American Atheist Magazine Online Forum - Public Aid To Private Schools

[an error occurred while processing this directive] Magazine Home

Print Edition

Events

Search

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Tell Us What You Think

name: Charles Brodeur
email: cbrod7504@aol.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 06:13 PST

If history proves anything it can be shown that given power the church would suppress the rights of every human being, especially those who would dare to disagree with their point of view. Money is power, and hopefully none of my money should be spent to increase their power. They are already stealing my money through their tax-free status, and have plenty of money for their fancy edifices. They should at least spend their own money for any brain-washing efforts. Of all the organizations in this society that I can think of, the church is the one I would trust least to keep funds separated for the cause for which it was given.
name: Carletta Sims
email: csims@atheists.org
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 08:46 PST

The wall should have no breach, period. Religious people will deceive the public and officials into thinking that religion is not part of their agenda, just to get every taxpayer's money--a blatant violation, as well as insult to atheists who work hard and pay taxes. If proponents of religious schools say that they will not be teaching religion with the money, then let them leave their children in the public school system, where children of different ethnic and religious backgrounds will get the same respect.

Absolutely no funding whatsoever for private schools. Parents should concentrate their money to the general good of society for the public school system. Leaving it up to individual parents doesn't work; that's why America created the public school system in the first place.

For those who want their children to get religious instruction, let the church do that on their own time, their own money, and own space, since they have lots of money, as some boast, more than the federal government.

This type of action prevents certain children from obtaining the best possible education, if public school money (even one dollar) is leaving that budget to go to religious schools. The poorest students will suffer. Aid to religious schools or private schools is discriminatory in essence.

Keep all money for education in the public school system. Let the churches support themselves and any and all of their efforts.
name: Barb Reiland
email: breiland@cavemen.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 09:21 PST

No US citizen should be compelled to support, with his tax dollars, religion or religious indoctrination. Funding for private parochial/sectarian schools should be supported by that particular sect ONLY, not from public funds that are necessary for improvements in public, tax-supported, secular schools.
name: Todd Kusterer
email: tkuster@his.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 09:39 PST

This actually isn't much of a religous issue it is merely amplified by the religous elements. Education budgets being what they are money needs to be concentrated to where it can do the most good. This means fully funding public schools before thinking about transferring funds to elite institutions that can't handle everyone that the public shcool is mandated to educate (retarded, autistic, handicap, etc.)

The religous element of the this discussion is minor but primal. Basic chuch/state seperation seems to indicate that if the state makes the mistake of funding private school it would be required to fund religous schools or it would be showing a preference for non-belief over belief. Don't get me wrong I'm an atheist and that would bristle me all sorts of wrong ways but I can't see away of denying the state the right to fund religous schools without also denying them the right to fund private schools. There would have to be oversight to make sure any of these private schools conform to state curriculum, and to ensure that there are both religious and secular private school options. It should also be important that all religions be treated equally providing fringe religion the ability to get funding.

I think the key thing to center on is the blow to public education allowing any private school to be funded would be.

Todd Kusterer
name: Dr. Necrophage
email: dr_necrophage@my-deja.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 11:26 PST

Public money should in no way go to fund private enterprises of any sort, much less religious enterprises. If Congress continues down this route it will have to support the funding of all 'religious' schools and not just those of Christians. Christians seem unable to realize that if they want funding, then everyone they dislike will have to be allowed funding as well. Satanist, Scientologist, Muslim, Hebrew, Wiccan, etc., all religious organisations will be able to set up schools and recieve federal funding. It is better for everyone concerned that the government remain entirely outside of the miasma of religious conflicts brewing in the US. This helps keep everyone free from government intrusion and influence.
name: Margaret KNoebel
email: maggi70@apci.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 11:49 PST

I do not want ANY monies allotted to non-public schools for ANY reason because once it is started it will keep on little by little until the whole school is funded.

I would not mind some of the above mentioned items but they all have to be sacrificed for safety's sake.

i.e. A "fundie" was elected to our school board, then another and another. Now our children cannot read books that they consider inappropriate, and a "fundie" preacher gave the 8th grade commencement address, plus a propagandizing prayer.

Maggi
name: David Morris
email: Camerare@itouch.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 11:55 PST

I find it quite amazing that religous schools and organizations that are TAX FREE still are unable to come up with the cash to "educate" their young. Perhaps they should take a lesson from the televalgalists and have programs and info-mercials to beg for money.
name: George Ricker
email: gricker@iu.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 13:53 PST

No government entity has any business providing assistance to religious schools for any reason. Regardless of the purposes for which the money may be used, such assistance is a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state and ought never be allowed.
name: Chris
email: st.sam@inetarena.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 15:28 PST

What part of private don't these people understand? Only people who pay have access to the resources at the private schools. Why should taxpayers in general be subsidizing exclusive schools, that is, where acess is not free and available to ever American child.

