1/25/99

Dear friend,

I wrote a letter about school vouchers, which was published in local newspapers. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State sent their response with many common objections. Please find my initial letter, to which are attached their arguments and my answers. My friends helped me to proofread the original version, as well a contributed some of their ideas. If you think that our discussion is interesting, feel free to forward it to your friends, the government, and media sources.

ORIGINAL LETTER:

I think, that the main issue, that may help to rebuild America is school vouchers.

Only when families have control over education values, will the nation become responsible for the key decisions.

Here I am talking about government paying for the SECULAR portion of education in religious schools. How can a person, who never took violin lessons choose to play or not to play? How can a woman who never had a chance to learn about the benefits of traditional values, and to live in a clean environment, how can she weigh all the options and make an intelligent decision about an abortion?

Currently the government ruins religious communities by expropriating parents' taxes in order to support secular education where no values are taught or maintained.

Some time ago I was bragging to a coworker about my children scholarship in the religious school. She grabbed her child to bring him to their religious school, but they couldn't offer scholarships. I think she or her community could afford to pay just for the religious portion, if she was allowed to use her own taxes for her son's secular education. She was a single mother, I wish her son all the best, but it is very confusing for teenagers to be taught different things in Sunday school and in public school (where condoms are distributed for the rest of the week).

Let's see in which areas religious education can change the country:

- Welfare. If charity is distributed within a community, it will be closely monitored and it will not be guaranteed. So more people will choose to take control over their lives. Even if there are abuses, they will be less if bureaucracy stays away (or at least delegates some distribution functions).

- Social Security and unemployment. If women have more children, they may choose to stay home longer, or work from home, and even take care of elderly at the same time. Eventually, more young workers will support elders, because there will be more kids than adults. It makes no sense to sacrifice our society structure for the sake of overcrowded developing countries.

- Hygiene and the crime rate. Within extended families with mother at home, children will be supervised and learn more from adults than from their peers. Religious youngsters integrated into healthy environment will have clean ideas to consider before they run into trouble.

- Psychological health. Structured/religious life-style is less stressful, it gives you the balance and steers you through difficult times.

Of course, there will be some sacrifices to make, like if more families will choose to live for a while on one salary, relatives will share children's clothes, etc, but I predict, that prices should go down somewhat, since they will have to reflect people's ability to pay.

What would happen with public school? We are looking here into a very long process. Currently not every parent feels good about religion (or motivated enough to go through obstacles, beg for scholarship). But there will just be more choices, the country will have enough opportunities to compare the results. Government will still give licenses to schools, and demand that parents send their children to the school of FAMILY choice. Somehow we trust poor people to buy their own groceries, we don't provide public grocery stores, and so far it works OK. "Educational stamps" could be the other option to look into.

I am an immigrant from Russia. Before 1917 there was no need to lock houses in Russian villages. Now it's more popular over there to become a prostitute, than an engineer (because prostitutes get foreign currency). When communists intended to build a new world, they threw out the religion and replaced it with government regulations, schools (and grocery stores...). It worked only while family traditions were still alive. Where will we emigrate if this process continues here?

DISCUSSION:

*** A B A N D O N I N G   P U B L I C   S C H O O L S ***

ARGUMENT of The Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

We agree that probably the single most important issue facing the country regarding the future is education. But we feel that having strong and vibrant schools for all of our children is the only responsible way to approach the issue. By helping a small minority of students abandon our public schools with private school vouchers and limiting the resources available to help our public schools succeed, we leave a majority of our children behind. This is unacceptable. If we see public schools that are failing in their efforts to educate students, we need to fix them, not abandon them.

Voucher advocates make a series of preposterous claims. They claim that since some public schools are having difficulties educating students, taxpayers should help people leave those schools. It strains common sense to believe that these same public schools will get any better if we start taking money from them and shipping it to the private school down the block.

 REPLY:

Competition in the open market forces real improvement. When some schools will have to "ship out" others will have to "shape up", if they don't, who needs them any way? Because of competition you will not find rotten produce in US' worse neighborhood stores. Even if it's not as good as in rich communities, it's still OK. But in former USSR they sold decent food and provided good education only in privileged areas.

            *** F A M I L Y   C O N T R O L ***

ARGUMENT:

Families already have control over education. Every public school board in the country is elected by members of the community. More importantly, parents are welcomed (and encouraged) to get involved with community schools, and help to make them better.

