Without aid to private schools, the only way parents can
actually exercise this liberty is by paying twice for their child’s education.  They pay once for the tuition of the
private school, and once for taxes. 
By taxing everyone, but only subsidizing those who choose a secular
education, the government creates a strong disincentive to exercise a
Constitutional right.

While nondiscriminatory funding may or may not be
Constitutionally required, with the state of public education in America, it
would certainly be a better policy, one that would be better for our children.

It is a shame that people are so concerned with the values
that students at religious schools may or may not be accepting. It is the
student and their parents right to choose what school to go to and what values
to learn (see Meyer v Nebraska and Pierce
v Society of Sisters).  Many oppose religious schools
supposedly “indoctrinating” their students, but insist that public schools
must, “establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit
community values.” Board of Education v Pico

You accuse the religious schools in the program of being in
the pockets of big business looking to turn a profit, and social conservatives
advocating pro-life policies.  I
think you might also want to consider that public education is in the pockets
of the teacher’s unions.

The state of public education in America is dismal, and that
is a fact that does not need to be debated.  The NEA is the largest political donor in the United States,
and they spend a lot of time and money making sure that necessary education
reform doesn’t happen.

Instead of celebrating the defeats of organizations that are
attempting to educate our children to a respectable standard, accusing them of
less than ethical practices and adding further to the already toxic partisan
atmosphere of our country, you should be advocating for real change in our
education policy, one unbiased idea at a time.

Without aid to private schools, the only way parents can
actually exercise this liberty is by paying twice for their child’s education.  They pay once for the tuition of the
private school, and once for taxes. 
By taxing everyone, but only subsidizing those who choose a secular
education, the government creates a strong disincentive to exercise a
Constitutional right.

While nondiscriminatory funding may or may not be
Constitutionally required, with the state of public education in America, it
would certainly be a better policy, one that would be better for our children.

It is a shame that people are so concerned with the values
that students at religious schools may or may not be accepting. It is the
student and their parents right to choose what school to go to and what values
to learn (see Meyer v Nebraska and Pierce
v Society of Sisters).  Many oppose religious schools
supposedly “indoctrinating” their students, but insist that public schools
must, “establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit
community values.” Board of Education v Pico

You accuse the religious schools in the program of being in
the pockets of big business looking to turn a profit, and social conservatives
advocating pro-life policies.  I
think you might also want to consider that public education is in the pockets
of the teacher’s unions.

The state of public education in America is dismal, and that
is a fact that does not need to be debated.  The NEA is the largest political donor in the United States,
and they spend a lot of time and money making sure that necessary education
reform doesn’t happen.

Instead of celebrating the defeats of organizations that are
attempting to educate our children to a respectable standard, accusing them of
less than ethical practices and adding further to the already toxic partisan
atmosphere of our country, you should be advocating for real change in our
education policy, one unbiased idea at a time.

Without aid to private schools, the only way parents can
actually exercise this liberty is by paying twice for their child’s education.  They pay once for the tuition of the
private school, and once for taxes. 
By taxing everyone, but only subsidizing those who choose a secular
education, the government creates a strong disincentive to exercise a
Constitutional right.

While nondiscriminatory funding may or may not be
Constitutionally required, with the state of public education in America, it
would certainly be a better policy, one that would be better for our children.

It is a shame that people are so concerned with the values
that students at religious schools may or may not be accepting. It is the
student and their parents right to choose what school to go to and what values
to learn (see Meyer v Nebraska and Pierce
v Society of Sisters).  Many oppose religious schools
supposedly “indoctrinating” their students, but insist that public schools
must, “establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit
community values.” Board of Education v Pico

You accuse the religious schools in the program of being in
the pockets of big business looking to turn a profit, and social conservatives
advocating pro-life policies.  I
think you might also want to consider that public education is in the pockets
of the teacher’s unions.

The state of public education in America is dismal, and that
is a fact that does not need to be debated.  The NEA is the largest political donor in the United States,
and they spend a lot of time and money making sure that necessary education
reform doesn’t happen.

Instead of celebrating the defeats of organizations that are
attempting to educate our children to a respectable standard, accusing them of
less than ethical practices and adding further to the already toxic partisan
atmosphere of our country, you should be advocating for real change in our
education policy, one unbiased idea at a time.

Your last comment reminds me of something I often wonder…

Are liberals pro-choice about ANYTHING except abortion?

Should we withhold farm subsidies from farmers who are religious?