Barry, I don't believe that school vouchers run afoul of the First Amendment, and neither does the Supreme Court. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, a school voucher case, the Supreme Court explained that its Establishment Clause jurisprudence makes it clear that:
where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause.
Even in the majority opinion in Locke v. Davey, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, and Souter, the Court recognized that "[u]nder our Establishment Clause precedent, the link between government funds and religious training is broken by the independent and private choice of recipients."
The D.C.
The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program has not been, as you call it, "completely unsuccessful." Dr. Patrick Wolf, the principal investigator for the congressionally mandated study of the Program, testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that "the program had a statistically significant positive impact on the test scores of students in reading." He further stated that, in his opinion, "by demonstrating statistically significant impacts overall in reading based on an experimental evaluation, the [D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program] has met a tough standard for efficacy in serving low-income inner-city students."
While students who previously attended struggling schools may not be showing improvement, The Washington Post reported the director of the institute that conducted the congressionally mandated study said "one possible explanation is that those children lagged far behind academically and had trouble adjusting to what may be a more demanding classroom."
The public schools in D.C. are failing the District's residents. Former D.C. Mayor Williams described the struggle access to "high-quality education" for every American child as the "last civil rights struggle." The D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Program provides low-income parents the choice to send their children to better schools with the hope of a brighter future. You may call it "completely unsuccessful," but these parents and the parent and students who testified before the Senate Committee would disagree.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Natasha says: Moose and squirrel are toast.
The beginning of wisdom might vary from person to person don't you think? I don't find wisdom (definition 2. common sense) in fearing a supernatural being. I used to, so I have no problem understanding how you might. I think maybe wisdom begins with tolerance and understanding, and that those who would force religious beliefs upon others demonstrate neither.
Wisdom begins with atheism.
Boris, I hope you're still lurking 'cause I'd like your view---going off topic.
1. Gender discrimination law says genders are to be treated equally under the law.
2. The law tells women that the consensual sex act resulting in pregnancy DOES NOT EQUATE to a desire, decision, willingness, or ability to become a parent. It does this by allowing termination of said pregnancy upon her legal demand alone. (Note that I have no problem with women being given complete say over their own person. It is provided by nature that female humans give birth, so there is no legal recourse providable by law to a man whose desire for a baby are at odds with the female's decision to abort.)
3. The law tells men that the sex act DOES EQUATE to a decision to become a parent IF the female chooses to complete the pregnancy.
4. This is discriminatory against the male gender in that it not only tells him something completely different than it does the female, it actually transfers his right to decide upon parenthood to the female.
5. I realize that, in addition to the legal issue, there are societal and moral questions involved. You strike me as sane and logical, Boris, any conversation to be had from you?
Gimme sum wizdum
Well there is actually a reason that men have no reproductive rights anymore. Men once were the ones with all the reproductive rights but they abused them in the past. Feminists of history like women's suffrage and antislavery crusader Susan B. Anthony, who was also an atheist by the way, actually campaigned against abortion because it was then seen as an imposition forced on women by men. So we can’t go back to that can we?
It seems the pendulum has swung just a little too far in the other direction though doesn’t it? I mean we can’t force women to have abortions against their will but I don’t think men should have parenthood forced on them if they don’t want it or are not ready for it and especially if they don’t want to or even worse cannot pay for it. I’d like to see men have at least some reproductive rights because what this has caused is millions of children being born out of wedlock. Poor women have kids by men who they know up front don’t want them but know they can force them to pay child support anyway. I think a lot of women would reconsider having children out of wedlock if they knew up front that the guy did not want the financial responsibility and if he makes that clear from the start he cannot be forced to pay child support. Tell me that wouldn’t cut down on children being born out of wedlock.
I appreciate you asking my opinion on this because most people seem oblivious to the root cause of this problem or any of our societal problems, which is why we keep trying solutions that don’t work. Plus this illustrates perfectly what happens when you trample on people’s rights whether it was women’s rights two centuries ago or men’s reproductive rights today.
Boris, thanks for the reply. Most people seem quite put off by the subject, except for young men (heh, duh) and one middle aged female friend. She said she knew women who had abortions prior to landing that special bank account. Don't get me wrong, I think having a child is marvelous--if that's what you want. But yeah, it does bug me that men don't get the same decision making rights. Most people tend to try and BLAME the male for the consensual sex act in some way, since that is literally the only input (heh) he has. I consider your reply as further evidence of your rationality.
I agree, I think children born out of wedlock would decrease...though there might be a temporary spike in demand for abortions and morning after pills. Thanks again, it's a pleasure reading you.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.