Vouchers were supported by that supreme court opinion 5-4 not 9-0. That implies that there is a strong rationale for the dissenting opinion, even if not ultimately strong enough to win in this particular case. I made it clear that I sided with the dissenting opinion that found them unconstitutional. There is a good reason to argue vouchers as unconstitutional while there is none for sex education. That's the point I was making.

I'm questioning vouchers on constitutionality. You're questioning sex-ed based on religion, which is expressly unconstitutional.

I haven't mentioned religion even once in this conversation, but you have mentioned it several times.

The primary focus of any vouchers eligible school would be basic education, not religious instruction.

Many, many non-religious parents send their kids to Catholic schools because of the high quality of education their kids receive relative to the cost.

I believe Catholic schools have very little "religious" instruction. The main focus is a quality basic education.

Disclosure: I am NOT Roman Catholic. I am a Fundamentalist Baptist.

Addendum: If parents want Sex-Ed taught to their kids in school, that's up to them. If not, the parents should have options, imo.

LOL. No worries, I've certainly misunderstood other people's posts before as well.

This doesn't really answer the question. And maybe you're not trying to solve a particular problem, and just think more choice is better, which is fine. But I'm pretty sure in the past you've been pretty hard on US public education, so I'm assuming there are some problems you think need solving.

I don't think your comparisons work particularly well. None of them present a pitfall comparable to that of kids without the same means and mobility being stuck in the schools that no one else - a situation that is sometimes exacerbated by terrible policies like funding "higher performing" schools at a greater level than "lower performing" schools.

And? You can make the case that your opposition to sex education is not based on your religious beliefs but I'm not going to believe you.



I am perfectly aware. I've made it clear several times now that I side with the dissenting opinion that the over abundance of religious and predominantly Christian schools means that children may have mostly or only religious schools to choose from.



I've got no problem with that, I just don't want the government financing it.


Any religious instruction is the problem for me, it doesn't matter how little. I don't want government financing any religious instruction.

As I said, the parents are free to lobby their state government and school district. I'm not in favor of opening the door to arbitrarily allowing students to abstain from fact-based education.

I'll try to use "polite" language to summarize what I believe is the chief problem with virtually EVERY major institution: Our institutions are controlled by those who listen to and obey "The Spirit of the Age" instead of those who listen to and obey the Spirit of God.

Modern Psychology ("knowledge of the soul") teaches that the soul doesn't exist.

Modern Philosophy ("love of knowledge/wisdom") typically denies the existence of Ultimate Knowledge/Truth.

Modern Axiology ("knowledge of values") typically denies absolute, objective values.

Some people are so "dazed and confused" that they'll tell you with a straight face that using the n-word is a more egregious offense than a woman having her "doctor" slaughter her unborn baby in her womb.

I typically favor options for parents who prefer to not have their children taught by folks who are fruitier than a nutcake.

Even many nonreligious folks can plainly see this insanity unfolding in front of them.

My primary objection to Sex-Ed is based on my religious beliefs. However, some secular folks also object. Did you not know that?
So, we agree that it is your opinion that vouchers are unconstituional. Originally, you stated it as a fact. (Maybe I misunderstood you.)

Fair enough. You have a problem with financing it. I don't have a problem with financing it. Now what?

Fair enough. You don't want it. I do want it. Now what?


Don't confuse me with the facts. (Or the fax.)

Thanks for the answer, lagtight. I'll say that much of that is beyond the scope of K-12 teaching, and I don't know that there's anything there that I agree with. But I think it would be a derail to debate it, and it's not a topic that really interests me anyway, so I'll leave it at that.

You're welcome. Thanks for the questions.

Fair enough, sir.

The problem with the ultimate truth u speak of , coming from god is , there is many religions saying the same thing as you do but with a different message and outcome ……

So imo , if you can’t even agree with your other religious fellows on what the « real truth » is , why should we teach it in school ?

Should we teach 2+2= 5 because some people BELIEVE it is the « true answer » or shall we teach what we know for sure what we teach is facts ,like 2+2= 4 ?

There is even many different believes with the same god (Protestant and Catholic) …
Shouldn’t u put your house in others with the same « plausible truth » before teaching it ?

PS: and after there is other gods claiming the same thing as u do with different messages too .
Pretty hard to take your side when I have absolutely no idea why I should believe your words more then theirs ….

U saying so because u say so don’t make it more so ,
because they say so too ….
Lot of circling around instead of a clear 1 path to « true enlightenment ».

Usually if I’m in a car and go somewhere but just ending up doing circles it usually means I’m loss ….

