----- Original Message -----
From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com>
>> Sure, we require ME to go to school, meaning we
>>-send the truant officer after her if she doesn't. That's coercion. But if
>>I
>>-pay taxes that are spent by her parents on vouchers for a Catholic
school,
>>-that's backed by coercion too.
>
>You just made a big leap from liberalism to libertarianism here. Are taxes
>coercive?
-No, but 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201 (tax evasion),and its enforcement si. People have -been sent to jail from my court for tax evasion and making false falsements -on tax firms. Likewise, schools aren't coercive, but truant officers are.
I don't dispute that every law is coercive, but I was speaking of coercion at the higher-level, of controlling the very thought that might allow dissent in the political sphere. I think you agree that liberalism is based on the idea that coercion of the mind and spirit has a very different status under liberalism from coercion to enforce societal rules agreed upon democratically.
My argument is that coercion in the educational sphere is very different from coercion to pay one's taxes.
>More and greater
>diversity of speech pictured as coercion is not a tenable liberal position.
-But having the state support ME's Catholic education violates the -establishment clause, which is also part of the 1A. Or so sez I.
So sez you, but why? To fund multiple faiths without prejudice establishes no church, gives no preference, so why is there a violation of any liberal rghts? It may not be good functionally, since it encourages balkanization, but I don't see any constitutional harm. And too rigid enforcement of secularism is merely intolerance of liberalism against those of anti-liberal faith.
>Mill actually did worry about abuse of power by parents as well, since he
>thought education was a good absolutely required for a liberal society,
-But he lived in a statew ith an established church,a nd never gave that a
-thought that I know of.
Of course he recognized an established church in his society, one reason he supported parental choice in schools to avoid such government impositions of faith.
>The status of the child, the object of education and inculcation of values,
>is the soft underbelly of liberalism--
-True. There's still no better alternative.
But there are better alternatives to a too rigid valorizaion of secularism when democratic experimentation with multiple faith schools might be better. I just don't see enough harm to you from Mary Elizabeth's school funding for unelected courts to override a democratic decision to fund her education.
-- Nathan Newman