REPLY:

Check it against a comparison with grocery stores - would you rather sit on a board to improve your store or vote with your feet? The hardest thing is to fight the bureaucracy. I don't have time to work on bringing every change I need, I'd rather make my point by selecting the school. I remember how hard it was for me many years ago to ensure that my kids don't eat non-kosher food in kindergarten. And what about people who are not fighters at all? What if their kids became victims of crime? For various reasons parents may fear to speak up against the school system because they don't want to subject their kids to possible or imaginative retaliation. And there are those, who don't know how to run the school, but still want to put their kids through a good working system.

*** P U B L I C   F U N D I N G   O F   R E L I G I O N ***

ARGUMENT:

Unfortunately, the situation you describe has never existed in any of the voucher programs ever created. Public tax dollars do not simply pay for religious schools to teach children about secular topics. When a publicly funded voucher goes to a private religious school, the public is funding the purchase of religious texts such as Bible, Torahs, and Korans, religious icons such as crucifixes, and pay for the salaries of religious teachers. The public cannot reasonably or legally be expected to finance with their tax dollars religious schools, religious instruction, religious texts, religious teachers, and religious icons whether they agree with the faith or not. America has a long history of people of faith supporting their churches and temples through charitable contributions. Forcing Americans to finance these institution's schools with vouchers is a dangerous and unconstitutional idea.

REPLY

I wonder, why nobody is asking if I object my tax money being used to finance distribution of condoms in public schools, while some mysterious public prohibits me from bringing my own taxes to my kids schools, which teaches them about a healthy life style?

Notice, that the public is using its taxes as well as mine to educate its children while denying me both sources.

Give parents THEIR OWN tax dollars to bring to any licensed school they want. To insure quality of education, you test students at regular intervals. Also you revoke licenses if schools preach hatred or other dangerous ideas. The purpose of this tax money should be to give kids secular education, and they are getting it. I don't object to extra checking, but why bother? Even if religious schools gave the same quality of education as everybody else for less money, isn't what we call capitalism? In contrast with public security services, education should be outsoursed to the vendor who gives us the best deal. If the vendor is more productive, he keeps the profit and uses it as he finds fit.  When public institutions purchase goods from the religious manufacturers, they don't bother to check how the payments are spent as long as they get their money worth. As an alternative, you can tax parents less, and give EVERY school less money. Then religious families will have money to support their schools. But if you tax religious parents more than before, and still expect them to come up with the money for religious schools (like they did in the past), you are strangling religious institutions by cutting off new members who are not brought up in a traditional way. When kids don't get comprehensive religious education, they think that religion is just a set of tales. The life of young couples is too hard to sacrifice their money for stories, which they feel they can tell themselves. So they don't join the house of worship, don't educate their children.

             *** S T A T E   O F   R E L I G I O N ***

ARGUMENT:

No one is ruining religious communities in this country. Quite to the contrary, religion is flourishing in America like no where on Earth. Church attendance is at an all-time high, we have more religions, sects, and faith groups than any where in the world, and recent polls show that nearly 96% of the public believes in a God. Far from being ruined, religious communities are thriving, and they are able to do so thanks to a separation between church and state.

REPLY:

Half of Jews in our town don't belong to ANY synagogue. Many assume they believe in G-d but don't do anything about this belief. They might think, "If G-d exists, it's His own business". They might also rely on government to fix all the problems. Or they just don't know what is expected of them. These are the assumptions of an ignoramus.

Isn't it ironic how many government and private programs are called on to substitute for the role of religious institutions in charity, hygiene, psychological health, and children's upbringing? If they worked, our society wouldn't be known for it's high rate of psychological problems, dysfunctional families, welfare dependency, and crime.

People used to belong to religious groups and work on common goals, but in our century there has been degradation in the state of religion. It's hard to learn and function effectively without organization.

           *** R O B B I N G   T A X P A Y E R S ***

ARGUMENT:

By forcing taxpayers to finance religious education, that separation is placed in jeopardy, threatening all of our freedom. Giving public funds to sectarian schools is the same thing as forcing taxpayers to place their money in the collection plate.

REPLY:

Nobody forces taxpayers to finance RELIGIOUS education (see above). Also, taxpayers are not faceless group of people. They particularly consist of people like us who get robbed to the bare bones, by having to pay taxes and still come up with money for the secular education in the religious schools, or beg for scholarship if available. Religious parents who get robbed have their freedom threatened. Note, that because of limited financing, our choice of religious schools is not that big either. It is crucial to make public aware of the existing injustice. If we continue forfeiting our rights, the majority will conveniently continue to assume that we are not entitled to them.  An honorable alternative - don't tax that much.

*** P A Y I N G   F O R   R E L I G I O U S  G O A L S ***

ARGUMENT:

 American taxpayers should never be forced to support religious indoctrination.  Repeatedly, the people who run religious schools readily admit that the principal purpose of their school is to promote their religious viewpoint. This is fine, until and unless all taxpayers are asked to pay for it.

