RE: Opt out? (was re. personal thoughts)

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Sunil wrote:

>  Once you
> accept the rationale that taxpayers can opt out of paying for specific
> services/products they don't like, you open a Pandora's box.  If Ed
gets to
> skip paying for public schools, why should I have to pay for something
I
> don't like?
> 

Several folks have again raised this "pandora's box" reply concerning
taxpaying, but it still misses the original point. For the new folks,
the original objection against the levy was an appeal to the separation
of religion and state. Funding public schools is a violation of that
professed value. Public schools use taxes to teach a particular ideology
on history, science, math, literature, politics, morality, etc. (in
other words -- a religion -- a system of assumptions and norms about
ultimate reality). No pandora's box results from not forcing people to
fund other ideologies and worldviews. Why do public schools get to
violate the separation of church and state, but no one else does?
Answer: power politics, not a genuine devotion to the separation of
church and state. The response to the original objection has been some
variation on the denial that public schools teach a worldview: "They
don't. They teach a . . . a . . . a . . . a . . . hey, wait, no, you're
the evil ones." Which only proves the initial objection. 


Doug Jones