If we really end up giving computers to these schools, can we get provisions to allow community use after school hours. I mean, they were paid for with community dollars -- shouldn't the community own them?
name: Furnes
email: hefurnes@online.no
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 15:45 PST

The problem with funding the secular part of the education of a religious schools is that if that education is mandatory, they get more money to spend on the religious parts.
name: Johan Theil
email: J.W.Theil@students.fss.uu.nl
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 16:06 PST

I'm a Educationstudent at the university of Utrecht in the Netherlands, Europe. We in the Netherlands (and Belgium) had the same discussion here in the middle of the eighteenth century. End of the discussion was that the protestant schools, roman-catholic schools and all other sort of schools, for example Jiddish schools, Islamitic schools, etc., were permitted and in later stadium all funded the same way as the public schools. After a century education at this way, some conclusions can be made, and some of your arguments can be answered. For example: it is not the case that religieous-people 'steal' the taxmoney of the 'hard working'atheist-people. So I think that for a good answer and evidence on all the arguments, and a example on the same toppic, a study at the Dutch and Belgian education is recommanded.
name: StabGod
email: stabgod@netzero.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 18:00 PST

It isn't enough that religious schools get a nice fat tax break. That makes me sick considering Uncle Sam sucks out over 30% of my salary. I would rather my district congress-person use that money to finance Saturday-night jaunts into local Nevada whorehouses instead of financing some diamond-wearing bishop's new Lexus.

The local public-school teachers make a whopping 26K a year. If more money is spent on public schools and teacher's salaries, maybe we can start hiring people other than History or English majors. Start recruiting engineers to teach our kids math and science. Pay them industry standard salaries for technical personnel. Don't wait until the second year of college to introduce American students to the strange world of algebra. It was my education as an engineering major that introduced me to practice of scientific analysis. This aptitude guided me through the forrest theistic belief, into the world of atheism. If this could have been taught to me in High School, it would have saved me from a few years of agonizing Catholic guilt.
name: Margie Wait
email: mdwait@mindspring.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 18:47 PST

Financial aid to religious schools from any government source, whether it is in the form of vouchers to the parents or the school, money for books, computers, teachers, transportation, or for any other school program or activity, is forbidden by the U.S. Constitution, as well as many state constitutions. That is as it should be. If religious schools want to "compete" with public schools, and that does seem to be a prevailing argument in our capitalist society, then let the religious institutions and sponsors of these schools raise all of the funds needed to operate their schools. Public schools require public funds; private religious schools require private religious funding.
name: andrew williams
email: sir_funk@email.com
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 19:07 PST

regular schools are already much in need of funding. why not give it to them? at least a secular school has the possibility of teaching something logical and true.
name: Gary Johnson
email: gepen@earthlink.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 19:44 PST

If religious schools want aid they should give up their tax exempt status.
name: Greg McDowell
email: gmcdowell@atheists.org
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 20:25 PST

These religious schools are already taxfree and now they want tax money to support their efforts to teach children their psycotic superstition. This is what I call salt in the wound!
name: Andrew Lancashire
email: llysfaen@bellatlantic.net
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 20:37 PST

Religous schools exist to give children a religous education. This in itself is enough to deny them public money. The more children that are brainwashed the more we have to worry about the "Balkanization" of our own country in the future.
name: Jeff Bradford
email: jeffbee@igps.org
Wednesday, 16-Jun-1999 20:50 PST

Private schools must remain private. The U.S. Government provides for primary and secondary education for everyone, free of charge. Those who decide to send their children to private schools should do so at their own expense. They continue to recieve the benefit of living in a society that provides free education, which is what their tax dollars are paying for. They should pay if they choose not to use the free schools. To take from the existing schools and give to private schools would cost us all dearly in the long run. Public schools need more money, not less.

There will always be someone who wants more than what is offered them. Private schools should be filling that niche.
name: John Favinger
email: swampers@hsonline.net
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 01:05 PST

This is definitely a situation of the camel's nose under the tent. No one has proposed not allowing parents to send their children to the school of their choice. If the decision is made to send the child to a private school, then the parent must accept the cost. My wife attended parochial schools for 12 years. Not once did her parents complain about paying the taxes to the public schools.

