Would you have voted for the Oregon Compulsory Education Act?

[tpfkaw]

No, given that it was just a veiled effort to destroy Catholics schools.

And...that's a bad thing how?

Well, besides the fact that Catholic schools consistently produce better-achieving students, at a lower cost per pupil, than public schools, Catholic immigrant students faced extreme discrimination from both teachers and fellow students in public schools in the early 20th century.  They were put in the lowest reading/math groups, given low marks, pressured to drop out as soon as legally possible, made to sit in the back of the classroom, bullied, ostracized etc. (not to mention that there would probably be a few lessons on the evils of Popery).  Also do note that public schools were not any more (and generally less) secular than Catholic schools back then.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well considering how you are pretty anti-Catholic (see comments about sex abuse scandals and contraception), I don't see how that'd be a problem, unless you're basically just saying anything the KKK supports should be opposed.[/quote]

Sometimes, you are obliged to oppose something based on its reasoning rather than its content.  Perhaps on the other side of the spectrum, but Murray Rothbard had a good example; suppose some congressman in 1850 proposed a constitutional amendment declaring the total inviolability of private property and forbidding government interference with it.  Any good libertarian would be obliged to vote against it, since their definition of private property would certainly differ from that hypothetical congressman (who is seeking to protect slavery).