<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DC Voucher Program is Unconstitutional</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 08:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: darrien</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-375458</link>
		<dc:creator>darrien</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 00:44:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-375458</guid>
		<description>how is this unconstitutional?, i am trying to find every thing i can on this topic article 1, section 8, clause 17 doe snot state any thing on this it is about the military?... what article does it apose the government joining with schools and religion</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>how is this unconstitutional?, i am trying to find every thing i can on this topic article 1, section 8, clause 17 doe snot state any thing on this it is about the military?&#8230; what article does it apose the government joining with schools and religion</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rieux</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-371111</link>
		<dc:creator>Rieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:35:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-371111</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;b&gt;Wow, Rieux that rant was remarkably unreponsive and irrelevant to what ddave and I argued.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;Then it appears you need to look up the words &quot;unresponsive&quot; and &quot;irrelevant&quot; in the dictionary.

I specifically pointed out that the vouchers-cleanse-everything argument you posted would allow the federal government to transfer every single government service into discriminatory church hands. And it would. (States, too.) Your argument licenses total theocracy.

I also pointed out that you entirely ignored the Supreme Court precedent--you know, the material that establishes what is and is not the official interpretation of the U.S. Constitution--Jesse cited. It&#039;s &lt;i&gt;your&lt;/i&gt; airy &quot;I don’t see a valid argument for unconstitutionality,&quot; with no attention whatsoever paid to the precedent analyzed in the original post, that&#039;s unresponsive.

Finally, I pointed out how ugly it is to see (a) self-declared atheist(s) supporting voucher systems that enable flat-out unquestioned rule by churches. You may not &lt;i&gt;like&lt;/i&gt; the direct implications of your Constitutional argument, but that hardly makes those implications &quot;unresponsive&quot; or &quot;irrelevant,&quot; of all things.

Stop supporting theocracy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p><b>Wow, Rieux that rant was remarkably unreponsive and irrelevant to what ddave and I argued.</b></p></blockquote>
<p>Then it appears you need to look up the words &#8220;unresponsive&#8221; and &#8220;irrelevant&#8221; in the dictionary.</p>
<p>I specifically pointed out that the vouchers-cleanse-everything argument you posted would allow the federal government to transfer every single government service into discriminatory church hands. And it would. (States, too.) Your argument licenses total theocracy.</p>
<p>I also pointed out that you entirely ignored the Supreme Court precedent&#8211;you know, the material that establishes what is and is not the official interpretation of the U.S. Constitution&#8211;Jesse cited. It&#8217;s <i>your</i> airy &#8220;I don’t see a valid argument for unconstitutionality,&#8221; with no attention whatsoever paid to the precedent analyzed in the original post, that&#8217;s unresponsive.</p>
<p>Finally, I pointed out how ugly it is to see (a) self-declared atheist(s) supporting voucher systems that enable flat-out unquestioned rule by churches. You may not <i>like</i> the direct implications of your Constitutional argument, but that hardly makes those implications &#8220;unresponsive&#8221; or &#8220;irrelevant,&#8221; of all things.</p>
<p>Stop supporting theocracy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaylya</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-371061</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaylya</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 16:19:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-371061</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that just because a school might say that tuition is, lets say, $15,000 doesn&#039;t mean that everyone there pays $15,000. In the absence of vouchers, many such schools do have scholarships and such to allow people who can&#039;t afford the regular tuition to attend. Of course, such scholarships might only be extended to students meeting high academic (or athletic, or artistic) standards.

And of course, as someone has pointed out, just because the average tuition is more like $15,000 doesn&#039;t mean that there aren&#039;t schools that are lower cost. Then again, $7500 really isn&#039;t that much for a private school, and it sounds like the families these grants are going to aren&#039;t intended to be the families who could easily top up the voucher with a couple thousand dollars extra to attend a below average costing secular school at say $10,000.


