In the coming Anglican schism, the big guns are coming out. Those on this blog know that I am an active Episcopalian (even elected to our parish vestry, thus completing my induction into the bourgeoisie), and I have more than a few opinions about what is happening. In post-colonial Africa and Asia, the offspring of the Church of England are pretty much like miniature versions of the Roman Catholic church, where the titular head has unquestioned and unchecked authority. They are also moving that direction spirtually, with anti-women, anti-gay, anti-just-about-everything theology. And they are very angry at the US Episcopal church. The issue du jour is gay people, specifically the demand that Episcopalians stop treating gay people like human beings created in the image of God. This we are unwilling to do. Ergo schism looms.
We are a different sort of polity too. Several framers of the constitution participated in the creation of the Episcopal church, and they result is a bicameral legislature. The House of Deputies consists of laity and parish clergy; the House of Bishops is self explanatory. Bishops are elected for life by their dioceses, and confirmed in their role by a vote of both houses. The details of church governance may be boring, but they are relevant. Imagine if the Roman Catholic church had a legislature. What a dramatic difference in theology and participation we might see. Well, this is our situation.
And, like every legislature, money is an issue. According to the NYTimes article linked to above, the Episcopalians comprise less than 5% of all Anglicans, but foot about a third of the bill for the worldwide Anglican communion, much of which goes to anti-poverty programs and other charitable aims. Two years ago, they demanded we not particpipate in the Anglican Consultative Council (sort of the politburo of the communion) but demanded we increase our contributions by 10% per year over the next several years. Amazingly, the Episcopal church has obliged. Repeatedly, the Episcopal church has also said it has no desire to back out of the charitable obligations it has undertaken.
As I said earlier, the NY Times article is no accident. Talk is rising that we should not be asked to pay for those who will not sit at a table with us (several primates - no monkey jokes, please - refused to take communion with our primate, because of her gender and support of ordaining gays and lesbians and solemnizing their relationships). Nobody wants to use the money as a club to curb their behavior, but we do have to make it clear that we will not continue to support them financially if they turn their backs on us. There comes a time when the affections of Christian fellowship must give way to remonstrating with one who has gone astray. Preaching hatred for gays and second-class status for women is just plain wrong. It is offensive.
To quote the Episcopal News Service
"The “low point” of the Primates’ Meeting came, Jefferts Schori said, when one primate equated homosexuality with pedophilia and another said he couldn’t see why the Anglican Communion should study homosexuality if it doesn’t need to study murder." That's who we are dealing with. This is not a Christian attitude. And it's not about North versus South. In fact, Bishop Desmond Tutu has helped lead South Africa to a very different place. The issue is one of values. Do you struggle with the gospel's tough message of love and truth, or just cave in to popular traditional prejudice? Fundamentalists always do the latter. There is a reason the African churches are growing so fast - they have sacrificed the gospel for comfortable prejudice and tradition. The easy way. The gate is wide and the way is easy, that leadeth to perdition.
They have given the Episcopal Church until September 30, 2007 to "repent" and change our views. Nuts to that. Those who say such hateful things about gay people are the ones who need to repent. When I get my chance to vote on these matters - and I will - it will be to say no. And no to paying one thin dime to anyone who refuses even to sit at the table with us as brothers and sisters. I wish it would not come to that.
I know many Citizens are atheists and cannot imagine why this all matters to any intelligent person. Well, this is what I have to say. Religion is not just a personal matter. Prayer is private, but worship is corporate. Being a Christian means more than just liking what Jesus had to say about loving your neighbor; it means actually trying to live together, with a community, in a community. It means trying to have a common life together. Personal spirituality is the easy way out, lighting a candle, quiet meditation, whatever thing you want to do. It's not messy. Other voices do not intrude. Sartre, I believe, remarked that Hell is other people. Perhaps, but that is our world. Community means politics. There is no way around it.
This is not so different from why most of us on this blog are passionate about politics in the United States. We're contending with one another over our values and identity as a nation.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Politics and Church Politics
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 11:07 AM 6 comments
Friday, March 16, 2007
Insitutions, Partisan Politics and Oversight
Going back to the earliest days of this blog, I have occasionally gotten into arguments with people about the supposedly spinelessness of the Democratic party. It is something of a cliche now to refer to the Democrats as spineless. A major reason given for this assertion is their impotence with regard to Congressional oversight roles during the Bush administrations many inept failures.
