show me where I said that they could. This is not a violation of the constitution.

States cannot fund institutions that violate civil rights laws.

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.

show me where I said that they could. This is not a violation of the constitution.

States cannot fund institutions that violate civil rights laws.

who is violating civil rights?

[quietfan 233]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

I was never implying I should be able to buy an F-22 as my personal property. I meant I don't have the authority to tell the government how to spend my defense tax dollars based on my personal preference. But the government does force me to pay taxes for defense.

Similarly, no one has the right to tell the government how to spend its education dollars based on their personal whim or the mere fact that they have children in school while others don't. But the state does force us all to pay education taxes.

Again: If I can't tell the government whether to fund an F-22 instead of an Abrams tank, why should I have the right to tell the government it has to give education dollars to a particular school on my whim or simply because I have a child of school age? If parents can designate where their education taxes go based on having school-aged children, why can't I opt out of paying education taxes entirely because I have no school-aged children? Maybe I don't want my taxes going to educate someone else's children, or maybe I would like those dollars to go to a radical private Muslim madrasa...does that give me the right to direct their destination? If I did have school-aged children and wanted to send them to a Muslim madrasa to learn the principles of jihad, would you give me a government voucher for that?

Now of course I'm not saying a "jihad academy" (to use that expression) is the equivalent of a Catholic* school renown for its academic excellence. I'm merely saying parents do not get to send government money to either simply because their child goes to school there.

Education taxes were never intended as personal funds for parents to spend as they please on their particular children. Publicly funded education is important because it benefits us all to have an educated citizenship without religious, political, or personal preconditions.

(*or Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.)

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

I was never implying I should be able to buy an F-22 as my personal property. I meant I don't have the authority to tell the government how to spend my defense tax dollars based on my personal preference. But the government does force me to pay taxes for defense.

Similarly, no one has the right to tell the government how to spend its education dollars based on their personal whim or the mere fact that they have children in school while others don't. But the state does force us all to pay education taxes.

Again: If I can't tell the government whether to fund an F-22 instead of an Abrams tank, why should I have the right to tell the government it has to give education dollars to a particular school on my whim or simply because I have a child of school age? If parents can designate where their education taxes go based on having school-aged children, why can't I opt out of paying education taxes entirely because I have no school-aged children? Maybe I don't want my taxes going to educate someone else's children, or maybe I would like those dollars to go to a radical private Muslim madrasa...does that give me the right to direct their destination? If I did have school-aged children and wanted to send them to a Muslim madrasa to learn the principles of jihad, would you give me a government voucher for that?

Now of course I'm not saying a "jihad academy" (to use that exp<b></b>ression) is the equivalent of a Catholic* school renown for its academic excellence. I'm merely saying parents do not get to send government money to either simply because their child goes to school there.

Education taxes were never intended as personal funds for parents to spend as they please on their particular children. Publicly funded education is important because it benefits us all to have an educated citizenship without religious, political, or personal preconditions.

(*or Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.)

you may not like it or think it a good thing. That is your perogative. There is nothing about this that violates any part of the constitution. It is up to each state and or district to decide if they want to or not. Let me ask you. If these vouchers were for any school except religious schools, would that be ok in your mind?

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.

show me where I said that they could. This is not a violation of the constitution.

States cannot fund institutions that violate civil rights laws.

who is violating civil rights?

The question (in blue) was a hypothetical which assumed discrimination.

[cooltigger21 0]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

States can do that if they so choose. The establishment clause of the constitution has been so completely misunderstood and bastardized through the years, like the rest of the constitution that it is hardly recognizable anymore.

States cannot violate the Constitution.

show me where I said that they could. This is not a violation of the constitution.

States cannot fund institutions that violate civil rights laws.

who is violating civil rights?

The question (in blue) was a hypothetical which assumed discrimination.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

I was never implying I should be able to buy an F-22 as my personal property. I meant I don't have the authority to tell the government how to spend my defense tax dollars based on my personal preference. But the government does force me to pay taxes for defense.

Similarly, no one has the right to tell the government how to spend its education dollars based on their personal whim or the mere fact that they have children in school while others don't. But the state does force us all to pay education taxes.

Again: If I can't tell the government whether to fund an F-22 instead of an Abrams tank, why should I have the right to tell the government it has to give education dollars to a particular school on my whim or simply because I have a child of school age? If parents can designate where their education taxes go based on having school-aged children, why can't I opt out of paying education taxes entirely because I have no school-aged children? Maybe I don't want my taxes going to educate someone else's children, or maybe I would like those dollars to go to a radical private Muslim madrasa...does that give me the right to direct their destination? If I did have school-aged children and wanted to send them to a Muslim madrasa to learn the principles of jihad, would you give me a government voucher for that?