In terms of effectiveness - I saw people citing the performance of the students vs. the general population as being a lot better, but what you really need to do is look at the students in the program vs. the students who applied for the program but didn&#039;t get selected (ideally if selection was done via a lottery). From what I&#039;ve seen, having parents who care enough to seek out these sort of &quot;school choice&quot; opportunities is far more influential on performance than the choice itself.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that just because a school might say that tuition is, lets say, $15,000 doesn&#8217;t mean that everyone there pays $15,000. In the absence of vouchers, many such schools do have scholarships and such to allow people who can&#8217;t afford the regular tuition to attend. Of course, such scholarships might only be extended to students meeting high academic (or athletic, or artistic) standards.</p>
<p>And of course, as someone has pointed out, just because the average tuition is more like $15,000 doesn&#8217;t mean that there aren&#8217;t schools that are lower cost. Then again, $7500 really isn&#8217;t that much for a private school, and it sounds like the families these grants are going to aren&#8217;t intended to be the families who could easily top up the voucher with a couple thousand dollars extra to attend a below average costing secular school at say $10,000.</p>
<p>In terms of effectiveness &#8211; I saw people citing the performance of the students vs. the general population as being a lot better, but what you really need to do is look at the students in the program vs. the students who applied for the program but didn&#8217;t get selected (ideally if selection was done via a lottery). From what I&#8217;ve seen, having parents who care enough to seek out these sort of &#8220;school choice&#8221; opportunities is far more influential on performance than the choice itself.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Autumnal Harvest</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370920</link>
		<dc:creator>Autumnal Harvest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 05:36:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370920</guid>
		<description>Wow, Rieux that rant was remarkably unreponsive and irrelevant to what ddave and I argued.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, Rieux that rant was remarkably unreponsive and irrelevant to what ddave and I argued.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rieux</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370895</link>
		<dc:creator>Rieux</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 03:36:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370895</guid>
		<description>dddave and Autumnal, you &lt;I&gt;do&lt;/I&gt; realize that you&#039;re arguing for the total deletion of the Establishment Clause from the Bill of Rights, don&#039;t you?

If the government can ship unlimited tax dollars to religious bodies merely by creating a legal fiction called a &quot;voucher,&quot; there is no boundary whatsoever to a total theocracy. The federal government can simply outsource all services to churches, who can then be as discriminatory, evangelistic, or generally disgusting toward religious minorities as they&#039;d like, in their administration of Social Security, Medicare, the lower federal courts, the IRS, and all of the other operations of the federal government. And you guys have declared that there can be no constitutional problem with that, because oooh, vouchers! (Thankfully, the Supreme Court, though it is anything but consistent in taking religious minorities&#039; rights seriously, is not nearly as far gone as you two--as the original post explained, and you ignored.)

The Bill of Rights is intended to protect minorities, not to encourage powerful majorities to concoct silly shell games so that they&#039;re allowed to trample on us.

Atheists supporting voucher programs designed to ship tax money to religious schools are a lot like GLBT folks campaigning for Fred Phelps for President. Please look before you leap--and throw us all into a &lt;I&gt;real&lt;/I&gt; &quot;Christian Nation&quot; that your Constitutional interpretation leads directly into.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dddave and Autumnal, you <i>do</i> realize that you&#8217;re arguing for the total deletion of the Establishment Clause from the Bill of Rights, don&#8217;t you?</p>
<p>If the government can ship unlimited tax dollars to religious bodies merely by creating a legal fiction called a &#8220;voucher,&#8221; there is no boundary whatsoever to a total theocracy. The federal government can simply outsource all services to churches, who can then be as discriminatory, evangelistic, or generally disgusting toward religious minorities as they&#8217;d like, in their administration of Social Security, Medicare, the lower federal courts, the IRS, and all of the other operations of the federal government. And you guys have declared that there can be no constitutional problem with that, because oooh, vouchers! (Thankfully, the Supreme Court, though it is anything but consistent in taking religious minorities&#8217; rights seriously, is not nearly as far gone as you two&#8211;as the original post explained, and you ignored.)</p>
<p>The Bill of Rights is intended to protect minorities, not to encourage powerful majorities to concoct silly shell games so that they&#8217;re allowed to trample on us.</p>
<p>Atheists supporting voucher programs designed to ship tax money to religious schools are a lot like GLBT folks campaigning for Fred Phelps for President. Please look before you leap&#8211;and throw us all into a <i>real</i> &#8220;Christian Nation&#8221; that your Constitutional interpretation leads directly into.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Autumnal Harvest</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370885</link>
		<dc:creator>Autumnal Harvest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:59:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370885</guid>
		<description>I agree with ddave, I don&#039;t see a valid argument for unconstitutionality. The government is giving vouchers to parents, and the parents are deciding what to do with them. All private schools have an equal opportunity to take the vouchers. If some secular private schools price themselves so high that they don&#039;t get many vouchers, that&#039;s their business, that&#039;s not the government&#039;s fault. By the logic here, if a bus line turns out to be heavily used by people to go to church, the government is unconstitutionally supporting church attendance.