However, I've consistently argued that the Democrats were at a serious institutional disadvantage because they were in the minority. They could not determine the schedule or agenda of hearings. They could not summon executive branch officials to testify without GOP cooperation and even cooperation from the White House. These limits pretty much prevented any sort of effective oversight because the Republicans would not cooperate in their own political embarrassment.
Things are different now. The Democrats have majorities in both houses. The current unfolding scandal of the US Attorney firings is about to present us with an example of what the Democrats will do when those institutional limitations are gone. They have already proved much more aggressive. Information about high level involvement in the firings is coming out very quickly in response to Congressional investigation. Hearings are about to be called that could reveal direct, political involvement in the firings of Karl Rove and even Bush himself.
This sort of thing is why institutions and elections matter. We are about to watch democracy reassert itself! Enjoy!
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 7:13 AM 1 comments
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Reform the FHA?
You know, you have to love politics. A bunch of people over the last 7 years have gotten themselves in to a financial mess because they took mortgage loans that they had to have known they couldn’t afford at the time. And now that they are in distress, our presidential candidates Clinton and Dodd, want to told hearings to see what Congress can do to help. I don't have all the facts, but off the top of my head, I see 3 major problems with this.
1) Dodd and Clinton want to reform the FHA to give low-income people lower interest rates and to allow FHA to offer larger loans in more expensive areas. Define lower income? It is a curse to be middle class because you get no help, pay the bills for everyone else, and can’t afford to own your own home much less subsidize one for someone else.
2) The FHA is only one side of a large systemic problem. I don’t see how reforming the FHA will address the bigger problem. Banks had huge incentives to make irresponsible loans to begin with. Wall Street investors are driving banks and private lenders to make larger loans at higher risk. Wall Street then bundles and buys these loans, taking on the risk while making money off them. In addtion to this, the large loans granted by banks increase the money supply and help drive housing prices higher. It’s a vicious cycle.
3) Buying a home is a big deal and it isn’t done lightly. So if people didn’t know what they were getting into when they accepted their interest only loans, then they had to have been stupid or desperate. I don’t think that government should be too quick to float in and save them from themselves. I haven't tried buying a home, but I know that sweet deals that give you 6% for 2 years and then increase aren't really a smart way to go. That said, the government bails out businesses all the time. So why not individuals?
Some of our Citizens have recently bought homes. I would be curious about your thoughts on the matter.
Posted by USWest at 11:23 PM 12 comments
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Over the Lips, Through the Gums . . .
Watch out stomach, here it comes.
This is a rather comical a report from NPR. What do we learn? That from the President's perspective, international travel maybe a bi@#ch, but you can't beat the food!
Last year while in Germany, he told the international press corps that the highlight of his presidency was the roasting and eating of a pig. (I linked to the Google page with the highlighting do you could see all the "pig" references). And who could forget the mouth full of food while he told Tony Blair that the "Syrians just needed to stop this s#&t", while, I am sure, spitting crumbs all over Tony's tie.
I know that this is his technique for sounding folksy, and getting out of press conferences so he can go party but it gets old and is somewhat embarrassing. Please, Mr. President, you are embarrassing enough as it is. He is the stereotypical ugly American.
Posted by USWest at 7:21 AM 11 comments
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Closed Doors and Open Tents
There is an interesting wrinkle in California's primary, very likely to be moved up to February 5, 2008. The Republican primary will be closed to registered Republicans only, whereas the Democrats will allow registered independents to vote in their primary.
California's registration statistics show a large number of independent voters in the state--43% Democrat, 34% Republican, 19% Independent, 4% other. I will leave it to the political scientists on the blog to comment on the potential impact of the semi-open vs. closed primaries for the two major parties in the upcoming Presidential contest.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 9:10 PM 2 comments
such a lonely word.
Representative Pete Stark (D-CA) has become the first U.S. congressman (also the highest-ranking official) to publicly state that he does not believe in a god. Said Stark, who has served in Congress since 1973, "I am a Unitarian who does not believe in a supreme being." He rejected the label "atheist" however.
Stark is surely not the first non-believer in Congress, just the first to acknowledge his views publicly. Regardless of one's beliefs, everyone should applaud Rep. Stark for his honesty.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 12:47 PM 4 comments
Did I say "No?" I meant "Yes."