As far as transportation to private schools is concerned, I have no objection to children being taken to the public school they would normally attend by public conveyance. It would be the responsibility of the parent or the private school to take them the rest of the way to their school.
name: Tara
email: TWill8709@aol.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 02:39 PST

School is a place of diversity. Some students are black other students are white. Some are gay and some are heterosexual. Some are religious others are not. There is no reason at all that a Christian child shouldn't be able to function and grow in this type of environment. Eventually, Christians are going to have to accept that there is serious and legitimate opposition to there claims. They are going to have to learn to see "both sides of the coin." They might as well be exposed to the "other side" as children when they are more capable of absorbing information rather than as adults who have more difficulty learning, in general.

I personally don't agree with the notion of religious schools at all. I believe important and highly probable facts (like evolution and the Big Bang) are down played or justified away in Christian environments. How are these kids going to function in the world when they grow up? They cannot be affective scientists if they down play important empirical findings solely because these findings contradict their faith! They can't be affective psychologists, anthropologist, or many other things if they aren't willing to study and accept the various stages humankind has been through.

If people insist on sending their kids to religious school, they should pay for it themselves. Why couldn't I have gone to an "atheist's school" where I wouldn't have been called a "witch" and a "Satanist" and various other things? Would the government have supported an atheist's school for me? I doubt it.

Christians see how powerful and logical the facts are. They're afraid and don't want their kids to "loss the faith." That's the sad and sorry reality. They don't deserve special treatment, though. I didn't get any special treatment. I'm sure you didn't either.

This is how I see it: In a religious school, you're pressured into being religious by both students and teachers. In a public school, you only encounter peer pressure to be religious. Furthermore, teachers don't actively try to sway you from religion in public schools (and if they do, they can be sued). They only present highly probable facts.

If people really want their kids to go to religious schools, they can dig the money up themselves. If they can't afford it, public school isn't going to "destroy their faith". It will only show them how to reason logically and live in the real world.
name: Erica Kennedy
email: amoralla@hotmail.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 06:18 PST

So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer? Giving money to these privileged few schools and students while the public education system is going to hell is a slap in the face of those in public education, teachers, students, and parents. Private schools are already getting our best teachers and students and are charging tuition for this superior education... now they have to have public funds? Why aren't we spending this money on our public schools? Let's face it ... private schools (religious or not) are private businesses, and should be treated as such. In other words, they should not be supported by the government.
name: Arthur Young
email: arthureyoung@mindspring.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 07:31 PST

It is ridiculous that this issue is still an issue. Schools located in places of worship are arms of that organizations so-called ministry. They advertise their schools as institutions that provide spiritual teaching as well as traditional studies. They themselves say that the goal of these schools is to give the students the necessary "moral grounding" to go into the world as good Christians. Attendance at chapel is usually mandatory. Giving money for any reason to a religious organization, be it education, food drives, helping the needy is money that goes to promoting that group. There is no circumstance that money given to a faith-based school would not result in the promotion of that groups creed. If the school is successful, that will be held up as the work of their deity, and that the money from the government had nothing to do with that success.
name: Bob Scherago
email: scheragor@compuserve.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 08:14 PST

I believe that providing public funding to religious schools would be detrimental to the public school system.

Presently there are private alternatives, religious and secular, to public schools that are used by people who can afford them or win scholarships. This often has the effect of removing the best and brightest candidates from the public school systems. Public aid to these schools would further erode the quality of public education.
name: Randall Gorman
email: beatnik@startext.net
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 08:48 PST

I agree with Carletta Sims on this matter. Absolutely no public money should be used to support any religious endeavor. If the parents of children in private schools wish to have taxpayers support their child's education then the parents should send their children to public schools. They have freedom of choice. They may choose tax-supported public schools or they may choose religious indoctrination with their own money.

------- "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." [Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers, 1:545] -------

name: Danny Drake
email: ddrake@svision.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 08:50 PST

I think the goverment should use all this money for public schools.

When some one in goverment wants to use money for public aid to religious schools there giving up on public schools and relocating the money to the wrong place our public schools need money and suport .
name: Diane Wahto
email: dwahto@prodigy.net
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 10:06 PST

Using public tax dollars for private schools takes funds away from public schools. Public schools need MORE support, not less. Further, giving tax money to private religious schools blurs the separation of church and state. I believe these movements are right-wing attempts to weaken public schools. First, starve them of money, then say, "Look what a bad job they're doing." Keep it separate. It works best that way.
name: Sam Rivier
email: SeculrKing@aol.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 10:34 PST

I don't care whether the schools are going to use tax money for only secular things. First of all, it will cost far too much. Secondly, if we support one religion, we'll have to support them all. Third, it will cost even more to have people inspect the use of equipment and make sure it is secularly used. Finally, there are plenty of FREE churches around that can give them an equal education. Why doesn't the government just give support to secular private schools and forget the religious ones. There are plenty of other ways to get religious education, and we don't need to pay for it.

