Vatican, a bastion of extravagance?

Edd Doerr (arinc.org) posted a comment to the Nov 4 Washington Post article, 

“Pair of books paint Vatican as a bastion of extravagance,” by Anthony Faiola and Stefano Pitrelli.

We do not need to wait for these two Italian books to be published in English. We have lawyer Gerald Posner's 2015 book, God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican (Simon and Schuster). 

Further, we have a report in this week's National Catholic Reporter by Jack Ruhl, "NCR research: Costs of sex abuse crisis to US church underestimated." 

Ruhl writes that "The US Catholic Church has incurred nearly $4 Billion in costs related to the priest sex abuse crisis during the past 65 years, according to an extensive NCR investigation of media reports , databases and church documents." 

Ruhl adds: "In addition, separate research recently published calculates that other scandal-related consequences such as lost membership and diverted giving has cost the church more than $2.3 Billion annually for the past 30 years." 

That's a total of $69 Billion! No wonder church officials have been pushing for tax aid for their shrinking private school system through vouchers and tax credits, a scheme of course overwhelmingly opposed by American voters. 

The unpopularity of vouchers

Edd Doerr, president of Americans for Religious Liberty, published this letter  in the Washington Post on  Oct. 25, 2015  on Vouchers.

Regarding Valerie Strauss’s Oct. 16 Answer Sheet column, “Despite the council’s objections, Congress seems determined to continue D.C. school vouchers” [Metro]:

In opposing expansion of the D.C. school voucher program, the Obama administration is in sync with the majority of Americans. The 2015 Gallup education poll showed Americans opposed to vouchers by 57 percent to 31 percent. (The D.C. vouchers are paid for by taxpayers nationally.)

In 28 state referendums from coast to coast between 1966 and 2014, millions of voters rejected vouchers or their variants by an average margin of 2 to 1. 

In 1981, D.C. voters rejected a tax-credit voucher plan by 89 percent to 11 percent, and this month a majority of the D.C. Council expressed opposition.

See also Voucher Fail.

DC charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood [public] schools

Edd Doerr thinks that the  Oct 8 Washington Post online article  by Michael Alison Chandler “DC charter schools serve fewer at-risk students than nearby neighborhood [public] schools” is "Dynamite".

He noted curiously, that the Oct 9 print edition of the paper did not run the story. Here is what Edd posted in the paper online ---

The article details, with maps and charts, how about 90% of DC’s large charter 

school array serve fewer at-risk kids than nearby public schools and are rather selective, which regular public schools cannot be. As the DC charters are regarded as some of the best in the US, what does this say about charters generally? The big question is why did the Post omit this article from its Oct 9 print edition?

There is a strong consensus among educators and others that charter schools – and school voucher plans – are part of an ongoing Republican/conservative campaign to undermine and privatize public education. Diane Ravitch, Mercedes Schneider, and many others, including myself, have been writing about this for a long time.

DC School Vouchers

The Washington Post on Oct 9 did publish this story by Lyndsey Layton, ”8 on [DC] council seek end to private school vouchers.” The story refers to a letter that a majority on the DC City Council sent to a congressional committee on Oct 8 urging no further expansion of the school voucher plan imposed on the District of Columbia by Congress and the George W. Bush administration. You should be able to Google the story. Here is the comment I posted online ---

“Excellent! The Council majority accurately reflects public opinion against vouchers. Remember that in 1981 DC voters voted down a tax-credit voucher plan by 89% to 11%. Remember that DC vouchers are paid for not just by DC taxpayers but by all taxpayers nationwide.

“Let’s note also that the annual Gallup education poll in August showed that Americans nationwide oppose diverting public funds to private schools by 57% to 31%, a supermajority that has held for nearly 50 years and that is reflected in the 28 state referenda from coast to coast from 1966 through 2014.”

ACLU sues to stop new Nev. School vouchers

Edd Doerr (arlinc.org) notes the Washington Post, article, Aug 28. “ACLU sues to stop new Nev. School vouchers,” by Emma Brown. Here is the comment Edd posted on line  ----

Nevada's Republican-rammed-through school voucher plan clearly violates Article XI, Sections 2, 9 and 10 of the state constitution. If the legislature had done the honorable thing and tried to amend the constitution, the amendment would have been rejected by the voters. How do we know? Because the neighboring states of California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Utah and Colorado have had twelve referendum elections in which vouchers or similar schemes to divert public funds to private schools were rejected by an average margin of 64% to 36%. Nevada voters would surely follow suit.

And the annual PDK/Gallup education poll released on August 23 showed opposition to vouchers at 57% to 31%.

Nevada's GOP lawmakers thumbed their noses at the state constitution, at the voters, at the public schools that serve 95% of the state's kids, and at the religious liberty of the state's citizens, their right not to be forced by government to support religious institutions. 

See ACLU site for more.

Thank you, Paula Kirby!

Yesterday, Paula Kirby wrote an outstanding article in the Washington Post's On Faith column about religion and freedom. It was an excellent examination of the subject, and it drove the theists nuts in the comments.

Unfortunately, their defenses are about points not brought up by Paula to prove her case. None of them successfully refute her at all. Their objections run the gamut from cites of famous dictators such as Hitler and Stalin to pointing out the positive values that Christianity supposedly teaches. I guess I could say does teach, since the bible does say things such as you shouldn't steal or lie in court or murder people, but the problem isn't with a lack of positive values. Her point is that by adhering to the teachings of a deity, worshiping a deity, obeying its laws and dictates, one is submitting oneself to the dictatorial rule of an unseen, unheard entity whose human representatives are the ones that claim to have the real scoop on what that deity has to say!