Story #1: The eight fired U.S. attorneys were removed for "poor performance," not politics. In fact, the Justice Department actually was trying to do those attorneys a favor by not discussing why they were fired. There was certainly no involvement with the White House or members of Congress. Everyone was notified appropriately. This whole story is an "overblown personnel matter." It is just a cheap, Democratic political stunt.
Story #2: The White House was directly involved in drawing up the list of people to fire. Bush had personally complained to Gonzales that certain "voter fraud" cases were not being pursued aggressively enough by these attorneys: these involved elections the Republicans had lost. Republican Sen. Pete Domenici and Rep. Heather Wilson personally contacted an attorney directly to try to push one such case along. Gonzales' chief aide, Sampson, corresponded extensively with White House counsel Miers: Sampson has now "resigned." Gonzales admits "mistakes were made" and neither the appointees nor Congress were notified appropriately.
I can't wait to hear Story #3.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 12:16 PM 1 comments
Monday, March 12, 2007
Carbon, not conservation
The flak over high power consumption at Al Gore's Tennessee mansion illustrates a problem with the general public's understanding of global warming... and it might also show how to make progress. I think the trouble is that three similar but distinct messages are blurred in the public's mind.
In this age of bling, McMansions, conspicuous consumption, and disposable everything, there is also a strong countervailing ideal of frugality. It is an old New England ethic, part of America's legacy from the puritans. For the sake of our souls, responsible community leaders exhort us to change our lifestyle. Waste not, want not.
Separately, there is an strong environmental movement that urges limited human impact on the environment. This means less strip-mining of resources, less clear-cutting of timber, less pollution in the air, and less waste in the garbage dumps. For the sake of our environment, responsible community leaders exhort us to change our lifestyle. Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.
Separate from both of these is the movement to fight global warming. A scientific consensus has emerged that human activities are heating up the planet, with disastrous consequences to come. For this reason, responsible scientists urge us to reduce carbon emissions. But it's not about "living right" or protecting wildlife refuges: it's about saving the planet from global climate change. It is easy--but wrong--to conflate the effort to fight global warming with the environmental/ethical exhortations to conserve.
Gore's mansion is a case in point. From the point of view of global climate policy, Gore has made the right choice. By investing in carbon offsets and green energy sources, Gore has found a better way to reduce his personal contribution to the world's carbon emissions than simple conservation. It's economics 101: trading carbon credits allows a society to cut and offset emissions with the least cost to the economy.
I think a lot of people get turned off by all the judgment and smugness that come along with the environmental/ethical conservation crusade. If we want people across the political spectrum to join the fight against global warming, we need to help them understand that it's not about giving up the SUV, eating only organic foods, or flushing only once a day: it's about finding the best way for our economy to reduce carbon emissions. There are many ways cut carbon without conservation like investing in clean fuels, adding better emissions controls on factories, and even planting new forests. Let's stay on message.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 12:50 PM 2 comments
What's with Dubai?
Hi Everyone,
Remember when the Bush Administration got a black eye over their deal to approve the transfer of a number of port facilities to a company based in Dubai (one of the United Arab Emirates)? Well, Halliburton is trying a different approach. One our largest defense contractors is moving their headquarters to Dubai after they already have the contracts. The AP story is posted here.
Interesting move. Are they, as they say, moving to be closer to their clients? Or are they moving to be "off shore" to limit their accountability to American regulations now that they are in the hands of Democrats? Is this a sign that Halliburton et al expect a Democratic victory in 2008?
All wild speculation aside, this is a move that deserves our special attention.
Any of you heard anything credible?
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 7:11 AM 3 comments
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Alberto Must Go
Democrats are calling for the removal of Alberto Gonzales. And how! He is as dangerous as we feared he would be. A NYT editorial on Sunday called for Gonzales' removal stating, "More than anyone in the administration, except perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Gonzales symbolizes Mr. Bush’s disdain for the separation of powers, civil liberties and the rule of law."
With him must go the legislative tools that have allowed him and his ilk to gut the U.S. Constitution. One example, as if justifying torture and illegal incarceration weren't example enough, that is Operation Falcon that has integrated local, state, and federal authorities for the purpose of rounding up gang bangers, sex offenders, and drug dealers who've violated their parole. Thus far 30,000 people have been rounded up. Most are petty offenders, not terrorists.
