Socialized Education

[wabrams]

And if the parents are uneducated? If both need to work? What about the resources needed, for eg. text books, access to computers etc.

Ever heard of a public library?

 

[wabrams]

But yes, I find it most disconcerting that right wing Catholics join right wing evangelicals on two issues, abortion and gay rights. That would be fine, but for the fact that universally this extreme side of protestantism considers Catholicism a cult, all Catholics damned, and considers that the Church is the whore of Babylon. I’ve engaged in tons of debates with these folks and I know it to be true. So I do find it an unholy alliance.

So you are more worried about what they think of you than working to save the lives of the unborn or uphold the sanctity of marriage & family? Perhaps by our actions to stop these unjust things we can change their hearts and minds.

Finding much of anything in common with them would cause me to question immediately my position. I would assume it must be wrong. Look around this forum and you will find that a significant number of new Catholics who are joining the church are old fundamentalists. Somebody is not telling them that their attitudes are wrong, and they are the biggest influence to me at least in this odd reactionary growth within the Church.

It would seem you have a very self righteous attitude. Tell me how your moral superiority works when it comes to not wanting to defend the life of the unborn b/c you don’t want to be associated with Protestants.

While I find that some atheists have made fun of my faith, I have no believe that they wish to destroy anyone’s faith. they simply don’t want it determining their lives in the public arena, and in that I fully agree. We have made that quite clear in our Constitution that people’s faith is their business, not the business of Government.

The constitution reads “freedom OF religon,” not “freedom FROM religon.” There is a big difference. One who will not let their faith guide their eveyday actions seems to me to be a shallow person or a person ashamed of their faith.

 

[goofyjim]

So you are more worried about what they think of you than working to save the lives of the unborn or uphold the sanctity of marriage & family? Perhaps by our actions to stop these unjust things we can change their hearts and minds.

It would seem you have a very self righteous attitude. Tell me how your moral superiority works when it comes to not wanting to defend the life of the unborn b/c you don’t want to be associated with Protestants.

The constitution reads “freedom OF religon,” not “freedom FROM religon.” There is a big difference. One who will not let their faith guide their eveyday actions seems to me to be a shallow person or a person ashamed of their faith.

Are we to assume that atheism is not protected under the Constitution? It better be.

 

[leonie]

The big problem with socialized education is that the State forgets that it gets its authority and power from parents/citizens.

It starts thinking that it has power and authority over parents instead.

Wrong power structure. It goes God to parents who may choose to entrust their childen’s education to the state or not.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I suggest reading a 4th grade English textbook circa 1890 something, (days of the 1 room school house, no “free” public education)

Free public education has been the norm in this country since the Northwest Ordinances set aside resources in each new state for public schools. That was in… um… 1785. You’re just over a century off. The ordinance specifically ordered public schools in each township.

and compare it to a 4 th grade of today, and then come back and tell us how successful public education has been for America the last 100 years.

The real issue is how well we are educating our population. And since the 1800s, literacy has continued to rise. Each wave of immigration brings it down a bit, after which it recovers and goes higher.

Such a text book is on display in a one room school house in Fruita, Colorado, near Captial Reef National Park. Fascinating reading.

You’re assuming that just because they wrote a textbook, everyone learned it. Get ready for the punchline…

But you don’t even have to do that, read a newspaper from that era and then read a modern version. Public education dumbs down about every 10 years, but thats just MY opinion.

I’ll bet you a chocolate chip cookie that you couldn’t pass an 8th grade science exam, as it is today, without studying up for it. I have old science textbooks. They are incredibly simple and expect little of the student but memorization.

Everybody back then seemed to be a good “writer,” their command of the lanquage was impecable, and none of them received a public education.

Those who were educated were mostly educated in public schools. Your “one room schoolhouse” was actually a public school. And here’s the kicker:

In 1880, about 1 in 6 Americans were functionally illiterate. (17%)

By 1979, about 0.6% (six in a thousand) were so. Exactly the opposite of your assumption. In 1900, fewer than 10% of students graduated from high school.

But we’re stuck with what we have, so I’d be for tweaking it with the voucher system.

If you want to send your kids to a private school, do what I did. Pay for it, and quit expecting the government to give you a handout.