There is also the danger of rioting, as explained in this sites report on the Bible Wars. In some states, there is an equal population of Catholics and Protestants. Of course, the Catholic Church has much more money, therefor it has more private schools (this is very easy to notice in Illinois). The Protestant community is incredibly powerful in America, and many will not stand for having to pay for catholics. I fear that if any support of non-secular schools is approved, it can only lead to civil disorder.
name: Sonya
email: Stdyngfool@aol.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 12:43 PST

The government is to provide compulsory education for the public...they do this through the public school system. This system is for the benefit of all children from all religious and non-religious groups. Maintaining secularity is of the utmost importance for maintaining the balance of separation of church and state. That law was written for the benefit for everyone...not for just a select few. Those who wish to send their children to religious private schools exercise their own free will in doing so. They decide that they wish to inundate their children with religious instruction along with regular education. I should not have to pay for that decision when a public school is available for them. The government should therefore not be responsible for footing the bill when they are already providing a school system for everyone. If you want your children to go to a religious private school how about turning to your churches and/or religious organizations for hand-outs. Unlike the rest of us...we have to pay taxes. These churches (some of which bring in billions of dollars a year)do not pay taxes; therefore instead of building a multi-million dollar church...how about spending that money on education instead of forcing others to pay for it.
name: Derek Houck
email: TheDerekH@aol.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 14:33 PST

I can hardly believe this is even an issue. It clearly violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause, and very highly entangles the government with religion. Besides, our public schools are in bad enough shape as it is, I know, I go to one, and the money should go to help them out instead of private schools for the "special" people. That's the opinion of a 15 year old atheist sophmore from Park Hill High School in Kansas City.
name: Chris Holbert
email: topher_8@excite.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 14:35 PST

The point of private schools are that they are privately funded. Further more there are schools in the inner-cities who are part of the public school systems, who do not have the computers, who's schools are falling apart structurally, and where the kids are using text books from 1975. How can we think about supporting private schools whos's purpose is to be a private run system, with private fundings? Yet, we have public schools which have classrooms that are converted closets, with twice as many kids in a class room as the rich suburban schools. Lets clean up the public schools then we can worry about the Bible Preachers who have enough money, but just don't know how to use it.
name: James Feigenbaum
email: jfeigenb@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 14:35 PST

Any government aid to a religious school, no matter what direct purpose the aid is designated for will ultimately be a subsidy to that religion because the religious institutions behind the school can, as a result of the aid, divert monies that they would spend on the school to explicitly religious purposes. Any claim to the contrary is a smokescreen. The First Amendment makes no distinction between the direct or indirect establishment of a religion, and so all such aid is unconstitutional.
name: Chris Holbert
email: topher_8@excite.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 14:37 PST

The point of private schools are that they are privately funded. Further more there are schools in the inner-cities who are part of the public school systems, who do not have the computers, who's schools are falling apart structurally, and where the kids are using text books from 1975. How can we think about supporting private schools whos's purpose is to be a private run system, with private fundings? Yet, we have public schools which have classrooms that are converted closets, with twice as many kids in a class room as the rich suburban schools. Lets clean up the public schools then we can worry about the Bible Preachers who have enough money, but just don't know how to use it.
name: Brenda Wright
email: bwright@intermountain.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 14:40 PST

I am a teacher at a public school. That is where FREE public education takes place and if we funded those public schools better, then many parents would not feel the need for non-religious private schools. But parents have a choice now, they can send their children to FREE public schools or they can PAY FOR THIER OWN alternative educational system - you no longer have choices when government supports both religious and non-religious.
name: Mark Sulkowski
email: marks@apollo3.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 16:12 PST

If parents have money to spend on education, even if that money arrives in the form of a government granted voucher, I think the parent should be able to choose a religious school. I don't think that this, in itself, is a violation of the separation of Church and State, any more than a little old lady tithing her local church with Social Security money is.

