you seem like a very angry person. if you spent that energy helping people, instead of blathering on a website, you might feel better.

I don't know, I'm not in that situation, and wouldn't presume to be able to put myself in that situation. Using tax dollars to support the religious brainwashing of our country's youth is completely unacceptable, however, and I would be interested in seeing which faith-based schools were on Bushit's "approved" list.

And if you're suggesting that Bush cares about poor people, sorry, I can't go there, cause he doesn't. The entire "State of the Union" speech was a manipulative political game, and that proposal was a sop to the bible-and-gay-male-hooker-banging religious right.

Wow, you've really fallen off the beam, eh?

There's "no debate" that religious organizations do good? Maybe you should read a newspaper sometime. Watch a little TV. Read up on the internets. Because there is plenty and endless debating about how "good" religious organizations are. How about asking the thousands of kids molested by Catholic priests what they think about that? Maybe some victims of Islamic suicide bombers, or Hindu extremists? For someone who asserts others are closed-minded you seem to do a pretty fair imitation of a closed-minded person yourself.

I have lots of problems with Catholic teaching, much of which is jibberish as far as I can tell. Most everything they teach about morality is demonstrably wrong in my estimation. Since I'm not gay I have no idea why you'd guess Catholic bigotry against homosexuality makes me anti-Catholic, but it's as good a reason as any to dislike the church. I do have a problem with that kind of bigotry but I'm not offended by being called gay, so if you meant it as a subtle insult shame on you. I thought you religionists were supposed to be good and kind.

For a self-described lapsed Catholic yourself it's laughable that you would lecture anyone on religion or morality. It's really really good and moral and correct and everyone can agree...but you don't contribute yourself. You argue endlessly and mindlessly about these superior teachings but don't bother to follow them. I guess the church you fail to attend doesn't teach about hypocrisy, but really, how could you possibly know?

Finally, the reason you write on Salon where 90% of the people disagree with you is because you're a troll. And having read your contradictory and absolutist responses to comments made to you and from you on this thread I've come to the conclusion that you quite clearly aren't very bright - it's not just appearances.

close-mind·ed (klōs'mīn'dĭd, klōz'-)

adj. Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

Are you scared you might be converted just by reading it? Are you that weak? Dude, I don't even go to church, but the Catholic Church gets a bad rap. Be informed on everything. You come off as not very bright when you refuse to hear viewpoints other than your own. Why do you think I'm on Salon when I disagree with 90% of the people on here?

Here's a tidbit for you:

"Political authorities are obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person. They will dispense justice humanely by respecting the rights of everyone, especially of families and the disadvantaged. "

Those BASTARDS!!!

Why should I read Catholic propoganda put out by the Vatican? I've read more history about the Crusades than I care to remember and all it did was solidify my opinion of religion in general and the Catholics in particular. Peddle your bullshit elsewhere.

Sure, the actions taken by the institution of the catholic church are not always right, but the teachings are something else. take time to look through the official teachings, the catechism and observe there is a focus on rights, importance of women, and basically all good morals. I'm sure you will find some stuff you don't like, but a lot of the statements you made are not true. Maybe if you had better public schools, you would actually know more about the Crusades than you think you do.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

I am a Catholic who was educated at a parochial grammer school, a Catholic high school, a Catholic college and obtained a post-graduate at a Catholic university. At spectacular cost to me, my two children have followed the same path. (Except for the graduate degree. If they do that,it's on their dime.)

My last two years of college and all of graduate school were substantially paid for by the G.I. Bill. In other words, money from the goverment. Now, you could argue that it was money that I earned during my four years on active duty, but that really doesn't wash because I would not have been entitled to it if I didn't continue my education. I went to Catholic schools. Others went to public institutions. It was an individual choice, but the money came from the same source: Uncle Sam.

Was this a violation of the anti-establishment clause? I don't think so. If the benefit had been denied to me because I went to Catholic institutions would it have been a violation of the equal protection clause? Yes.

Despite my background, I have always been opposed to school vouchers because they harm the public school system that is vitally important to our past, present and future. Having said that, it should be remembered that the Catholic parishes and dioceses have been carrying a substantial portion of the burden of educating young people. The construction and maintenance of these buildings at parish and diocesan expense, and payment of tuition by (mostly) Catholic families (along with substantial tuition subsidies by parishes and dioceses) has, over the past 120 years, saved taxpayers many billions of dollars.

They are also subsidized by the willingness of the dedicated teachers who work for a substantially reduced salary. It is true that they don't have to deal with the highly disruptive students that a public school teacher has to put up with, but it's a mistake to believe that their only alternative is to walk down the street to an inner-city school. They often get jobs at suburban schools. They can also get non-teaching jobs at much higher salaries.

Nor should it be assumed by any means that Catholic schools have better resources and equipment than puclic schools. The opposite is more often true. Catholic schools compete without the same level of financial support.

It is true that their students generally come from families who take an interest in the education of their children, and this is, of course, a key factor in the success of Catholic schools in graduation rates and the percentage of students going on to college.

Catholic schools are not confined to the inner city. Many suburban towns have them, and they are taken for granted until one of them closes and property taxes go up by 10%.

Morton Kondracke can infer that grammer school and high school Pell Grants are a disguise for a Catholic school rescue mission (although many do not need rescuing). And Koppelman can, probably rightly, call them vouchers. But they do not by any means constitute a violation of the separation doctrine, as set forth in my G.I. Bill example above in this terribly lengthy and disjointed post.