 

[that1dude]

You do realize that he/she is advocating privatizing education here. Not vouchers, complete privatization. If the parents can’t afford private tuition costs they don’t get to go to school. If both work or are unable to teach their kids, the go without any education at all. This is all about money, ie*. *I don’t want to help fund education for other people’s children. What works is irrelevant. Stay away from my income. Libertarian ideology dressed up with some faux nostalgia for a past the never existed. Anyone who disagrees is a socialist. Let’s se how many engineers or doctors we start producing when half the population can’t afford to adequately educate their kids, when money becomes the limiting factor.

At the center of the libertarian ideology is the non-initiation of force, not money. In other words, we advocate the ending of compulsory attendance of, and paying for; education. Education is not a right. If Education was a right then people should be FORCED to teach you.

Tax funded/forced education tends to homogenize the curriculum. Wouldn’t Catholics and other religions like to see more affordable schools that reflect their world-view? i.e. less science and more god? A free market in schooling should accomplish this eventually. Of course, this could not occur in a vacuum. The rest of society and government would have to move to a more personal-responsibility and liberty oriented direction.

Over 8 million children already learn free of state control. We’re not starting from scratch here. The snowball of educational independence is already rolling.

"We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control."

--Pink Floyd, "Another Brick In The Wall"

 

[vern_humphrey]

I understand the sentiment, but those of us who don’t believe in tax-subsidized schooling think that in a more free-market economy education would be affordable and even provided by private charities to those in need.

I have no children in school, and haven’t have for about 15 years. Nevertheless, I have no objections to paying for educating someone else’s child – I do, after all, have a duty to others, and it is much better to educate the child than to have him mired in poverty.

At the same time, it torques my jaws when I pay to educate a child, and the child doesn’t get an education. Here are some interesting statistics:

dcedublog.blogspot.com/2008/04/real-cost-per-student-twice-as-high-as.html

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Real cost per student twice as high as reported?
Is the cost per student in DC really twice as high as previously reported? The Cato Institute seems to think so. After crunching the numbers it comes out with a per student grand total of [drum roll please]… $24,600.

For that kind of money, you could send the kids to Harvard!
But with all that money (typical of big cities), how do big cities fair in the education arena?

cnn.com/2008/US/04/01/school.grad.rates.ap/

WASHINGTON (AP) – Seventeen of the nation’s 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent, with the lowest graduation rates reported in Detroit, Michigan; Indianapolis, Indiana and Cleveland, Ohio, according to a report released Tuesday.

The report, issued by America’s Promise Alliance, found that about half of the students served by public school systems in the nation’s largest cities receive diplomas

cnn.com/2008/US/04/01/school.grad.rates.ap/

In fact, some of these cities’ rates are so low that the average graduation rate is about 50% for all 50.

Clearly, for all the money we pour into it, the system has failed. And it has failed worst in th every areas it is needed most – in educating the children of the inner-city poor.

 

[that1dude]

vern humphrey said: “I have no children in school, and haven’t have for about 15 years. Nevertheless, I have no objections to paying for educating someone else’s child – I do, after all, have a duty to others, and it is much better to educate the child than to have him mired in poverty.”

Vern, you don’t mind being forced to pay for other’s children’s education. But do you respect other people’s right not to be forced?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

M’am, I think you might owe those folks (Evals and Baptists) an apology. They may not have the fullness of the truth, but most are quite normal folks, that vote their convictions, unlike some Catholics.

And why would you find it strange to see a Catholic and Eval vote for pro life candidate, with a anti gay rights agenda? That alliance has determined all but 2 elections in the last 30 years. The only exceptions being Carter in 76 and Clinton in 92, because both men were Southern and were able to peel away votes because of that fact, although Clinton never won an election with more then 47% of the vote (thank Ross Perot). I think he won in 92 with 43%of the vote?

I’ve been reading these posts about Evals for a while. What is an Eval? Eval makes me thing evaluation.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

So you are more worried about what they think of you than working to save the lives of the unborn or uphold the sanctity of marriage & family? Perhaps by our actions to stop these unjust things we can change their hearts and minds.

The same people who tell me that there is nothing wrong with making common cause with reactionary baptists fundamentalists tell me it is improper to make common cause with gay/lesbian alliances on the issue of the environment because that is condoning this “sinful” lifestyle. Yet you would have common cause with the evangelical fundies even though they have the highest divorce rate and use contraception without a blink. Somehow yuou are I guess are not condoning the sinful lifestyle.

It would seem you have a very self righteous attitude. Tell me how your moral superiority works when it comes to not wanting to defend the life of the unborn b/c you don’t want to be associated with Protestants.

