You meant to say that my child is better off then?

Localyokel - I have but a minute right now - but I'll do the best I can on a short time-frame. If you read most major newspapers or follow various court cases, you'll see that there is and has been a non-stop battle for what schools can and can't (or will and won't) teach. Coincidentally, just this morning, I saw an article that books by "ex-gay" folks are being excluded from school libraries because, as some schools have said, books suggesting that homosexuality is a treatable condition can be psychologically damaging. However, pro-homosexual books (some that are downright pornographic) are welcomed right into the library.

You and I both know (I hope) that there have been many court cases over whether other types of books - religious books, for example - are allowed in a school library - and many things having to do with anything suggesting God's existence have been repressed. (Ever hear anybody say, "Separation of Church and State?"). Unless you have your head in the sand (and I doubt you do), I think there's a pretty clear cultural battle in the U.S., and this plays itself out in government schools where teaching some things (that have historically been taught in schools) is supressed, and teaching other things (which historically have NOT been taught) are forced upon students. You certainly have read stories of parents being shocked to learn that their kids were forced to read or study or hear things that violate their consciences.

In any event, if we expand what this cultural war is (which really has its foothold in what kids are taught in schools) - it really is a battle between the view that the world works just fine without a God (and that the very idea of a God is repugnant) and that truth and morality is relative - and the view that the world is governed by God, and God has commands on how He wants us to live.

Regardless of which side of this "war" you're on, you certainly must concede that this battle does exist - and you must concede that most of the court cases involving this battle relate to - you guessed it - government schools! Ever wonder why sessions of Congress start with prayer, but school can't? There clearly is a suppression of any teaching about a Creator in government schools, and suppressing any concept of God - and teaching that the world works just fine (without acknowledging a Creator) is an engine for atheism.

Wow! I typed all of that in a minute?!!

Go Phillies!

FDR - At the risk of stating the obvious, I fully expect that those who pay tuition at a parochial will have less "excess income" (by anywhere from $7,000 to $12,000 per year per child) and so I expect that sacrifices will be made in the family budget and buying gizmos, etc., for the kids. To continue stating the obvious, if I pay for tuition for three kids, I have $20,000 to $30,000 less per year. Stated conversely, if YOU do NOT pay such tuition, you have $20,000 to $30,000 MORE. Whose kids do you think are "better off?"

I hope this clears things up for you.

In order for there to be a "battle", there would have to be a concerted organized effort on both sides to promote their point of view. In this case, the Government has not engaged in a concerted organized effort to push Atheism onto school students. Rather, the government continues to support the idea that having it choose a religion, and present it to public school students as "the" religion is against the best interests of this country, hence the separation of church and state. It is a can of worms that is best left unopened, and to most people that is obvious. It is a simple concept, really. Religion is not Science and Science is not Religion. It is actually in the best interest of Religion to keep the two separate, and to keep religion separate from government as well. Without you providing specific examples of what you are alluding to, it is difficult to discuss your generalizations.

Are you also suggesting that the various resources (masses, sunday schools, retreats, ...) offered by the thousands and thousands of churches in this country are inadequate to teach a child the religion that chosen for him/her by his/her parent's?

Later...Shawn
I would think it would depend on how much each of you makes per year, and your definition of "better off". If you make 3.7 million dollars per year, and FDR makes 30k/year, I would suggest that you'd still have way more "excess income" even with having to pay tuition.

Later...Shawn

Shawn - I think this is proving why my earlier response was that it's best to end the discussion because of opposing worldviews. In your worldview, you see the possibility for neutrality in areas of religious beliefs. I do not see such a possibility. By the way, I'm guessing you don't have kids - or else you wouldn't downplay the impact of what a child is taught at school several hours a day five days a week 180 days a year. Oh, and don't forget what bombards them on TV.