by Edd Doerr
(Here's the comment I posted in the Washington Post on 10/4 in response to Dana Milbank's column.)
During the debate Romney extruded a remark about his support for school vouchers, which is Republican code mantra for having government force all taxpayers to support special interest sectarian private schools through vouchers. Now it happens that Romney is most closely associated with three states -- Massachusetts, Michigan and Utah. Well, it happens that the constitutions of these three states all prohibit tax aid for church-related private schools. It also happens that these three states have had a total of SEVEN referendum elections in which voters rejected vouchers or their analogs by about two to one.
Conclusion: Romney is contemptuous of the constitutions of the three states with which he is most closely associated. He is contemptuous of the voters of three three states, as he is of the voters of the other states (NY, MD, DC, MO, SD, CO, CA, OR, WA, AK) that have had similar referenda. He is contemptuous of the religious freedom of all Americans, their right not to be forced by government to support religious institutions. He is contemptuous of the public schools serving 90% of our children , which cannot help but be harmed by the diversion of public funds to private schools.
Romney, who comes off like a sleazy used car salesman who lies with a straight face, should be rejected by voters come November.
4 comments:
So much for the political neutrality of this Blog!
Edd's comment is his alone. He is fully free to post political essays. However, please note that this is a separation of government and religion issue. Moreover, it would not violate the legal requirements of political neutrality if it were posted as an official position of WASH. Frankly, our President is not blameless in his support of government funding of religious operations and he fully deserves criticism for those actions. The fact that Romney is profoundly horrible in this area should not imply that Edd or others support everything on the part of his competition.
If there is anything that humanists agree on, it is the central importance of separation of church and state and the right of Americans not to be forced by government to suport sectarian private schools. Is the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II a political document?
Obviously the 1973 Humanist Manifesto II is not a political document. It is a values document that would serve the interest of everyone. Of course there are some people who imagine that society will be better if governmental resources are dedicated to sectarian interests. They don't realize that if we have that it becomes difficult to preclude allocating resources to very anti-democratic Islamic organizations. That would maximize social contention over competing fantasy worlds with no basis.
Post a Comment