REPLY:

People tend to have their own agenda and most of our actions serve some purpose. It shouldn't interfere with using government services and resources. When we give food stamps to poor religious family, we don't prohibit them from buying kosher food, or going to church after a nourishing breakfast - all together supporting religious indoctrination. Some can say that everything religious people do may be a part of their service to G-d.  Should we deny them the access to public roads, to police or public offices while still taxing them? You see that strict logic brings you on a verge of absurd. Again, tax money pay for secular education and when this objective is met, details shouldn't bother anyone. Anything beyond that is just bureaucracy - direct result of over taxation.

 *** W H I C H   R E L I G I O N   T O   S U P P O R T ***

ARGUMENT:

Once the public fisc is made available to any church with a school, all religious institutions will have to do battle before state legislatures over who should get public funding and who shouldn't.

REPLY:

This is very corrupt idea, that legislatures make choices for everybody. Individual TAXPAYERS should be able to make THEIR OWN tax dollars available to ANY licensed school THEY choose.

* P R O M O T E   D A N G E R O U S   D O C T R I N E S *

ARGUMENT:

 Whoever you find frightening, offensive, or just theologically wrong, from Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam to Neo-Nazi Christian Identity groups, to the local fundamentalist church on the corner, will likely be in line for your dollars.

REPLY:

Yes, there are some crazy groups, but atheism is at least no better. We cannot stop using knifes or flame, just because they are also used to kill. It's our obligation to think, make choices, persuade, revoke licenses - this is what life is about.

We Jews might think that we could do better in atheist country than in mostly Christian one. But the alternative is an amoral surrounding, where Jews disappear at Holocaust rate (thank G-d without bloodshed, instead by assimilating and abandoning Judaism).  Anyway, those who think that we are here just to enjoy the fruits of progressive society, find that the 'easy way out' brings more trouble than was bargained for. If there is a reason for Jews to go through history, then the departure is dangerous. Last century's Jewish sage said that if only Russian czar knew how important it is for Jews to study Bible, he would assign two Cossacks for each Jew to enforce the learning. Unfortunately, that czar did just the opposite and ruined his country, not without the help of assimilated Jews, who meant well, but lacked the foresight.

Even if some people don't care about others, it's impossible to separate ourselves from the less fortunate layers of society. I've heard that in New York, in the beginning of the century, when people didn't have air conditioners, on hot summer nights they took their sleeping bags and slept in parks. Who would risk sleeping in parks in today's NY? The problem is that the results of today's choices may not become apparent until a couple of generations too late. People often take their values for granted, they don't realize that these values are built on religious upbringing of their ancestors. So what happens when values are not passed down to next generations? The first generation is  brought up by example, so they may turn out to be OK. It's just that they are less certain, less determined, and have less arguments in the upbringing of their own children. So even if each new generation is not that much different from the previous one, the downfall becomes obvious when comparing more distant generations.

        *** G O V E R N M E N T   C O N T R O L ***

ARGUMENT:

Even houses of worship may find they've made a deal with the devil. Government money comes with "strings" attached. People want accountability for the use of their taxes, so government regulation is a necessary feature of public spending. Once churches, temples, mosques and synagogues are being financed by the public, some of their freedom is placed in jeopardy by the almost certain regulation to follow.

REPLY:

The government already regulates religious schools, and the theory of evolution is taught everywhere. I'd rather reach more human beings and have more discussions, give more explanations, than to loose souls all together.

Beside, the religious schools will have more options than they have now including:

- Reject the government money related to secular education and maintain the status quo completely or in some areas.

- Welcome or tolerate some strangers and inconvenience to be able to provide religious education for every needy student.

- Setup procedures, schedules, and transportation arrangements to enforce attendance of religious studies. Note that this healthy response to bureaucratic regulations would not be necessary if parents were not taxed that much thus be able to support religious schools directly.

     *** O P T I O N S   T O   C H O O S E   F R O M ***

ARGUMENT:

Voucher supporters like to talk about "choice." America does have a choice. We can pass risky voucher schemes that violate time-tested constitutional principles, that have no proven successes and that threaten the existence of public schools. Or, we can work to fix the public schools that are failing and help guarantee educational opportunities to all of our children. The choice is easy.

REPLY:

I don't think that the developers of constitution meant to strip off our income in order to regulate the way we bring up our children.Realistically, the choice is between who should go out of business, - the weakest public schools or religious institutions as a traditional America's way of life? Give taxpayers their own money and leave the decision up to them.

