The Supremes say that vouchers for religious schools are A-OK. An interesting decision, coming on the heels of yesterday's 9th Circuit ruling on having to omit "under God," from the pledge. It may presage how they'll rule the appeal in that case.

Had they gone the other way, then someone should have brought suit to end Pell Grants, since they can be used to attend, say, the University of Notre Dame.

While 'under God' hasn't made it to the supremes yet, I'm wondering if... 'In God We Trust' isn't to follow? Isn't it the same logic?

All this idol worship in a secular government is rather funny to me.

Regarding the "In God We Trust" comment, to my surprise this was actually considered by the court. Go here to read the whole decision:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0016423P.pdf
And as for school vouchers...woo-hoo! There must be blood on the walls at the Teacher's Union today.

An interesting point being made on some "lefty" blogs, notably www.atrios.blogspot.com; how long till the madrassas are lining up for their share of the federal largesse? Still liking this idea?? I think that it was, and still is, a bad idea to mix church and state. There is a big difference between a college education grant or loan, and vouchers for high school education. Namely, high school is a requirement(at least till 16), college is an option. I think true school choice, meaning any child can go to any school is fine, but I don't really see why a gov't subsidy for religious schools is part and parcel to the debate.

No, I don't like that idea, but I don't like the idea of madrassas, period. I'd like to find some way to shut them down, within the first amendment (perhaps as "incitement to violence," like the fire in the theatre analogy).

I'd prefer that all schools be unsubsidized as well, but that preference includes the government-run school system. Until we can take education out of the hands of the government, I'm happy to see parents at least offered a little choice as to how their education dollars are spent.

If you regard "PC/diversity/biocentrism" as religions, which I do, schools are already rotten with religious teachings. No wonder the lefites are up at arms--they're about to lose their monopoly on indoctrinating the youth of America.
And frankly, I don't know a single parent who wants vouchers so they can send their kid to a religious school. Everyone I know just wants their kids out of the grotesque and biased failure that is our public education system.
Doubtless some folks will set up religious schools. I'm at a loss to see how this will be worse than the current mess.
However, I would agree with some sort of national standardized test yearly for each grade to make sure the madrassas and such are forced to teach the basics instead of "All Allah, All Day."

Toren just stole most of my thunder after my lengthy comment generate the error message and disappeared. Like Toren and Rand, I concur the "madrassa" issue is a lot more smoke than fire.

For vouchers to succeed politically, proponents are unfortunately going to have to forget about addressing the think tanks and building coalitions with minorities, much as this benefits society's outcasts and helps us feel good about going against type. The anti-voucher crowd consists of 1)Teacher unions and the public school establishment 2) Wealthy parents unwilling to give up the filter of high tuitions and/or property values to upstarts from the middle class or god forbid, kids from the inner city, and 3) older, high propensity to vote, grandparents and singles who see no need to change things from the way they were brought up. A successful campaign to get vouchers over the hump would involve concentrating on #3 voters, as well as peeling off a good share of high quality teachers who would also benefit from being paid their worth in a competitive education market much as are doctors, lawyers, stockbrokers, etc.

I've always thought that vouchers would socialize the schools, but that would still be an improvement over outright government ownership of schools. There used to be a word for that...

If you constantly tell children, "No no- Don't mention God, you can't do that here. Don't talk about faith or religon in public- many people are offended by faith. Don't mention Jesus Christ- it's rude and primitive."
Is that not also religous indoctrination?
Why should atheist religous indoctrination be protected and all others banned?
As far as "federally funded madrassas" go, that's fine too. Let's get the Christian Scientists and the Scientologists in on it too- I really want to see what happens when kids educated at any of the above schools apply at colleges in the real world. The idea behind vouchers is that parents may be able to send their kids to schools where they can LEARN, not just be stockpiled until their teacher can draw a pension. Not all vouchers will be used in religous-based schools. Please stop making rhetorical mountains out of molehills.

Thanks Toren, for the link. Although the cases sited (Aronow 1970, Wooley 1977) support (w/dissent) the phrase "In God We Trust" on money it's interesting that coercion to endorse seemed the pivotal point. I would think that the need to handle money would be sufficient coercion for someone offended by the phrase?

Vouchers seem like a no-brainer to me. It's about school's earning the dollars spent on them. A diverse group of parents are more likely to benefit children (especially their own) than any centralized authority (no matter how well intentioned that authority may be.)

As far as moral, religious or political education (brain-washing) I'd rather not see that in schools at all, but again I'd rather have parents making those choices before anyone else.

Actually, the courts have dealt with the issue of government aid to religious colleges and universities. They seem to feel that it's a different issue because the students are adults.

Frankly, I think that's a cop out.

Disclosure -- I used partially subsidized student loans to pay for my education at Notre Dame and [St. Vincent] DePaul University College of Law.

I think vouchers are a decent half-way house. I am afraid that once it seems that they are a going-concern the left will finds ways of manipulating things again. I think all schools should be privitised and their should be only "private" schools. Then they will be able to operate like colleges and offer bursaries and/or tuition breaks to less advantaged children. As with many things government makes a mess of education, keep them as far out of the loop as possible is best.

Shift the debate people. Start asking opponents of vouchers why they support the continued shackling of poor, urban minorities into lives of misery and poverty? The greatest beneficiaries of vouchers are the residents of underperforming schools, which are primarily in the inner city. If they want to see these children to be chained in slavery to the teachers union, that's fine. But we need to make them justify it every time they have the balls to show their face.
The only reason that religious private schools are the beneficiary of vouchers is that they are the only ones that are available to the poor with the low voucher amounts. When you only get $2500 a year in voucher money, it doesn't open the world to you to in private education, and suburban schools require more in tuition than that, too. As to the madrassa issue, I am not sure if this is a red herring or a demagogue. Either way, it is so damn stupid its scary. It points out the weakness of the slaver's arguments, not a problem with vouchers. But why do we even listen to people with left-leaning ideas when we are talking about education? Would you take a driving or lifeguard class from Ted Kennedy? The left has been in control of educational theory and instruction for the last 25 years. What do we have to show for it?