I think that it depends on the work their involved in. And I don't think it should apply to only religious people.
I'm not really sure what you mean by this.
I, personally, don't agree with the use of public funds on private schooling, but I don't agree with publicly funded education in any sense.
On the other hand, I understand the argument that if the government is going to publicly fund education at all for all children, but some parents want their children educated in a religious environment, then I don't see the problem so long as the school follows educational guidelines set by the state. I don't see why there can't be a compromise.
Well, for one thing, it's horrendously inefficient.
Until recently, the province of Newfoundland had a system like that: all sorts of denominational religious schools, all paid for by public funds, and all running parallel to each other. There was tremendous wasted money and funds because of all the duplication; eventually, they realized that their system wasn't working and amalgamated all the different denominational schools into a single, public, secular system.
If we give publicly-funded religious schools to only one group or only to a few, we're discriminating. If we give it to all groups, the system quickly becomes completely unworkable. And in either case, the provision of religious schools diverts away funds that could be used to improve the quality of a single secular system.
Also, there's the matter of the proper function of government and the issue of separation of church and state. Public education is, as the name implies, a public enterprise. Is it a proper function of a
secular government to provide religious instruction and indoctrination? If we've got religious schools in the public system, then that's precisely what we're doing.
And the church-state separation issue goes both ways. For instance, a few years ago, there was a court case where a same-sex couple attending a publicly-funded Catholic school sued for the right to attend their prom. The judge ruled that because only same-sex
sexual acts are prohibited by the Church (which they presumably wouldn't be engaging in at the prom itself) and not homosexuality itself, the couple's activities didn't violate Church doctrine and therefore the students should be allowed to attend.
Do you want a judge ruling on what you do and don't believe? I don't... but this sort of oversight comes with public money.
Personally? No. I wouldn't vote for something like that. But I understand the logic behind it. Religion, even if it isn't actively involved in what we would traditionally call charitable, does help people and communities. A lot of times, people will change their behavior for the better when they become religious.
This occurs often enough to say that it is beneficial to give religions incentive to proselytize or conduct religious activities.
I could say the same about auto racing. Should my marshalling club also be a charity?
It's a lot like what has been considered in California. Because religious people also pay taxes that go towards education, and yet often do not use public education, they should get vouchers allowing their children to go to private schools.
That makes sense to me. It's not like you pay taxes and they don't. If you both pay taxes toward that end, then you should both get to decide in which environment your children are educated, religious or not.
I disagree.
We don't pay education taxes as some sort of tuition fee for our own children; we pay them because a public education system is a valuable service and benefit to the community (the whole community). This is true regardless of where you personally choose to send your children to school. It's even true if you have no children at all.
I have no children. Therefore, I have no children in the public education system. When someone decides to "opt out" and send their children to a private school, they effectively put themselves in the same position as me. Why should they be able to get out of paying their fair share while I cannot?
Public schools benefit society. This is true whether you have kids who attend, your kids go somewhere else, or you have no kids at all. Because of this, it's the responsibilty of society -
all of society - to pay for them.
Like most taxes, public education taxes are not a matter of a fee-for-service arrangement. When we pretend that they are for religious parents, then we're setting up an inequitable system.
I don't see why it would bother you unless the Catholic parents aren't paying the same proportion of taxes towards education costs.
It costs me money directly.
I as a non-parent pay into both systems in proportion to the number of students in each. Also, the fact that we have this second board creates extra duplication and prevents economies of scale, thereby increasing the cost for everyone. The fact that we have a Catholic board increases the cost for everyone.
If you both have no choice but to pay taxes that go toward education, then the Catholics shouldn't have to pay extra to send their children to the schools they want. Unless they are exempt from the taxes that go towards education.
I disagree. As I said before, education taxes aren't a fee-for-service, they're a tax to pay for something that benefits society as a whole. Because of this, they're the responsibilty of society as a whole, regardless of whether you're Catholic or not.