Before u start quoting stuff from your book , do know they have similar books too .
So we circle again …

I got dizzy trying to decipher the above mess. Maybe after I take a Dramamine pill I'll give it another shot.

frankly it's tyrannical to wish to impose your personal and highly subjective be imposed on everyone by the state lag

you don't seem a like a dumb person, but there's a major sociopathic vibes to your posts where you just fundamentally do not care about others nor their perspectives because your faith is all that matters

Sure. I was addressing your motivations.



Of course it is my opinion. That vouchers are currently legally constitutional is also just a majority opinion of the court at that time. That opinion could change.



You vote for politicians that support your ideas and I vote for ones that support mine. What else is there?

I am curious if you mean this only within the confines of vouchers or if you support religious instruction in public schools as well.

EVERY law imposes the views of ONE group of people on EVERYONE. That's what makes something a LAW. Anarchists believe that no individual or group has a right to impose their will on others by way of law. Are you an anarchist?

Maybe if you got to know me better you'd change your mind about that.

BECAUSE of my faith, I am OBLIGATED to care about others. It is BECAUSE "my faith is all that matters" that I endeavor to love God and love my neighbor.

Thanks for your psychobabble interlude.

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree, a future court might reverse the constitutionality of vouchers.

I vote early and often.

I'd say I generally oppose religious instruction in public schools. Of course, it depends to some extent on how one defines "religious instruction.". I'm fine with teachers telling their students that it is wrong to steal. Some (including myself) would consider that " religious instruction."

I would personally like a course on philosophy in school, both logic and ethics. I would be fine with religion in that setting, as one of many ethical philosophies, as long as students aren't being taught that any one (including secular ethics) has supremacy. Rather than being told it is wrong to steal, I'd like students to consider the ethical arguments when it comes to something like theft.

you're confusing caring about others to binding them to your own world views

that gay couple is perfectly happy but you think they must cease being gay and never see each other again

you want children of very diverse religious backgrounds to all grow up being taught your specific interpretation of it not at all concerned with how you would feel if the hindus had their way and you grew up with a morning prayer to vishnu

quite honestly, you seem at odds with it all, you take some things so extreme that you are lifelong celibate and yet you gamble and interact daily with a forum of degenerate gamblers, something that you always hand wave away by stating "there's parts of this forum that aren't about whoring and gambling" while wholly ignoring you're discussing relgion on a site where most people are posting about whoring and gambling

it really feels like you're just an asexual person who brute forced religion into the narrative hence you're not doing it for yourself but rather for god, the other implication is that you're a closeted gay man who is celibate because women are yucky to you but gay sex is a sin so you just go celibate instead and this would also explain why you always bring up that topic - quite a few people here are dead certain this is the case, you may feel they are just trolling when they say it or allude to your anti homosexual posting as a method of compensating for your unpure thoughts but they are quite genuine

there's a very long list of ultra conservative church leaders who made their career about bashing on homosexuality who years later were caught en flagrante delicto with a young man they found on rentboy.com so the precedent for this is quite common

frankly, i don't understand your refusal to bang or get married, nowhere is this a requirement of christianity, if it were, there'd be no more christians, just seems like you have a lot of issues going on and use religion as a bandaid/scapegoat for all the things you are dealing with

I think most of us had him marked as closeted from day one.

Wow

It astounds me that one can graduate from high school without taking a course in Critical Thinking. I learned about informal logical fallacies in a Biology class as a junior in high school. If not for that class, I would not have been introduced to logic until college.

I have no power or authority to bind anyone to my worldview.

I have never said that nor implied that, let alone ever believed that.

I'm fine with students being exposed to a wide array of worldviews. When have I ever said otherwise?

I read very little about "whoring and gambling" in this Forum. Do you?

I don't recall hardly anyone suggesting that I post about homosexuality because of any "inpure thoughts" that I may have. Unless maybe it was you.

That happens and when it does its disgusting. Not sure what that had to do with me, though.

Thanks for sharing more of your psychobabble with us.

Here's a quality post addressed to me from rickroll from just over a year ago in another Forum:

You don't need a PhD in Psychology to recognize that rickroll is just a pervert troll.

c'mon now laggy, that's some willful ignorance right there to claim that nobody is alluding that let alone outright calling you a closet case other than me

You are free to quote those posts if you can find any.

You might find a few, given that...

Psychological reductionism is the last refuge for someone without an argument. - Dennis Prager

I don't see why anyone should care if lagtight is a closeted gay man, virgin, celibate, etc. Like why tf does that even matter? His homophobe bigoted views and complete confusion of a myriad of topics are what deserve to be attacked. Sure him being in the closet and his ranting homophobe views would be directly related. But only one aspect of that should be open for attack

This!!!