I believe that for some time already government money is helping some religious preschool and college students. The benefits outweigh the obstacles.

Socialism also was time tested again and again and proved to be unfixable, because bureaucracy doesn't really care. You cannot expect all teachers to be enthusiastic during all their work years. When parents have choice, it gives the strongest motivation to schools to improve. One may say that parents have a choice now, but is it a real choice, when money is expropriated? It's a choice of hardship or taking an easy path.

On a same subject - parents who have a choice of schools inevitably set priorities and evaluate schools as well as kids performance. In other words they invest themselves in the upbringing of their children. That would be a real blessing for kids whose folks completely rely on school.

Also, people who don't know much about religion have as much choice about becoming religious as a person who never took violin lessons can choose to play violin. It's common misconception, that religious people have fewer choices. Like with every education, the more you know, the more horizons open for you. Among others, the religion school teaches students about the purpose, responsibility, and healthy ways to deal with everyday problems. Not everyone holds on to it, but everyone should have a chance.

To restore minimum justice, let parents convert their own taxes into school vouchers. Then think about the population you would like to model for the 21st century. As a next step, you may want to let poor families, who don't pay taxes, bring school vouchers to finance secular education in religious schools. And even give sponsors additional incentives to support such schools. Consider that it may be cheaper to outsource schools than jails and rehabilitation programs. Besides, the social security system will likely get cured if we help American families to raise and educate more children.

http://www.odyosefhai.com/rabdavid/word/5%20-%20KiTissa.doc

…In summation: A Jew must strive to develop positive character traits, especially with regard to traits that have a major impact on interpersonal relationships. One must strive to assist his fellow to the best of his ability and overlook his fellow’s faults just as he would want others to overlook his own faults. If one’s friend has expressed his anger toward someone else, he should do his best to soothe that anger through reason and explanation — a demonstration of true wisdom and inner strength.

A wicked person behaves in the very opposite way. He seeks to damage others, to reveal their unintentional misdeeds and claim that they were committed wilfully. The wicked person rejoices over another’s failings, and incites others to feud. He prides himself over his success in such endeavours, as he considers this an indication of his wisdom and might — but of course he is wrong.

Midrash Shochar Tov (Ch. 52) cites the episode of Doeg’s treachery against David and Achimelech, the Kohen Gadol (High Priest). At a time when King Shaul was in pursuit of David and seeking to harm him, Doeg told Shaul that Achimelech had intentionally helped David to flee from Shaul, which was a lie. Doeg’s slander brought about Achimelech’s death (see I Shmuel Chs. 21-22).

As the Midrash relates, David told Doeg, “Is a man truly mighty when he sees his fellow at the edge of a pit and pushes him in, when he sees his fellow on top of a roof and pushes him off? On the contrary, a man deserves to be called a mighty warrior when his fellow is about to fall into a pit and he grasps his hand to prevent his fall or when he lifts the fallen man from the pit. But when you saw that Shaul was angry at me, you persisted in vilifying me.’’ Thus did David say, “Why do you pride yourself with evil, O mighty warrior?’’ (Tehillim 52:3)…

http://www.divrei.org/new_page_37.htm 

http://www.divrei.org/new_page_56.htm

If such metaphors seem farfetched, you can think of angels as functions, laws of nature, etc.

Audio: http://shiur.com/shiur_more.php?id=120_0_4_0_M275&s_id=275

http://www.bookfinder4u.com/IsbnSearch.aspx?isbn=0899062644&mode=direct Chofetz Chaim: A Lesson a Day (ArtScroll Series) ISBN:  0899062644 0899063225
Publisher: Mesorah Publications and try to think how it might be applicable in our day-to-day life.

http://jewishworldreview.com/twerski/growing_each_day.php3

By Rabbi Abraham J. Twerski

“What is lashon hara? One who speaks disparagingly of another person, even though he may speak the truth.”

  —   Orchos Tzaddikim, Chapter 25

 One mussar (Jewish ethical movement) spokesman said that there should never be any need to speak about another person. "If you wish to speak of someone's praises, praise G-d instead. If you wish to find fault with someone, you would do better to focus on your own defects." The second statement takes on additional significance in light of what psychologists have learned about lack of self-awareness. Some have suggested that when people talk about other people, they turn the conversation away from themselves and, by focusing on other's shortcomings, they avoid the need to focus on their own.

Slandering other people thus sets back the struggle for self-awareness, which is essential for optimum emotional and psychological health, because it directs one's attention away from oneself and onto the defects in others. One thereby does not have the information necessary to improve.

The Talmud states that lashon hara adversely affects three people: the one who speaks, the one who listens, and the subject of the conversation (Arachin 15b). We can easily understand how it hurts the last two, and we now have another insight into how gossips actually hurt themselves.