However, if vouchers create an incentive to religious organizations to lobby for higher taxes -- i.e. if vouchers lead religious groups to eat more at the public tax trough, then I think the separation of Church and State is in trouble.
name: Larry Carter Center
email: atheistvet@excite.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 20:54 PST

hold on to your wallets, the billions in church coffers could increase to trillions with all the scams possible with this Supreme Court case under review .... remember, Theocracy is Treason, Article Six, US Constitution but will never be enforced until millions of us American Atheists keep loudly saying no to theocracy
name: Robert DePasquale
email: robdp@dorsai.org
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 21:58 PST

When I think about it, organized religion has never paid for, assisted nor financially supported non-religious education or public schooling! Religious schools shouldn't expect to be supported by "public tax dollars". Especially since religion does not pay any tax at all!
name: Ethan J Bollin
email: BjorkEEE@aol.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 22:45 PST

Morals; 1, Religion; -1,000,000. Have a nice day.
name: Wes
email: stein@starfishnet.com
Thursday, 17-Jun-1999 22:50 PST

How can you expect to receive Federal aid if you don't pay taxes. If religious organizations desire to have private schools then the money should come from the churches only and not take money that might be spent for public education.
name: Tim Sullivan
email: virgie@teleport.com
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 02:59 PST

Government assistance to religious institutions is a violation of separation state from religions. The pope could give money to catholic schools if he and the gang he represents weren't greedy. Non-religous private schools likewise should not receive public funding as the condition that they are a part of is--unwittingly or not--a fascist approach and would suck much needed funds from public schools.
name: Bj Murphy
email: bmurphy@d.umn.edu
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 09:22 PST

It's sad that, at least in this pole, there's opposition to the school voucher system. By not allowing children to choose the education they would like to receive, it's just another way that society is keeping the poor down while helping the rich succeed. As a graduate of public schools, I can say that there's as much garbage being thrown at students in public schools as there is in private schools. I think students should be allowed the choice to receive the kind of education that they want.
name: Debbie
email: ImuUrem@webtv.net
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 10:35 PST

I believe in church and state seperation for many reasons I will not get into. It seems to me with all the money these religious groups aquire, maybe instead of using it to lobby against those issues which take choice away from the American people, they should pour it into their education system in order to provide a good education to those students inrolled in the Christian and porochial schools. This is the responsibility of the church, not the state. It is by the church's choice to provide a religious education to those children of religious families. Therefore, it should be there responsibility to provide the funding needed. Our public school systems are in dire need of any type of help from our government whether it is financial or the need to revamp the curriculum to ensure students the best education--this should be the federal governments first priority. Leave the responsibility of religious schools to those religious organizations which started them.
name: Donald F. Millikan Jr.
email: dr@pinenet.com
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 16:43 PST

To my knoledge, most religious organizations are "TAX EXEMPT"! Why on earth would anyone want to help educate the children of people who belong to any organization, which by deliberately avoiding "TAXATION" adds a larger "TAX BURDEN" to the rest of the non-religous population?
name: Mark Himan
email: mhiman9249@aol.com
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 18:30 PST

Government funding of private religous schools is unconstitutional. Furthermore, the children a such schools are taught that there religion is right and everybody else's is wrong. How many people have died in wars fought throughout history based soley on this? These teachings just further divide our society.
name: Eric the Heretic
email: EBusch2048@aol.com
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 19:58 PST

On the surface, allowing people to send their children to schools that support their personal views would certainly put an end to the current devisivness on issues such as prayer in public schools. If the plan was taken to it's logical conclusion then eventually all childern would go to private or parocial schools paid for by the parents, with all taxes for public schools ended, but that will never happen, and in the meantime it will spell the end for the weak public school system we have now. In the long run, having children divided up by what school they goto (on the basis of religous beliefs) will only serve to worsen the divisiveness we feel in this country already.
name: John Landan
email: JLandan@aol.com
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 22:41 PST

While a staunch supporter of separation of church and state, my reasons for being against any public funding for private schools go beyond the usual reasons of the public having no control over the teachers, administration, or curriculum. If a taxpayer wishes his tax money ear-marked for education to go to the school of his choice, public or private; then a taxpayer with no children should also then be allowed to do with as he pleases with his own tax dollars. I for one would choose to keep the money for myself rather than support the education of any child not my own. This, however, is impracticle in that public spending should be used for the benefit of the public as a whole, not as individuals. But the fact of the matter is that public tax money should be spent solely on public education and if someone wants to send his kid to private school he should do so with private money.
name: TheHermit
email: The@Hermit.net
Friday, 18-Jun-1999 23:33 PST

As an atheist who has frequently contemplated the establishment of a school providing secular teaching, the question of the slippery slope became somewhat of a problem when completing the questionnaire.