ckitching, government contractors are people hired by the government to perform specific tasks. We don&#039;t all become government contractors simply by participating in government programs or accepting government funds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with ddave, I don&#8217;t see a valid argument for unconstitutionality. The government is giving vouchers to parents, and the parents are deciding what to do with them. All private schools have an equal opportunity to take the vouchers. If some secular private schools price themselves so high that they don&#8217;t get many vouchers, that&#8217;s their business, that&#8217;s not the government&#8217;s fault. By the logic here, if a bus line turns out to be heavily used by people to go to church, the government is unconstitutionally supporting church attendance.</p>
<p>ckitching, government contractors are people hired by the government to perform specific tasks. We don&#8217;t all become government contractors simply by participating in government programs or accepting government funds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Autumnal Harvest</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370883</link>
		<dc:creator>Autumnal Harvest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:57:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370883</guid>
		<description>Miko:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Public education run at the federal level is unconstitutional, period.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

llewelly:

&lt;blockquote&gt;Citation, please?&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I can provide a citation against that claim:

&lt;blockquote&gt;The Congress shall have Power To . . . exercise exclusive Legislation &lt;b&gt;in all Cases whatsoever&lt;/b&gt;, over such District. . .[as may] become the Seat of the Government of the United States. . . (U.S constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, emphasis added)&lt;blockquote&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Miko:</p>
<blockquote><p>Public education run at the federal level is unconstitutional, period.</p></blockquote>
<p>llewelly:</p>
<blockquote><p>Citation, please?</p></blockquote>
<p>I can provide a citation against that claim:</p>
<blockquote><p>The Congress shall have Power To . . . exercise exclusive Legislation <b>in all Cases whatsoever</b>, over such District. . .[as may] become the Seat of the Government of the United States. . . (U.S constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, emphasis added)<br />
<blockquote></blockquote>
</blockquote>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ckitching</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370820</link>
		<dc:creator>ckitching</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:06:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370820</guid>
		<description>dddave:  The US courts have generally required that US government contractors abide by the same rules as the government itself has to abide by.  That means you don&#039;t get to avoid non-discrimination/free speech/etc clauses by outsourcing the job to the private sector.  If this was not the case, it would be very trivial to circumvent these constitutional requirements.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>dddave:  The US courts have generally required that US government contractors abide by the same rules as the government itself has to abide by.  That means you don&#8217;t get to avoid non-discrimination/free speech/etc clauses by outsourcing the job to the private sector.  If this was not the case, it would be very trivial to circumvent these constitutional requirements.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: dddave</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370787</link>
		<dc:creator>dddave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:47:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370787</guid>
		<description>Hmmm...  That&#039;s not at all an argument for un-constitutionality.  After all, you could take your tax rebate and spend it to promote religion.  Government giving people money and having them use it in the manner they please is constitutional, even if it happens to promote religion.

That being said, the DC public school system is an absolute cesspool.  There is terrible violence and the educational results are abysmal.  I&#039;m an atheist, but if we can save money and some kids can get a real education, let them pick their schools, public or private.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmmm&#8230;  That&#8217;s not at all an argument for un-constitutionality.  After all, you could take your tax rebate and spend it to promote religion.  Government giving people money and having them use it in the manner they please is constitutional, even if it happens to promote religion.</p>
<p>That being said, the DC public school system is an absolute cesspool.  There is terrible violence and the educational results are abysmal.  I&#8217;m an atheist, but if we can save money and some kids can get a real education, let them pick their schools, public or private.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: llewelly</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2009/09/30/dc-voucher-program-is-unconstitutional/#comment-370781</link>
		<dc:creator>llewelly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=16628#comment-370781</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Public education run at the federal level is unconstitutional, period.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Citation, please?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Public education run at the federal level is unconstitutional, period.</p></blockquote>
<p>Citation, please?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/4 queries in 0.005 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 379/383 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-05-28 03:50:10 -->