These kind of things might be also helpful

http://www.aish.com/omer/omerdefault/Counting_with_the_48_Ways.asp

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/489137/jewish/The-Power-of-the-Deed.htm

NAILS IN THE FENCE

There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down. He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence. Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all.

He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.

The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

 The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence. He said, 'You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence. The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. But It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound will still be there. A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one. Remember that friends are very rare jewels, indeed. They make you smile and encourage you to succeed. They lend an ear, they share words of praise and they always want to open their hearts to us.'

In Russian:

http://mnashe.tripod.com/tora/books/lashon.htm

http://toldot.ru/rus/articles/art/3535

http://toldot.ru/besedy.php?glava=matot

http://www.sedmoykanal.org/article.php3?id=237295

http://toldot.ru/rus/articles/art/3254

http://www.kellscraft.com/junglebook/junglebook02.html

…

“They have no leader,” said Bagheera. “They lie. They have always lied.”

“They were very kind, and bade me come again. Why have I never been taken among the Monkey People? They stand on their feet as I do. They do not hit me with hard paws. They play all day. Let me get up! Bad Baloo, let me up! I will go play with them again.”

 “Listen, man-cub,” said the bear, and his voice rumbled like thunder on a hot night. “I have taught thee all the Law of the Jungle for all the Peoples of the Jungle — except the Monkey Folk who live in the trees. They have no Law. They are outcasts. They have no speech of their own, but use the stolen words which they overhear when they listen and peep and wait up above in the branches. Their way is not our way. They are without leaders. They have no remembrance. They boast and chatter and pretend that they are a great people about to do great affairs in the jungle, but the falling of a nut turns their minds to laughter, and all is forgotten. We of the jungle have no dealings with them. We do not drink where the monkeys drink; we do not go where the monkeys go; we do not hunt where they hunt; we do not die where they die. Hast thou ever heard me speak of the Bandar-log till today?” “No,” said Mowgli in a whisper, for the forest was very still now that Baloo had finished.

“The Jungle People put them out of their mouths and out of their minds. They are very many, evil, dirty, shameless, and they desire, if they have any fixed desire, to be noticed by the Jungle People. But we do not notice them even when they throw nuts and filth on our heads.”

…

They were always just going to have a leader and laws and customs of their own, but they never did, because their memories would not hold over from day to day, and so they settled things by making up a saying: “What the Bandar-log think now the Jungle will think later”; and that comforted them a great deal. None of the beasts could reach them, but on the other hand none of the beasts would notice them, and that was why they were so pleased when Mowgli came to play with them, and when they heard how angry Baloo was.

… Sore, sleepy, and hungry as he was, Mowgli could not help laughing when the Bandar-log began, twenty at a time, to tell him how great and wise and strong and gentle they were, and how foolish he was to wish to leave them. “We are great. We are free. We are wonderful. We are the most wonderful people in all the jungle! We all say so, and so it must be true,” they shouted. “Now as you are a new listener and can carry our words back to the Jungle People so that they may notice us in future, we will tell you all about our most excellent selves.”…

Mowgli made no objection, and the monkeys gathered by hundreds and hundreds on the terrace to listen to their own speakers singing the praises of the Bandar-log, and whenever a speaker stopped for want of breath they would all shout together: “This is true; we all say so.”

Mowgli nodded and blinked, and said “Yes” when they asked him a question, and his head spun with the noise. “Tabaqui, the Jackal, must have bitten all these people,” he said to himself, “and now they have the madness. Certainly this is dewanee — the madness. Do they never go to sleep? …

…Here we sit in a branchy row,
Thinking of beautiful things we know;
Dreaming of deeds that we mean to do,
All complete, in a minute or two —
Something noble and grand and good,
Won by merely wishing we could.
     Now we’re going to — never mind,
     Brother, thy tail hangs down behind!...

A priest met a rabbi and said:

-      Last night I had a weird dream, like I got into Jewish Heaven. And there was such a filth, stench, and so crowdy!

-      I also had a dream – said rabbi – that I got into Christian Heaven. There was so clean, light, sheer fragrance – and not a single soul!

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/avi/shafran_life.php3
Making things worse still is the great and increasing demand for transplantable organs. A doctor in California currently stands charged with injecting an incapacitated patient with inappropriate medications in order to harvest his organs more quickly. No one knows how often similar things happen — or will happen if society becomes accustomed to allowing doctors to decide when a life is no longer worth living. 

We should be so proud of progress of modern science! Here is the next step:
http://www.organharvestinvestigation.net/