An important reason that childhood education is now a
monopoly of government is that Protestantism in the nation’s earlier years had
a huge advantage over Catholicism in local school district taxing units
(legislative bodies). Public school funding (taxing) promoted the Protestant
faith over the Catholic faith.
Now, both faiths have acquiesced to heathen
indoctrination by the public school system, and perhaps three quarters of the
nation’s children are being systematically brainwashed of their faiths.
The courts must honestly re-address this issue of
religious persecution via taxation. Taxation requires legislation. But the
First Amendment’s “Congress shall pass no law. . . .” clause that interferes
with the free exercise of religion, clearly rules out public financing because
such taxation seizes parental resources that would support other schools.
The Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman,
insisted that the only justifiable “school tax” is one which purchases a
voucher for every child. Then, that
child can use the voucher at any accredited school of choice. All schools thereby become competitive, and persons
are more able to escape religious persecution.
Where
is the intellectual honesty in the legislative and judicial branches?
CYA among government entities is pervasive and most corrupting. It
is leading the way to the nation’s complete moral breakdown. Has
the Constitution become a barrier to “progress?” Or should the
word “progress” (and all its derivatives) be tabooed for lack of
meaning?
Interesting take, that school taxes represent a violation of church and state by forcing you to pay for a non-religious education. I personally have no problem with secular education, I take exception with the means of taxation, which are violence. Additionally, most people will choose public education because they have already paid for it; there is a human desire to get as much as you can for your money, even after it has been taken by force. I see it a lot in special education services, which parents are willing to sue over to receive in an attempt to maximize their benefits for what they have paid. What Milton Friedman also said was that it pays to spend up to the value of a government service in order to acquire a government service, which amounts to an economic loss (you are paying twice).
ReplyDeleteFriedman also shied away from compulsory education in the last decades of his life, believing it to be a violation of freedom via the use of force, and ultimately having little or no benefits as a trade-off.