Should the government fund single-faith schools?

[Caid Ivik]

Discussions about hell are on rather higher level than you think. Maybe you should leave those close-minded american sects and see what is true theology about. But whatever, I see it is only one little problem which flashed trough your head when writing that reply and was set here just to give it some decent length.

In fact, economy isn't very useful here. First public schools were founded by christian orders, mostly in gothic era, when education got trough walls of monasteries. Between else, St Angela Merici or St Jean de la Salle, made this trend even to lower castes. State took control over education in late 18th century under influence of hobbsistic theories, that it should use anything to maintain power. Then came first secular schools to satisfy few fanatics, which wanted to stay off Church as much as possible. However, later most schools were secular, state-controlled too, so catholics had to visit them too. And now you can see, what we may call a paradox - choice between secular or religious ethics lessons. Secular schools are just tools of state, easily abusable. Religious, as well as private schools are a good balancing counterforce, which ensure plurality. When you enter a school, first thing you see is star-striped flag and maybe portrait of GWB. When a student of catholic school enters it, he sees cross with Christ. I can say the first one will give me nothing. Maybe only anger, if I'm a democrat. Second one gives me motivation - or if I'm an atheist also nothing. Still, I don't see a difference in your view. Is that Christ offending you?

[Egeides]

Acriku, wouldn't it be better that the other 30% of population can get what HE wants while the 70% also gets what HE wants? All this instead of the kind of education the state would like to give its people.

Trouble is, HE of the 30% is not a uniform HE, and I doubt the other 70% is of uniform denominations.

I never said it was uniform: you simply need to adapt to the different positions, certainly not say "we're gonna impose our view of education on everyone as a state", which is basically to say that everyone is going to take the state's model (which is not better...).

[Acriku]

Religious, as well as private schools are a good balancing counterforce, which ensure plurality. When you enter a school, first thing you see is star-striped flag and maybe portrait of GWB. When a student of catholic school enters it, he sees cross with Christ. I can say the first one will give me nothing. Maybe only anger, if I'm a democrat. Second one gives me motivation - or if I'm an atheist also nothing. Still, I don't see a difference in your view. Is that Christ offending you?

Where do you get that our schools have pictures of Bush and a flag? We have flags, but the only room with a picture of Bush is in my government class - which is the only appropriate place (it also has a picture of the last president, Clinton. But schools with single faiths have more than decorative crosses on the walls, as they would have classes concerning that faith and some being comprehensive. I remember a tale of my friend who went to Bishop Moore (a private catholic school), where in his biology class the teacher was insane and everyday would remind them that if they masturbate (which is relevant in biology) they go to hell (which is not). There are also classes with bible study, review, and tenet critique. What would an atheist or Hindu find comforting in that, or atleast a good education? The environment not only prevents a good education, due to the detractions and distractions, but it is potentially harmful for the nonbelievers from both teachers and students.

I never said it was uniform: you simply need to adapt to the different positions, certainly not say "we're gonna impose our view of education on everyone as a state", which is basically to say that everyone is going to take the state's model (which is not better...)

You certainly grouped them as such, but anyways what do you mean adapt to different positions? Have different classes for each position?

[Caid Ivik]

Teacher, who presents his view on morale, is nothing bad. If you think he does it rather fanatically, then it is his business. I had a few such likes in my schools too, I don't think this would lower quality of study. Making image of a school by one teacher, that's no argument. Bible studying also. Religion lessons, when teached by a discutative teacher, may give much even to an atheist. Even better, we had one in class and he was a perfect source of other view.

And how can you be distracted or even harmed by morning prayer or other such things? Please. See it rationally. You should visit it a day and then talk about it. Altough I don't think you will change your view, as you are the mostly rigorous atheist I've ever seen...

[SurlyPIG]

My hospital comparison makes perfect sense if you can follow my arguments coherantly.

The bottom line is that taxpayers of any faith have the right to not be forced into paying for anybody else's religion. I don't see how it's fair that I, as an atheist, have to pay for teachers to teach kids in Catholic schools to teach them about Jesus, Mary, the Bible and all the values, and prejudices therein. This is an undisputable human and constitutional right.

Given that the religious education aspect of single-faith (public) schools is wrong, there's no other reason for public money to go to religiously segregating schools. That's where the hospital comparison comes in. It is no less crazy to want to be treated in a religiously oriented hospital than it is to want to be taught in a religiously oriented school. Lets take steps forward, people, not backward. Segregation hurts. Have we already forgotten the brilliant words of the late Martin Luther King Jr.?