In my opinion, any money given to a school of a religious nature, irrespective how "non-religious" the purpose for which it is applied, permits that school to mobilize funds they would otherwise not have had available, to use for religious purposes.

As far as "Should government funds be available to private, non-religious schools, but not to private religious schools?" my instinct would be to say yes, but this would mean that somebody (Government? 1st amendment difficulties lurk here) would have the task of distinguishing between religious and secular schools. This seems as problematic as the idea of the government sponsoring religion. Presumably the question of enforcement would also become problematic.

So in the interests of consistency, my considered opinion is that, no matter how cost-effective, or deserving of assistance secular private schools might be, the answer has to be a regretful "no". Of course, there are already many students receiving government and state scholarships who are attending schools/universities associated with religions in the United States. It seems that all it takes is for them to claim they are not a religious institution, no matter how "religious" their activities may actually be, for their students to receive subsidies. A simple ban on government scholarships for attendance at private schools would be the only effective manner in which to reduce this practice and bring the US back in line with its constitutional principles.

The other vastly difficult question hinges around your question "If government aid is used to benefit students at Roman Catholic schools, should comparable financial assistance be given to ...[other religious schools]". Once the constitution is nullified, it would seem that equity demands that everybody should be treated similarly, whether they be the groups you mentioned, or e.g. the silliest of Satanist and Wicca groups. Not even these groups can be sillier than for example, the Roman Catholics, Baptists or Calvinists. And they do seem to have more fun. On the other hand, should the law be broken in the first place? Should any of this silliness be encouraged at all?

I do think though, that insisting that every minority, every fringe group, every "offensive" group, that starts a school and demands funding, whether the Satanists, the KKK, the Black Muslims or National Socialists, should be eligible, without any test, for government funding. The simply news that "Judeo-Christian tax funds" would have to be applied to these uses would probably tie the people proposing the brain damaged notions these measures appear to be, into agonies of indecision forever.
name: G DePere
email: repunzelhare@hotmail.com
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 01:45 PST

The ony thing that might be okay is if the feds gave money to the parents to spend on whatever school they wanted. That is no different than the federal aid to college students who choose to go to private religious schools.
name: Deanne Dice
email: luckydice6@yahoo.com
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 07:29 PST

Being a teacher, the school voucher topic is important to me. If the school voucher were used to fund a child's education in a religious school, the state would be, in effect, funding religious instruction. I do not want my tax money, which is involuntarily taken from me, to support a student's religious education. I know there are many thing we pay for yet do not support, but this is one issue we CAN "nip in the bud". Before laws concerning vouchers pass in each state, we can fight not to allow vouchers to be used for religious schools. In my state, Texas, our teacher's association, Texas Classroom Teachers' Association (TCTA) is lobbying against a voucher system for several reasons, one of which is that public schools will suffer if students decide to leave them. The government is here to support the PUBLIC, hence students should remain in PUBLIC schools in order to receive the government's support. It's the only fair way to use taxes taken from people of all faiths and atheists.
name: Ben Brown
email: Ben9275@aol.com
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 11:12 PST

The reason why public funds should not be administered to private schools to help with secular programs is that the private schools can then spend more of their money on the nonsecular programs (ie religion). So by aiding religious schools with secular programs, the government is indirectly aiding religious education. That goes against the separation of church and state.
name: Kay
email: kaysings@aol.com
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 12:09 PST

What's the problem here? Private schools, whether they teach religion, cooking or dog training, are private businesses and should be funded only by their "customers." Public monies should go to public schools, period. No exceptions. If atheists don't wake up, recognize what's going on and rise up, mark my words, we're going to find ourselves living in a theocracy sometime in the next century.

This country WAS NOT founded on any religious principles. The Founding Fathers came here to ESCAPE the religious tyranny of the "mother country" and to get religion out of government. Public aid to private schools of any kind for any purpose whatsoever, no matter what the Pat Robertsons and Trent Lotts say, is a clear violation of that principle and should not be permitted.
name: Nate
email: natwhite@mediaone.net
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 19:27 PST

I do not think that the government should be in the business of supporting religious schools in any way. I believe that people have the right to indulge in any religious fantasy they like as long as it does not interfere with the rights of others. As a gay male I find that the religious are interfering with my rights to full citizenship and I resent it very much. I am a more civilized and moral person than any of those religious bigots and want them off my back.
name: Cliff Walker
email: editor@PositiveAtheism.org
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 20:31 PST

