That may be true to a degree, but that class of liberals are also big on charter schools and led the "education reform movement" that Michelle Rhee was briefly the darling of. Just basic anti-union pro-privatization (or public-private partnership to be more accurate) stuff from them. Standard neo-liberal stuff really. Like many rich liberals, bad partners to ally yourself with when it comes to public goods.
We sent one of our grandchildren to a Montessori school for Pre-K. One year cost $9,000, and that was for 1/2 day. Otherwise, it's been all public schools. We will always support public schools.
The reverse Robin Hood-ism is a problem. Taking from the poor and giving to the rich? That's the kind of "handouts," I have a problem with.
These are not handouts for the rich. The rich still pay more taxes than anybody. They're just getting a slice back as well. The money is still disproportionately going to low income families based on what they pay in. It seems like a lot of you guys would rather hurt the rich than help the poor.
I'd be curious as to how many "poor" people actually use vouchers. My guess is its mostly religious middle class people just out of the price range of private school without assistance. Poor people arent a Republican constuency. Not anyone's constituency really.
Except Robin Hood stole tax money back from the king to distribute back to the poor. He didn’t rob the rich. He robbed a corrupt tyrant modeled after King John of England, who later was forced to sign the Magna Carta.
Again, even in your example (offering an interpretation of the Establishment Clause I've never seen anybody support), it requires a government employee. It still wouldn't reach the average free exercise case, where the government has prohibited private citizens from doing something and the law is unconnected to government funding or employment. My point is that states (and the federal government) can discriminate against the religious in making funding decisions. They can't discriminate against only a single religion, but they can discriminate against all religions (by limiting funding to only secular organizations). The Establishment Clause empowers it to choose whether or not to fund religious activities.
Government employees are still entitled to the protections of the Free Exercise Clause, especially on their own time when they're acting as private individuals rather than state actors. I really don't think that's true. Establishment Clause The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
Again, your argument was that people were interpreting the Establishment Clause in such a way to write the Free Exercise Clause out of the Constitution. My point was that it is not possible to interpret it that way because the majority of free exercise cases do not involve the Establishment Clause. But since it's not important to the subject of this thread, I'm just going to move on. This all goes back to cases decided within the past few years, which is why I'm criticizing those decisions and saying that they are wrong. The Establishment Clause used to protect our freedom from religion, including our freedom to choose not to have our tax dollars fund religion.
Who do you think gave the king his money? The peasants? He may have have stolen from the king, but that doesn't preclude depredations on the nobility.
Speaking of the Establishment Clause: Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board approves nation’s first religious public charter school; gains instant pushback
Who said it's not a lot of $? And nobody said the $ isn't good enough for anything in the private sector. You keep wanting to claim this a white/black either/or kind of issue and it's not that simple.
US education system is #1 in the world https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-education Maggots want to destroy it with these social engineering projects. Seems like an easy choice at the ballot box.
You keep asking the question so I’m assuming you were homeschooled by Mama Boucher. No men can’t get pregnant naturally.
Or many of the private schools will start accepting everyone like a public school... and then they will have no real gain from that private education versus the public education the left behind... with some differences. In a private school the problem children can be forced to leave that school, unlike in the public school system. Same with problem teachers.