Well, I thought I was actually avoiding the political problem you address here. My suggestion was not that the government provide subsidies to religious schools; that is the voucher system I was not talking about, and am not really in favor of. If by subsidy you mean not compelling parents to pay twice for their child's education, then I guess I wouldn't agree that that's a subsidy.
Whether we should abolish public education is a different question, and whether we should abolish mandatory schooling is another different question, which I'd be happy to talk about off-list. But I'm not sure that "universal public education" is a "liberal ideal," until we define terms. My point about avoiding 1A issues was that the typical cases (?) arise in public school settings, and some of that could be avoided by my proposal. Richard Dougherty ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Steven Jamar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 06:45:01 -0400 >Why should anyone be exempt from paying for public education? If >Christians don't need to pay for it, why should people without school- >age children? Why not just get rid of public education and mandatory >schooling entirely? Isn't that the libertarian position you are >really advocating Richard? > >How does government subsidy of religious schools that discriminate in >hiring and indoctrinate students in particular religious beliefs >avoid 1A issues? Or is it that those of us who believe in liberal >ideals like universal public education are just less likely to sue >because of lack of standing? > >Steve > >On Aug 28, 2005, at 11:57 PM, Richard Dougherty wrote: > >> Alan: >> >> I understand amd appreciate your frustration on this issue. I'm >> not sure, though, if you are expressing concern about a >> constitutional point or a public policy point, or both. Many >> believers, of course, think that they are being excluded from >> public schools because of their own religious beliefs not being >> welcome, and thus end up double-paying for education. >> >> I do think that it gets easier to see Rick's point if instead of >> referring to public schools as government-funded we think of them >> as taxpayer-funded, or parent-funded. >> >> What if, instead of arguing for a full-blown voucher plan, we >> started out smaller; parents with school-aged children, say, being >> exempt from paying school taxes if their children are not using the >> taxpayer-funded system? That would avoid a lot of the 1A issues >> that we face all the time (largely because those without children >> in the schools are less likely to get involved in litigation, and >> may not have standing anyway). >> >> Richard Dougherty > >-- >Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: >202-806-8017 >Howard University School of Law fax: >202-806-8428 >2900 Van Ness Street NW >mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Washington, DC 20008 http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/ >pages/jamar > >"I have nothing new to teach the world. Truth and nonviolence are as >old as the hills." > >Gandhi > > > > > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