I voted against the Roman Catholic vs Black Muslim schools question because I realize that lawmakers make mistakes. If they did fund Roman Catholic schools, we should work to end that funding because it is wrong. We should not throw in the towel for the sake of "equality." I am sure that Roman Catholics and Protestants and the others would rally behind the funding of a Black Muslim school if it meant that they would be more likely to receive funding for their own school. This is precisely why the traditional religions supported the Native American Church in its quest to use the psychedelic Peyotl plant in its ritual.
name: Bill Purcell
email: Purcellj@erols.com
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 22:19 PST

Please note that I make a hard distinction between federal funds and those that come from school district sources. The federal government should provide no funds for private schools; the use of local funds is an entirely different proposition:

As your careful breakdown of the issues makes clear, this is a very complicated problem. Those who want to send their children to private schools pay taxes just as do those of us who want our children to go to public schools. Perhaps some sort of compensation should be considered. If so, it should be as a direct tax exemption on the local level, because that's where the money for the schools comes from. Many people want federal exemption for what is a local financial issue.

I think that is great merit in granting local property tax exemption for sending their children to private schools, but there is no justification for federal compensation or exemption of any sort.

We who would rather join a private military rather than the US Military do not get exemptions from paying our share of the Federal military budget.

The greatest problem in public schools is the disparity between rich communities and poor ones. One way of redressing that wrong is to allow school districts to allot funds to private schools, taking that money from the allotment for public schools, provided that such allottments do not violate the first amendment. But no federal monies should be involved in such a program. I hope that this opinion provides some hope to the hopeless and some discouragement to the warmly ensconced.

Bill Purcell
WRYTECK
name: Duane C. Buchholz
email: tincan@cyberhighway.net
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 22:51 PST

Taxpayer monies are assessments to finance public purposes,not private schools, religious or otherwise. Even if churches paid taxes, I would still say "no" to funding their schools. In other words, "not one cent for tribute."
name: Justin Hardman
email: jhardman@att.net.hk
Saturday, 19-Jun-1999 23:28 PST

I myself attend a private internatinoal religious school and my family, both parents and myself are involved in education. As a gerneral policy I think that it is wrong to simply send funds to a school blindly as it is impossible to be to know how it is being used. However, this is the same for ANY school, not simply religious ones. Funds should be appropriated to all schools on the condition that they are used for specfic purposes, and these purposes should not be religious. To deny funds to religious schools simply because they are religious would be a secrtian and singleminded as the schools themselves
name: Lars Bergdahl
email: bergdahl@ix.netcom.com
Sunday, 20-Jun-1999 03:08 PST

Schools should NOT receive ANY Federal dollars. Let the communities keep the tax money at home and educate their own children.
name: Lynda Perry
email: callicot@eden.rutgers.edu
Sunday, 20-Jun-1999 11:26 PST

I don't have a problem with government aid to religious schools as long as it is limited to items that cannot be used for religious instruction. That would include textbooks only if the textbooks in question were devoid of religious content or religion-inspired deviations from standard scholarly opinion. I suspect that most textbooks used by religious schools would not be acceptable for public purchase according to those criteria.

I support vouchers only if they are not for enough money to release parents from more than half of their share in the public schools. Somebody would have to come up with a reasonable calculation of how much each family normally contributes to the public schools, according to how much property tax they pay, how large the family is, etc. If each family's total voucher was limited to half of this amount, they would still be supporting the public schools, as well as providing for their own children's education. Yes, that education would include religious indoctrination, but it would also include the basic skills needed for functioning as independent adults, thereby providing a benefit to the entire community.

Of course, there would have to be some sort of accreditation process for voucher-accepting private schools, paid for by the private schools, that would ensure that they were, in fact, meeting basic education requirements of their students, including those who choose to attend college. And promoting the idea that certain categories of law-abiding citizens are undeserving of the same rights as everyone else must also be forbiden, since such instruction is clearly detrimental to society.
name: Norman Munroe
email: Kingnorm@tp.net
Sunday, 20-Jun-1999 12:48 PST

If the religious schools could teach the three R's with out one of them being religion, maybe the goverment could fund religious schools. Unfortunately teaching religion is what these schools are all about. " So just say no."
name: marcia
email: msmarcia@postalzone.com
Sunday, 20-Jun-1999 20:11 PST

No government monies should go towards the funding of ANY private school; be it sectarian, or non-sectarian. If you want to send your child/children to any form of private school...you should be prepared to bear the full burdon. PERIOD.