[Egeides]

Acriku: I grouped them as such ONLY for the example given by Caid where it was pretty much x% vs "the rest". But otherwise, it's as diversified as there are individuals and as much as funds permit (you need at least an entire class, it's hard to make 2 children classes!), it should be the individual that chose their own ways. The state is only there, in pertinent countries, to manage the whole thing to permit everyone to get education in the way he wants it (and with some productivity standards since it has an impact on society and THIS is what taxes are paying).

But personally, I believe also in systems where schools are free from the state. But this is NOT like USA's corporations that don't have enough rules...

[Caid Ivik]

Ace, education and healthcare are little different. Mother Theresa was accepted warmly in India - first they looked upon her with suspicion for their religious biases, but then found out she is a simple woman who wants to help them. I don't see a point why these facilities should be erased. When I'm ill I won't look on religion of hospital's founder, but by quality of services.

You look on education as a pure resource, exactly valuable thing. Ok, this is very often used nowadays. But still, those taxes are paid to both secular ethics teachers, which spread own believe in God's non-existence as well as religion teachers. By your logic, I can say that atheism is same religion for me, so it is incompatible with constitution to fund it!

Lessons of religion aren't sign of segregation, but plurality. Do you think your country would be on its level without it?

[Acriku]

Teacher, who presents his view on morale, is nothing bad. If you think he does it rather fanatically, then it is his business.

In an institution for education, it is completely inappropriate, and is bad as it detracts from the more important aspects of the class, and has the teacher impose his specific morality on the impressionable children. The teachers have a responsibility, and that is an abuse of the access to the children. It is certainly not just his business, it is the children he imposes it on, and the parents that do not want the inappropriate "morality lessons" being taught to their children (especially if they disagree with it, and want to teach their children the opposite).

I had a few such likes in my schools too, I don't think this would lower quality of study. Making image of a school by one teacher, that's no argument. Bible studying also. Religion lessons, when teached by a discutative teacher, may give much even to an atheist. Even better, we had one in class and he was a perfect source of other view.

What's stopping any other teacher from doing it? I've only told of the one teacher because that's what the ex-attendee only told of. How in the world is bible study appropriate to the children's education, and how do you think the parents would respond if their children were being taught about the bible, and the bible as truth, instead of learning other necessary curriculums? There're much better things to be taught than about an outdated book, and imposing that it is the truth. It's not that atheists would only respond negatively, anybody else of a different religion, even of a different denomination, would certainly object. If you want your children to learn the Mormon or Lutheran teachings as truth then that's you, but many others do not, or any other teachings that the parents do not agree with.

And how can you be distracted or even harmed by morning prayer or other such things? Please. See it rationally. You should visit it a day and then talk about it. Altough I don't think you will change your view, as you are the mostly rigorous atheist I've ever seen...

A morning prayer? Ok, what kind of prayer? What if a Catholic wants the morning prayer to be strictly catholic, and another protestant wants it protestant? It is harmful to have the public official impose their religion, or the public official to be forced to impose the religion of their boss, on the impressionable children. You don't seem to find it very distracting, or harmful, but that's because it's your faith that is being imposed, catholicism, in your country. Look at it from a different perspective, any other perspective. That last comment was inappropriate.

Acriku: I grouped them as such ONLY for the example given by Caid where it was pretty much x% vs "the rest". But otherwise, it's as diversified as there are individuals and as much as funds permit (you need at least an entire class, it's hard to make 2 children classes!), it should be the individual that chose their own ways. The state is only there, in pertinent countries, to manage the whole thing to permit everyone to get education in the way he wants it (and with some productivity standards since it has an impact on society and THIS is what taxes are paying).

Your argument that you've been saying over and over in more than one thread is entirely baseless. Why should the people have the choice of education from the state? It's completely impractical for the people to have a plethora of choices, one school of each faith for example, one for each style of learning, etc, just for the sake of having choices. You say we should have a choice in schooling, and you do. Go pay for a private school. If you want public funds, too bad. It isn't the state's job to make sure you get the education you want, it's the state's job to make sure you get the right education, for everyone. Public schools.

But personally, I believe also in systems where schools are free from the state. But this is NOT like USA's corporations that don't have enough rules...

And who should impose regulations on schools? Who will pay for the teachers and materials? Who will make sure that qualified teachers can only teach, and provide sufficient punishments for violations of regulations, etc? It is the only practical way for the state to have control of it. I don't see the problem.