The man has to go before we become a total police state.
Posted by USWest at 10:21 PM 3 comments
Waiting for Bayrou
Jacques Chirac has declined to run for a third term as France's President. This isn’t a surprise. He was only elected the second time when the French were spooked by the first round finish of Jean Marie Le Pen.
This means that the race is down to Sarkozy, who has announced that he wants to get tough on immigrants and open an immigration department; Royale, who is seen her favorables decline the more “socialist” she gets. She may be a bit too leftist, even for the French. And François Bayrou, whoc claims he is a "third way " candidate. He is running as a centrist and is offering himself openly as an alternative to the two front-runners. I say watch him closely. Forty-Five percent of French voters are undecided. That means there is a lot of room for things to happen between now and voting day in April. With Chirac clearly out of the running, Bayrou may pick up some of those voters who were waiting on Chirac. Although, polls didn’t put Chirac very high up to begin with.
Sarkozy scares me because is sounding too much like Le Pen. A son of immigrants, I find it disingenuous of him to rail against immigrants so fervently. That said, France has always had an anti-immigrant streak, especially now that they are predominantly Muslim, and Sarkozy is playing to that.
Royale is hitting all the socialist buttons, but I don’t think the French want to go back to the days of Mitterrand where the government does it all. The 35 hour work week isn't liked by everyone, the power of employees unions (who are now less popular than they once were) is wearing thin, and the French are much more capitalistic at heart than they like to admit.
Thus, Bayrou. He is been around forever, ran for President in 2002, and he is quoted as saying, “"I am a democrat. I am a Clintonian. I am a man of the 'third way.”
In a recent IHT article , Bayrou said that if he could vote in the U.S. elections in 2008, he’d hope to vote for Al Gore. I am not sure if that tells us very much about his own political beliefs, but it is an interesting statement to come so bluntly from a presidential candidate.
Posted by USWest at 6:17 PM 5 comments
Saturday, March 10, 2007
This is not Luke Skywalker
This opinion piece by Jonathan Chaitt is worth reading. Trying to assuage the worries of his fellow conservatives, Sen. Lindsey Graham said of his friend Sen. John McCain: "This is not Luke Skywalker here. This is a totally different campaign." As Chaitt notes,
[Graham's] choice of metaphor is one of those windows into the fundamental cultural gap that separates hard-core conservatives from the rest of humanity. To most people... [it] would be seen as an unmitigated insult. In the world of the GOP elite, though, it's a form of praise: No, no, don't worry, McCain's with the empire now.So I was just thinking, maybe the Democrats should think of Hillary as Princess Leia. Yes, she thinks she's a queen and sometimes acts like a bitch, but deep down you know she's on your side. Alas, I fear Barack Obama will be this campaign's Wedge Antilles: that skinny kid with the funny name, always popular with the dedicated fans, but who never quite made it.
OK, I'll stop now.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 5:13 PM 2 comments
Friday, March 09, 2007
America Can Win This One
I love it. The NY Times reports the latest Republican talking point: that the Democrats are trying to "micromanage" the war. No, they are trying to manage the war, something Bush and the Republicans have been unable to do in five years. Republicans also complain that the Democrats are trying to "interfere" with the President's "ability" to conduct the war successfully. And it's a hard charge to refute: how does one show one is not interfering with an ability that does not exist?
The Democrats need to keep embarrassing the hell out of the Republican party. They need to keep hammering the Republicans in Congress with resolution after resolution, forcing them to go on record opposing all reasonable attempts to manage Bush's failures in Iraq, until their political survival instincts finally kick in and they do what is right: end this madness and bring our troops home. Already the Republicans are fracturing and the Bush presidency is weak as a pile of mush. So keep going, Reid and Pelosi! This is a war America can win.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 1:52 AM 0 comments
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Outrage! Outrage! Outrage!
I am so angry I can barely contain myself. Newt Gingrich, who mercilessly pursued the impeachment of Bill Clinton for getting it on with an intern just admitted that he was having an extramarital affair at the very same time! Un-f***ing-believable! All this total BS about restoring "honor and dignity" to the White House!? I guarantee you all 100% that if he had come clean at the time, Clinton would never have been impeached. Never. All this phony sh*t about Monica, Monica, Monica (note: I censor the words just to prevent them from being blocked by some of your machines - I think they're appropriate for political discourse, particularly now).
