It’s amazing how, in a sea of type, the smallest blurb can catch a reader’s attention. In the Wednesday, October 17, Richmond Times-Dispatch Metro section, in its “News Near You” column, a blurb about the Pamplin Historical Park & The National Museum of the Civil War Soldier, stuck out. It seems the park is getting a state (i.e., taxpayer funded) grant of $23,750 to defray the costs of admission for school children taking field trips there. Several Southside cities are eligible to participate. Seems simple and worthy enough (aside from the pork barrel nature of it). Nothing like giving the children some hands on learning about the Wah. Then, this smallest of articles, lands a whopper — in parenthesis no less — “(private academies, home schools, etc. are not eligible).” This is the latest in a disturbing trend in state and local government in recent years in which parents of home or private school children getting short changed. Not enough that they foot two bills — public and private education — these tax payers face a discrimination so disturbingly illustrated in this seemingly benign case. Pay up on an ever-increasing tax burden, but, oh-by-the-way, you can’t participate! Yes, these parents pay for the schools they don’t use, and they help pay for the museum through state subsidies, but because they make the decision to educate their children in a different environment, they have the door shut in their face. This is modern day discrimination at its worst.
In just one of many more glaring examples of this continuing discrimination, last year a Shenandoah Valley governor’s school initially refused to accept admission applications from home and private school children. Basically, the participating school districts were saying you lose your citizenship the minute your children enter a private or home school. This past session, the General Assembly finally passed the common sense, non-mandatory, school bus bill (giving school districts and private schools the ability to contract with each other for mutually beneficial transportation purposes). One would think that in the aftermath of such progress government discrimination and the effective double taxation (in the Pamplin case, quadruple taxation) would begin to erode. Yet this government sanctioned — and unconstitutional — picking and choosing among its own citizens persists, to the bewilderment as to why we have such cultural disarray.
There are plenty of tax-funded programs that people don’t use, don’t like, etc. Single people or couples without children support public education with their tax dollars. How unfair is that? Same-sex couples contribute to Social Security even though surviving partners can’t collect S.S. benefits upon their partner’s death. Is that fair? “Yet this government sanctioned — and unconstitutional — picking and choosing among its own citizens persists…”
Or look at it this way. I’ll apply the logic of an argument I heard for the marriage amendment: “if you want the benefits of marriage, marry someone of the opposite sex.” Well, if you want your kids to have the benefits of a public education, send them to public school!
You obviously have an agenda here, David. Marriage between a man and a woman only, is logical. However, you may have a point regarding people without chldren having to help fund the public schools with their tax dollars. My children are in private school and I don’t like paying double with my tax dollars going to public school.
Donna,
I would assume that everyone who posts here has an agenda of some sort.
Agendas?
I think someone is rather fond of a certain modern misinterpretation of 1 Samuel 1:26. Skip forward to 1 Samuel 2:2 and I think you will see that the historical patriarch does not seem to have that interpretation.
Marriage, as defined by scripture, human tradition, and our law, is available in the commonly understood form to all. No one denies me the benefits because I was married in a church instead of a courthouse. Thus it makes no sense to deny otherwise openly available educational resources simply because the state doesn’t pay the teacher.
Bob,
I fail to see what any biblical passage has to do with public policy. If you’re advocating theocracy, be honest and say so. Besides, the Bible can be used to justify just about anything. Is that what you want?
As for marriage, how many more Ted Haggards do you want? Are you advocating failed marriages? Do you want a higher divorce rate? Your comments do nothing but prove my point.
But back to the subject of the post. The author refers dismissively to the grant as “pork,” which conservatives are supposed to find abhorrent…but as long as it’s there, he/she still wants it! Even if he has rejected the educational system the government has to offer. Which says to me that it’s called pork only because the Family Foundation doesn’t like it. I wonder if any laws, policies or studies sponsored or suggested by the Family Foundation could be considered pork?
David:
It’s you and ‘Jonathan’ that began that line of thought here. [Correction: that's 2 Samuel 1:26].
‘Even if he has rejected the educational system the government has to offer’ the homeschool and private school community still provide quality and standards that are common. How else did Noah Rhiner become president of the student body at Dartmouth.