You look on education as a pure resource, exactly valuable thing. Ok, this is very often used nowadays. But still, those taxes are paid to both secular ethics teachers, which spread own believe in God's non-existence as well as religion teachers. By your logic, I can say that atheism is same religion for me, so it is incompatible with constitution to fund it!

Are you saying secular teaching is religious teaching? What baseless notion! So, without referring to a god in the teachings is religious? Utter nonsense! As long as teachers do not favor or disfavor any religion or religious aspect, then it is not "religious."

[Caid Ivik]

Atheism can be considered as a special form of religion. It's main philosophy is declining. Declining of God, fate, morale, will and for many themselves. Full declining of any spiritual term, which doesn't fit the material structure of the world, on which is, by atheists, it based. Maybe we can't say it is a religion but just a philosophy. But this thinking must for full effect hit all aspects of life, or there will come a doubt. And philosophy, which you pratically live, that's a religion.

[Acriku]

Atheism can be considered as a special form of religion. It's main philosophy is declining. Declining of God, fate, morale, will and for many themselves.

The truths of such, certainly false, are irrelevant to this discussion.

Full declining of any spiritual term, which doesn't fit the material structure of the world, on which is, by atheists, it based. Maybe we can't say it is a religion but just a philosophy. But this thinking must for full effect hit all aspects of life, or there will come a doubt. And philosophy, which you pratically live, that's a religion.

So a biology lecture about ecosystems, without the mention of any god, is adhering to the atheist philosophy (whatever that is), and therefore is unconstitutional? Bolshevik.

[Edric O]

Let me make my position on this issue clear: I support single-faith public schools as an addition to a well-funded system of secular public schools.

Ace's comparison between schools and hospitals is flawed, and here's why:

"Single-faith" hospitals would be horribly inhumane and discriminatory because they would only admit people of a certain faith. But single-faith schools (at least in the way I see them) don't discriminate on what kind of students they admit. They are state-funded, and therefore they admit EVERYONE. That is what makes them acceptable.

As I said in the other education topic, I believe that ALL education should be state-funded and public, but that there should also be many different curricular choices on offer. Religious education is one of them. If a large enough number of people want their children to learn a certain subject in school (like, say, a certain type of religious education), then the state should either open a new school which teaches that subject or offer it as an optional class in an existing school.

So people who want a secular education can get a secular education, and people who want a religious education can get a religious education. And everybody's happy.

[SurlyPIG]

I'm not happy with that. I don't think anybody should be happy with that. Public education should be the pillar of truth; I don't want my taxdollars spent teaching anything that isn't factually sound. It's a human right. I don't want any of the money I earn to go to satisfying somebody else's delusion. I don't want any kind of religious inclination being taught using public money AT ALL. That includes the atheist position.

If you want to perpetuate your religion to kids who don't know any better, do it on your own time. I refuse to let you use any part of the money I work for to teach anything that's not an established, undisputable fact.

And what are you going to do about all the hateful religions? There are numerous white-supremacist religions, where do they fit into your utopian education system Edric? What about Islam? How can the state endorse the opression of women (not specific to Islam mind you) and the spread of faith through violence (again, not specific to Islam).

And where does the kid's decision fit into all of this? Do they have the right to choose not to go to the school their parents send them to? If so, at what age?

[Acriku]

Any politician that puts single-faith schools to be publicly funded on his platform will never get elected, because no one wants their hard-earned tax money to fund a school that teaches children what they see as lies, and damned lies. I most certainly would not want my money (and I do pay some taxes) going towards teaching children that this earth is 5,000 years old, science is the enemy, and evolution is false, as truth.

And what of those who can't drive to these single-faith schools, and therefore cannot go? Is it fair to them? Their parents pay taxes just like anyone else, why should they get exempted from the new choices they're paying for?

In essence, it is way too impractical, and thank whatever god you want that Americans are mostly pragmatic, and would never elect politicians who positively approve of such a grossly impractical idea.

[Caid Ivik]

I'm not happy with that. I don't think anybody should be happy with that. Public education should be the pillar of truth; I don't want my taxdollars spent teaching anything that isn't factually sound. It's a human right. I don't want any of the money I earn to go to satisfying somebody else's delusion. I don't want any kind of religious inclination being taught using public money AT ALL. That includes the atheist position.

If you want to perpetuate your religion to kids who don't know any better, do it on your own time. I refuse to let you use any part of the money I work for to teach anything that's not an established, undisputable fact.