And I thought the religious right were just self-righteous sex-obsessed puritanical assholes. Hypocrites too. Damn! Hang him!
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 9:13 PM 4 comments
Good Good Good
Democrats seek 2008 Iraq troop withdrawal
This is not some extreme liberal introducing this. This is the Senate leadership agreeing on something (if you haven't been following closely, the House is split between blue dogs and liberals over what to do). Of course, it probably won't pass and will definitely be vetoed, but it's still worth it. Go to the article and read the details.
Are we really going to get out of Iraq? Really?
Posted by Bell Curve at 5:56 PM 2 comments
When Perjury Matters
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, senior aide to VP Cheney, was convicted this week of perjury and obstruction of justice. Unlike Clinton, who was accused of such things in trying to cover up a tawdry affair that was nobody's business anyway, this was a serious matter.
Why does it matte? Libby - under the clear direction of Rove and Cheney, tried to destroy the life of a woman, Valerie Plame, and her husband James Wilson. Cheney, the real instigator behind this, is a true believer. He genuinely believes, as did Libby no doubt, that in opposing the Iraq war and exposing the Bush administration's lies, Ambassador Wilson was disloyal, traitorous, endangering the country, and affirmatively helping Al Qaeda. When Bush said, "if you're not with us, you're against us" he meant it about all Americans. For Bush, Cheney, and these right wing Republicans, all those who oppose the Bush Administration and the war - Nancy Pelosi, Cindy Sheehan, Jon Stewart - are necessarily helping Al Qaeda. We, the citizens of this country, are its enemies. And, as Goldwater said, "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice." It's okay, as Nixon believed, to "ratfuck" your political enemies when, obviously, your political enemies are also enemies of the state. Karl Rove is, frankly, a mediocre practitioner of that philosophy, not the great guru he is made out to be by those who tuned into US politics yesterday. That is the modern GOP. Anyone who denies that (like Arnie) hasn't been paying attention.
They do not understand how opposition can ever be loyal. They do not understand the rule of law or representative democracy. No doubt they will try to fire Fitzgerald the way they have already hacked through the US attorneys offices for disloyal elements. They decided to "get" Wilson by hurting his wife, even though she also happened to be on the front line of US intelligence operations. That is more than just criminal. Cheney should be impeached for this also.
Bush is even worse. He also thinks that Jesus is on his side, and that criticizing Bush is blasphemy and sin. The problem is that these people lost their moral compass years ago. I'm a values voter: the GOP has lost any sense of real values. The 2006 elections may just have saved the republic from these men, but it is high time we all got past the idea that current Republican leaders just have honest differences of opinion with Democrats, and blather on about bipartisanship. They are not honest. They are intellectually dishonest and craven. And they must be politically defeated.
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 9:48 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Seven Percent
Yesterday, primary municipal elections were held in Los Angeles, and turnout was abysmal. In a city of 4 million inhabitants, most City Council members were elected with a total of less than 4,000 votes. Only 1,200 voters took advantage of early voting opportunities and absentee ballots were still outnumbered by those cast in person. Here's how yesterday's turnout fits in with the general trend for primary municipal elections in Los Angeles County:
1999: 16%
2003: 13%
2007: 7%
At this rate, nobody will vote at all in 2015. Runoffs for 3 positions will be held on May 15... lord only knows what the turnout will be.
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 11:32 AM 6 comments
And next up, how about pink triangles?
The New York Times reports that Ohio is likely to pass a law requiring convicted sex offenders to put special, fluorescent green license plates on their cars. They might as well make them wear sandwich boards that read, "I am about to rape your child. Please kill me." And like the requirement to publicly identify where they live, this scarlet letter would also last for life. (An actual scarlet letter will soon be on the agenda, no doubt.)
The main argument for such restrictions is not punishment but prevention. As those convicted of drunk driving often are kept away from cars, so we want to keep convicted sex offenders away from children. (And similarly, in Ohio as in many states, those convicted of drunk driving must put special red license plates on their cars to warn their fellow drivers.) In the case of convicted sex offenders, however, one really must weigh the alleged benefit to the safety of neighborhood children against the potential for incited violence against the branded criminal.