I would agree with you that we really don’t need the pork in the first place, but David, aren’t you a foe of discrimination?
Bob,
You have me confused with another David. Hereon I’ll be David2.
Yes, of course I am a foe of discrimination. I wished to point out that the Family Foundation does not apply its logic or standards consistently.
Bob K,
I have not commented on this thread and I don’t understand why you would mention me. In the future, please don’t put my name in scare quotes. Scare quotes are a type of name-calling and name-calling violates Christian ethical standards of good conduct.
‘Scare Quotes?’ Hardly! What am I to make of what appears to be two names made up in allusion to 2 Samuel 1:26?* If it is merely an odd coincidence, than I certainly apologize.
*I refer to Jonathan’s post on the first thread where he mentions himself and David.
But I think this is a good example of the danger in ‘Hate Speech’ legislation. It will be all to easy to infer motive rather than discuss facts. It will have a chilling affect on legitimate speech.
Suppose I visit a blog on Shakespeare and encouter two posters going by the names Rosencrance and Guildenstern. It would be merely a style convention to put the names in quotes.
Now I visit a blog on family policy and find two posters going by the names David and Jonathan. I only make the connection because both take a very similar adversarial approach to the ideas expressed here.
Look at the arguements of both people and tell me they are not from the same camp.
Bob K,
In the first thread on this blog, I was referring to my husband David. We co-founded EqualityLoudoun together. My David has never commented on this site. If he does, his name will appear as an EqualityLoudoun hyperlink. I don’t know the David who has been commenting here. He’s not part of my family. I’m sorry that you believe that I take an adversarial approach. That’s not my intention. I’ll try to fix that.
What “Hate Speech” legislation?
P.S. I’m sorry to have caused confusion by not distinguishing myself from other posters with the same name.
Whew! Any posts about the article? You know, the topic of a state-funded museum offering free admission to school children — but only public school children?
Non-public schools provide a public benefit to taxpayers, students and families. The pretext of discriminating against students is rooted in the fact that the NEA/VEA does not have union members teaching in them, isn’t it?
If the students of Richmond’s Jewish schools, or Baptist schools, or Catholic Schools (I’m sorry I’m leaving alot of folks out here) are denied the same benefits as children who attend publis schools, it is discrimination based upon religion. The US Constitution guarantees the government will not deprive the people of their right to exercise their religion. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and its numerous titles, guarantee that discrimination based upon religion will not be promulgated by the government. In denying access to facilities in the manner described, then it seems that either public education money must be involved — coming from the school district itself, not the Commonwealth of Virginia. The first time a non-public student is compelled to pay for admission under circumstances of a school field trip, please let us know. Maybe we can plan a “field trip” to the Civil War museum just so the students can learn — not about the American Civil War of 1861-1865 — but of the current war that secularists and progressives are waging every day in denying them their rights as citizens.
Yes, such a field trip would be very insiteful indeed.
Students would see discrimination first hand. I hope there would be many photo opportunities involved. Maybe a caption on a photo that says, “Here’s Suzanne paying her $6.00 to see a museum where other students can be admitted for free. But Suzanne has to pay $6.00 because her parents want her to attend a school where being
[enter name of religious tradition here] is something she can learn there, along with reading, writing, and arithmetic. What’s great about this field trip is now Suzanne has also learned directly what discrimination is all about. It’s a lesson she could only have learned in Virginia.”
What happens when they want us to wear gold stars or silver crosses? Just when will the people of Virginia pursue these cases in court?
Sorry about the spelling errors in my previous post. It is repugnant to me that the state could possibly decide and take upon itself the privilege of discriminating against school children — especially when it has decided that it does not like how they practice their religion, or they must attend a unionized school to receive their rights as citizens.
The intention of the grant was no doubt to allow children from poor families access to field trip resources. If this was the intention, then why not make it need-based? If a school has children participating in the USDA subsidized lunch program or free milk program, why not use that as the measure of need? The USDA does not discriminate. They give free milk and free lunches to many schools, including Catholic ones. Some 80% of Catholic students receive aid from their parishes to attend school. There are also students in Catholic (and other non-pubvlic schools) that are receiving scholarships and tuition grants based on family need.