Basically, I would see school vouchers as being a way to compete between different schools teaching more or less the same things along more or less the same guidelines, and perhaps with no restrictions, on, say, hiring union labor.

I think the state has a duty to provide non-religious education to everyone, even if you're the lone Christian in a heavily Muslim area, say (or vice versa). If everyone could send their kid to a religious school, in some areas, the market would simply not provide for non-religious education.

That line of argument can be extended in all kinds of ridiculous directions. Should we ban Hummers off the roads? After all, they're driving on roads paved with your tax dollars, and you do not approve!

We should also ban rapists from drinking tap water. After all, my tax dollars pay for water treatment, and why should scum of the Earth like them get to drink it?

Do you see what I'm getting at? If you are going to insist that none of your money goes towards things you do not directly approve of, you're going to have to go for a 100% free-market economy - and by that I mean no police, no fire brigade, no public roads...

"Basically, I would see school vouchers as being a way to compete between different schools teaching more or less the same things along more or less the same guidelines"

... except if the schools teach things you disagree with. Like I said, it's "We should have freedom! But only for things I agree with"... which doesn't strike me as very free at all.

As an aside, one of the problems I see with the various interesting people of the internet is that, for a bunch of allegedly smart people, they harbor a lot of hatred and prejudice. You can't surf without running into hate-filled articles bashing the religious, unions, immigrants, poor people, etc ad nauseum.

For example, the law currently disallows polygamy - but if you look at all the cultures around the world you will find that monogamy is somewhat of a Judeo-Christian idea to begin with - at the very least there are many societies where it is perfectly acceptable.

So now the question must be asked: is our desire to have a monogamous society coming from our Christian roots, or is it something that transcends religion and becomes a shared ideology?

There are a great many issues where it's not easy to say "this comes from religion" vs. "this comes from our social order".

The world is certainly a complex place.

State-sponsored teaching that evolution is bunk, and that the koran/bible/FSM is literal truth, though, is probably crossing the boundary, and that's what we were discussing, not monogamy.

The problem though is that, from the government side anyways, the two arguments are not separable. As soon as you propose to limit/expand the freedoms of one special interest group, all of them swarm out of the woodwork.

The problem is also that you cannot say "this is crossing the boundary" without first defining what the boundary is. Sure, teaching creationism (for us) is well beyond this ephemeral concept of "the line", but fair governance requires us to actually define where "the line" is.

The availability and quality of schools is already a key consideration when choosing a neighborhood to live in. Forcing every last kid in Chinatown to go to a school at odds with their traditions is an affront to liberty. Offering the one Jewish family in Hicksville, Alabama the option of (a) moving to a bigger city, (b) commuting to a decent school, (c) homeschooling or (d) putting up with local school they hate the least, is more palatable to me.

In most cases, the solution would be, "don't live in Hicksville, Alabama if you can't stand the schools." But even if you have to, at least you have options (b) and (d). Public schools don't even give you that much.