And there is also the slumbering issue of justice. With each passing year (or at least, each election cycle) lawmakers increase the punishment for convicted sex offenders... and indeed, for all felonies. The prison population in the U.S. has quadrupled since 1980, and we now have the largest prison population in the world, both in absolute terms (over 2 million) and per capita (0.7%) . (For more, see a 2003 report by the British Home Office.) The U.S. now beats Russia and China hands down, though, to be fair, China executes several thousand more than we do each year, which does cut down the incarceration numbers a bit.
Has the U.S. truly become such a crime-ridden hellhole that we must imprison more people than anywhere else in the world, at a greater rate than at any time in history? If so, the policy is a self-evident failure anyway. Or have we just lost all sense of proportion, all sense of when the punishment fits the crime? Will political expedience continue to trump justice? Or is there still a point where we can say enough is enough?
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 12:39 AM 7 comments
Tuesday, March 06, 2007
Lies: Revealed and Suspected
Hi Everyone,
I've been lax in my contributions lately and for that I apologize. I've been very busy with work etc.
Anyway, two related items to discuss today. First, the jury is in and Scooter Libby is guilty on four out of five counts. The interesting thing that is coming out now is that a juror is saying that while they did think that Libby willfully obstructed justice, they felt he was acting on behalf of (and implicitly at the behest of) others, that he was a "fall guy" - by which we are left to suspect Karl Rove or even Cheney and Bush themselves. You can see this discussion on CNN.COM. So much for the lies we can now count as revealed.
The second story is about suspected lies. You may have been following the story about the series of US Attorneys who were fired abruptly just before the 2006 Congressional elections. Well, it's coming out bit by bit that they were fired because they either dared to prosecute the likes of Duke Cunningham (a now infamous Republican) or refused to rush through indictments of Democratic state assembly reps in time for the election. GOP Senator Demonici (R-NM) seems to have been one who delivered the "offer they couldn't refuse" in at least one of the cases. The most striking parallel with the Libby/Plame case is that one of the fired US Attorneys is now saying that they were all intimidated and ordered not to talk to the press about their dismissal. If they did, the White House/Justice Department threatened to reveal embarassing details of their records to the press. Sound familiar??? Sounds exactly like what they did to Wilson and Plame to me! You can read about it on CNN.COM here.
This administration has a pattern of abuse of office, threats and intimidation. And all that combined with a disregard for their own responsibilities (see Abu Gharib, Katrina, and now Walter Reed). I'm aware that impeaching these people is probably not worth it at this point. There is so little time left and impeachment and removal from office would take so long that I just don't see the point either politically or pragmatically. But as a liberty and constitution loving America, I hunger for some accountability at some point!
Posted by Raised By Republicans at 5:33 PM 1 comments
Monday, March 05, 2007
Time for biology class... Everyone step outside for moment.
In a 4-3 decision in favor of several Christian schools, the CA Supreme Court has ruled that the state may issue tax-exempt bonds to religious schools for repairs and construction if the facilities in question will be used to teach non-religious subjects (e.g. math) similar to the standard academic curriculum. Does this ruling strike anyone else as idiotic?
First, no matter what they promise now, these facilities will sooner or later be used for religious purposes. Everyone knows it. Possession is 9/10 of the law. It's not like they're going to have a "Christ-Free Zone" sign at the doorway. And no doubt the walls will be plastered with religious paraphernalia. (First math lesson, 3 = 1 ?)
Second, since religious activities are mandatory at these schools, it is not possible for students to use these facilities without also receiving religious instruction. No Buddhists, Jews, or atheists will be enjoying these facilities.
Third, a dollar is a dollar. By subsidizing the secular activities at a school, the state frees up funds for the religious activities. The state does not require that any of the savings from the tax-free nature of the bonds be passed on to the parents in the form of lower tuition. The dissent noted that this would just make the state a "fundraiser" for this kind of school. The end result is a more attractive religious school that can now afford field trips to the Holy Land.
Fourth, how finely can one really slice it? Could the state give a school 40% tax-free bonds if it the school said that 40% of the time religion was not being explicitly taught? Can one even separate the two? If Christian parents send their children to private Christian schools because they deplore the "secular" atmosphere of public schools, surely it is obvious that there will be a pervasive "Christian" atmosphere at Christian schools? I mean, isn't that the point of having a Christian school?
Posted by Dr. Strangelove at 5:00 PM 7 comments