What are they doing, with all the "tithing" money that is pilfered from millions, every day in this country, as it is?

And who can seriously trust that even if government money is earmarked towards "non-religious" venues, that they simply will not find a way to circumvent the way those monies are actually allocated?

Get religion out of my pocket book, and off our backs. There is absolutely NOTHING of "moral" value to be ascertained from its propagation, and I most definitely, am sick and tired of being forced to pay for it...in all its many "backdoor" and insidious methods.
name: Anthony LaRocca, Jr.
email: Anthonycool@yahoo.com
Monday, 21-Jun-1999 10:15 PST

Public Aid To Religious Schools sounds like "special Rights" for religion. I believe it is absolutely unnecessary and a violation of The United States Constitution for taxpayers to pay for Religious and Private schools. Let the parents pay the tuition, etc. for putting their children in Religious schools. I do not want my hard earned tax money used for Religious schools, or anything that is connected to Religion!
name: Tom Scanlon
email: primate4@cableone.net
Monday, 21-Jun-1999 17:59 PST

I would not want one cent of my tax dollar supporting any school that teaches such a hateful dogma.. I know what they teach as I attended such a school for 9 years as a youth... Hatred and intolerance and superstition are the lessons they teach, and somehow interpret these teachings as being "good". NO WAY!!!
name: Bertraynd
email: bertraynd@aol.com
Monday, 21-Jun-1999 18:12 PST

It is often overlooked that the country we live in was founded with the most ardent desire to keep church and state separate. Using public tax dollars in any way to benefit select religious groups is a clear violation of this desire. I find it ironic that the notion is even being considered. Religions have historically supressed knowledge and technological advancement, yet now they WANT computers and Internet access and to learn about science and medicine with state of the art tools. Perhaps their old adage, "God will provide" simply doesn't suffice. Too bad - Uncle Sam is NOT "God!" If you want your kids to have the best, get them to a decent public school and counter the lessons they are taught with your respective mythology and grim fairy tales on your own time, and with your own cash.

Feel free to email...
name: Charles A. Varney, Jr.
email: cvarney@home.net
Monday, 21-Jun-1999 23:31 PST

I don't want to see any of my hard earned money wasted on something so counterproductive. On the other hand, I do believe that the parents should not have to pay the property tax that would go to public schools while their children are going to private school. I wouldn't want to pay for something that I wasn't using. And I certainly wouldn't want anybody paying it twice. I'm not a fan of religion but I can't see giving someone the shaft just because they have poor judgment.

I don't believe that religious teachings are a benefit to humanity in any way. If my money is to be given away to religious institutions then those institutions should be forced to follow the same rules and regulations that the public ones must follow. Also, the practice of not taxing religious organizations would have to be abandoned. I can't see myself paying a tax increase 2 years down the line because Father Bob wanted a raise. Especially if Father Bob is teaching something that I don't believe should be taught. Anywhere. Ever.
name: Aulfin Star
email: aulfinstar@home.com
Tuesday, 22-Jun-1999 00:28 PST

Bottom line here is Seperation of Church and State! ... we have a need to identify what is good for the people in general and what is not.

I do not want to have to pay for the education of some child that goes to a Private school period!

Just like turning the TV off, people have the right to choose thier childern's learning venues. They should not have the right to expect the rest of us to pay for it.
name: Gary
email: gkwedlund@iwaynet.net
Tuesday, 22-Jun-1999 19:39 PST

Just as a general comment, it appears that in today's political environment, we are fighting an uphill battle. The Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that general references to God are acceptable, but that specific favoratism toward specific religions are not. This, of course, means that the Supreme Court is accomodating to the assumption that some God exists, and does not consider that assumption on the part of any governmental institution to be a violation of any person's constitutional freedom under the first amendment. In other words, freedom of religion does not include the ultimate enlightenment that we athiest have experienced.

We, as a class, are denied our rights, and are forced to argue our cases from a perspective which pits one religion against another. So, the inclusion of the ten commandments can successfully be argued in court by contending that it is an affront to Budists and Hindus, but not that it is an affront to Athiests. How unfortunate it is that the holders of the ultimate truth in America are left to argue their cases in such a moronic fashion.
name: Wayne Sisson
email: Wayne_A_Sisson@hud.gov
Wednesday, 23-Jun-1999 10:34 PST

Non-profit agencies are using Govt. money for 202 housing (sec. 8) for elderly. Is this going to favor churches? Many or all are church sponsored which may be church dominated, and located in proximity of church and little else nearby.

Go to Poll/Results.

Back to Top of Forum.

Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.