Now of course I'm not saying a "jihad academy" (to use that expression) is the equivalent of a Catholic* school renown for its academic excellence. I'm merely saying parents do not get to send government money to either simply because their child goes to school there.

Education taxes were never intended as personal funds for parents to spend as they please on their particular children. Publicly funded education is important because it benefits us all to have an educated citizenship without religious, political, or personal preconditions.

(*or Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.)

LOL! With this crowd, you have to preempt opportunities to jump on the analogy and try to make it the actual issue.

[homersapien 11,352]

States cannot fund institutions that violate civil rights laws.

who is violating civil rights?

The question (in blue) was a hypothetical which assumed discrimination.

Ok thanks for the clarification.

Your welcome.

[homersapien 11,352]

Vouchers are a great idea I think. It goes to the parents and allows them to choose the school they want to send their kids to, religious or public.

If parents choose to instruct/indoctrinate their children in religion, send them to any school of their choice, or even home school them, that's certainly their right.

However public tax dollars cannot constitutionally be spent to provide religious instruction or indoctrination, either as a direct subsidy to a private school, or an indirect subsidy that follows a particular child in the form of voucher. No one pays education taxes simply for the benefit of his/her own particular children, and no one is entitled to withdraw some of that public money for the exclusive use of his or her personal child. Otherwise why should childless individuals pay any education taxes at all?

The concept of public education is not "The state owes you XXX amount of money for your child, wherever or however you choose to educate him/her". It is based on the recognition that it is beneficial to the state and society to ensure an educated citizenry--all citizens--in a public forum. Siphoning off some of that public money in the form of vouchers to private schools weakens the public system.

The history of "segregation academies" in the south is a good non-religious example. Why should public tax dollars be spent upholding a private system of racial discrimination? In another example: Should the government write a check to home-schoolers for teaching their children at home?

I think the educational voucher idea is analogous to saying "Give me a voucher for my defense dollars, and let me decide whether to spend it on a F-22 Raptor or an M1A1 Abrams tank...or even perhaps, to arm my local private militia."

The state doesn't force citizens to buy an F22, or any weapon ( they actual try to stop you), but the state does force parents to educate their children.

That's the rub, send them to the state and its 'free' state education, or send them to private school or home school them and the parent pays.

I was never implying I should be able to buy an F-22 as my personal property. I meant I don't have the authority to tell the government how to spend my defense tax dollars based on my personal preference. But the government does force me to pay taxes for defense.

Similarly, no one has the right to tell the government how to spend its education dollars based on their personal whim or the mere fact that they have children in school while others don't. But the state does force us all to pay education taxes.

Again: If I can't tell the government whether to fund an F-22 instead of an Abrams tank, why should I have the right to tell the government it has to give education dollars to a particular school on my whim or simply because I have a child of school age? If parents can designate where their education taxes go based on having school-aged children, why can't I opt out of paying education taxes entirely because I have no school-aged children? Maybe I don't want my taxes going to educate someone else's children, or maybe I would like those dollars to go to a radical private Muslim madrasa...does that give me the right to direct their destination? If I did have school-aged children and wanted to send them to a Muslim madrasa to learn the principles of jihad, would you give me a government voucher for that?

Now of course I'm not saying a "jihad academy" (to use that expression) is the equivalent of a Catholic* school renown for its academic excellence. I'm merely saying parents do not get to send government money to either simply because their child goes to school there.

Education taxes were never intended as personal funds for parents to spend as they please on their particular children. Publicly funded education is important because it benefits us all to have an educated citizenship without religious, political, or personal preconditions.

(*or Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.)

you may not like it or think it a good thing. That is your perogative. There is nothing about this that violates any part of the constitution. It is up to each state and or district to decide if they want to or not. Let me ask you. If these vouchers were for any school except religious schools, would that be ok in your mind?

Educational taxes are not individual fees for which one receives an individual service. They are a tax that everyone pays for the financing of a public education system which benefits the general good.

I don't have children but it is my duty to pay educational taxes to benefit the general society I live it. I benefit indirectly.

So if someone opts out of the public system, there is no obligation from the government (meaning the rest of us) to pay them compensation for that making that decision.

[quietfan 233]

Educational taxes are not individual fees for which one receives an individual service. They are a tax that everyone pays for the financing of a public education system which benefits the general good.

I don't have children but it is my duty to pay educational taxes to benefit the general society I live it. I benefit indirectly.

So if someone opts out of the public system, there is no obligation from the government (meaning the rest of us) to pay them compensation for that making that decision.

Nicely put. Concisely summarizes in a few words the point I was trying to make, but much better than my fumbling expansive rambling did!