And what are you going to do about all the hateful religions? There are numerous white-supremacist religions, where do they fit into your utopian education system Edric? What about Islam? How can the state endorse the opression of women (not specific to Islam mind you) and the spread of faith through violence (again, not specific to Islam).

And where does the kid's decision fit into all of this? Do they have the right to choose not to go to the school their parents send them to? If so, at what age?

Education can't be a pillar of truth as you learn here many pure theories without hard basis. For example geology, biology, physics, religion including. If we would fond only undisputable changes, we would end with only with writing and simplest mathematics. And nowadays we have rather higher needs. But in fact, it isn't my decision where I would pay those taxes. That's a thing of government, which I elect and then I give my money to them. Give, not borrow.

And why do you think islam is supremacist? Few sects are, but larger communities have usually very deep explanation of Koran and can teach perfectly. No surprise that first university was in Baghdad. Religion gives you a motivation to think. And these thoughts might be used to explain your transcendency or i.e.for solution of various scientifical problems.

[Acriku]

Schools absolutely strive to be the pillars of truth, which can be seen in the efforts to remake textbooks from a correction made by a scientist, or a theory that better fits the situation and with a lot more evidence. Not many scientific theories out there in geology, biology, and physics turn out to be wrong, so it's not often do they remake them. But anyway if you could respond to my reply Caid, that'd be swell.

[Caid Ivik]

You mean your, ehm, great sentence "The truths of such, certainly false, are irrelevant to this discussion."? Well, if you want to discuss with hardened head then I won't be able to participate. Many theories, like Big Crunch, are teached altough there is no true base for them. In my view it is also certainly false, but also is existence of other dimensions - altough it is no problem to solve mathematical problem by them. Why do we teach geometry when it isn't in "pillar of truth"?

[Edric O]

Well, Ace, your point might seem to be perfectly reasonable at first: The government shouldn't use your tax money to fund single-faith schools that teach children a religion you don't agree with. But what if a parent complains that he finds maths to be deeply offensive, and doesn't want his tax money to be used to teach children something as horrible as maths?

I'm sorry, but it just isn't practical to completely BAN a school subject because a number of taxpayers don't want it to be taught. If we ban religion from public schools on this line of logic, we'll soon end up banning everything from public schools, because for every subject there will always be some people who don't like it and don't want it to be taught.

The solution is not to ban subjects, the solution is to give people more options. So that if a large enough number of people want subject X to be introduced or subject Y to be removed, a special school will be created to accomodate their needs. The main public system will always have a secular curriculum decided by the state, but the people need more than just one education option (private schools don't count, because only those with enough money can get in, and even then the owners of the school can simply refuse to receive you for no other reason than because they don't like your face).

Of course, there should be a certain age at which children should be allowed to decide for themselves what kind of school (secular/religious/whatever) they want to be in. I can't be the one to decide what that age should be, but I personally think that it should be somewhere around 12 years of age.

[Caid Ivik]

I think if majority wants something changed, it doesn't mean we need to create a new school. Better end those with minimal use, like they did once on my school with latin (tough it was my favorite language >:( ).

[SurlyPIG]

Caid:

Yes, education is still the pillar of truth as those theories are taught as theories, not as fact. As for what religion motivates, that's your opinion and yours alone. To me it's quite obvious that religion teaches you to let others think for you. Many religious people are drones to what their pastors tell them. Science teaches people to think because it asks questions, religion stagnates because it provides all the answers.

Edric:

It has nothing to do with whether or not the religion offends me. There are very few religions that, on the whole, disgust me. It has everything to do with what is fact, what is truth, and what is scientificly tested enough to be sponsored by the state and retaught as fact.

Whether or not you think math is offensive is irrelevant; nobody can dispute that what's being taught isn't true. Some people are offended by what's taught in history or social studies class, saying that it perpetuates old ideas (usually the disputes revolve around racism) but public schools still teach it because it is factual information about what once was.

[Acriku]

Edric, I think a case involving the offensiveness of math seen in front of the Board of Education would get a laugh or two, but never taken serious. It's perfectly reasonable to stop schools from being created if they are being paid by all taxpayers, and used only for a single faith.

[Caid Ivik]

Well, as in any other humanistic science even theology has many things you can't have just from your own opinion, Ace. That's why you think about many pious people as "drones": they don't think about it much. We shouldn't stay with only "exact pillars of truth" sciences, how you weirdly describe those teachable by only one way, we must allow philosophy and theology (for those who want) in too. And as some schools are specialised for mathematics, others for foreign languages, some are for theology.