This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Michael Van Winkle (Forum, Aug. 18) wrote that voucher opponents are getting desperate since they are dragging out the church/state separation issue. He continues with flawed logic believing public servants, when donating money to churches, violate this separation, ergo, many public employees are also in violation of church/state separation if donating money.
He closes with the church/state issue to obscure the real point of allowing "parental choice of a child's education." Parents have that ability now; they just don't stick taxpayers with the bill.
The issue is simple. Should the taxpayers of Utah be forced to contribute taxes to parents who choose an alternate education for their children? The answer is "no." It is a free country, and they are free to both make this choice and pay for it.
And Utahns, shouldn't we ask why someone in Chicago is so interested in a little old law in Utah? It's because it has broader and sweeping connotations for this national debate on vouchers. Mr. Van Winkle needs to stay out of Utah policy debates.
Kent C. Overly
Draper