There is nothing self-righteous in stating that the church fundamentally discards fundamentalism as a correct methodology for understanding Catholic teaching. That is simply true. I really don’t get the point of what you are trying to allude to. I make common cause with anyone who has the same agenda as I do on a specific issue, with some exceptions. But I doubt there would be a basis for finding any commonality on any issue with some groups.

The constitution reads “freedom OF religon,” not “freedom FROM religon.” There is a big difference. One who will not let their faith guide their eveyday actions seems to me to be a shallow person or a person ashamed of their faith.

There is no essential difference. There is no question that one has as much right to practice no religion as any, and no one can or should be forced to participate in relgious practices they don’t agree with. I have no idea what the last sentence pertains to. No one is claiming that people of faith should not be guided in their everyday activities by that faith.

 

[vern_humphrey]

vern humphrey said: “I have no children in school, and haven’t have for about 15 years. Nevertheless, I have no objections to paying for educating someone else’s child – I do, after all, have a duty to others, and it is much better to educate the child than to have him mired in poverty.”

Vern, you don’t mind being forced to pay for other’s children’s education. But do you respect other people’s right not to be forced?

That depends – there are legitimate government expenses, and the right to an education is enshrined in most state constitutions (education is a state responsibility under the 10th Amendment.)

Consider this – the Marines land on Iwo Jima, armed with sticks and rocks, because no one can be “forced” to pay taxes to buy them rifles and grenades. Would you not consider that a travesty?

Similarly, if we had a nation of illiterates, because the average citizen could not afford to educate his children, would that not also be a travesty?

The argument should not be about paying for education, but about ensuring the children get every dime of education we pay for.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Yes, the words happened to be next to each other, but I was speaking about an alliance between atheists (and other non-Catholics) and Left wing Catholics on certain issues, not an “atheist alliance.” You apparently misunderstood my statement.

And I answered in the light of your intent. I agree that I have no difficulty in working with atheists on issues that we have mutual agreement on such as evolution for instance.

You have got to be kidding! Have you read the works of Richard Dawkins? LOL. I could make similar statements about Evangelical Christians, because many of them are not hostile toward Catholics, even though they disagree with us on our faith. Your statement that they “universally” consider Catholicism a cult is just plain ridiculous.

I don’t read Richard Dawkins because he is an idiot in my opinon. Probably a fine evolutionist but I reject his person conclusions regarding faith. You’re point? Evangelical Christians are not the problem. I referred to right wing Evangelicals…those are your usual bible belt fundamentalists, adn they do hate Catholics. Try this site if you don’t realize that:

christianblogs.christianet.com/

Your hatred for the Right has blinded you to the fact that Left wing Catholics voting with atheists and other non-Catholics is no different than Right wing Catholics voting with Evangelicals and other non-Catholics. You feel “shame” for people on the Right who disagree in their faith voting together, because they disagree with you…that is the only reason. It’s your own personal balance issues, not ours.

It is not so much hatred that I feel, since I try very hard to avoid that emotion, but a very healthy fear and suspicion about people who would outlaw my faith if their agenda were to succeed. Your continued use of the singular appelation of Evangelical is incorrect as I have stated. Mainstream Evangelicals are just as intent on recapturing their faith from the reactionary right of their belief system. They in fact have made quite a few public statements to that effect, as well as taken out full page ads in an attempt to recapture their right to their name as evangelicals, separate and apart from the televangelistic and Hagee types.

 

[wabrams]

Are we to assume that atheism is not protected under the Constitution? It better be.

I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. Aethism should be protected, but it shouldn’t be the sole guiding principal in the public sphere.

 

[rlg94086]

I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. Aethism should be protected, but it shouldn’t be the sole guiding principal in the public sphere.

Exactly. Many modern atheists are not content with a Freedom of Religion. They believe that they are somehow being marginalized when a public official prays to God or a religious symbol is displayed in public. The whole point of Freedom of Religion is that we are all free to practice our faith. For an atheist, that means they are free not to worship and not to express a devotion to any god. It doesn’t mean they are free to force non-worship and non-expression on everyone else.

 

[goofyjim]

I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. Aethism should be protected, but it shouldn’t be the sole guiding principal in the public sphere.

Yet they are free to be atheists not ruled by religious principles. This does mean freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Exactly. Many modern atheists are not content with a Freedom of Religion. They believe that they are somehow being marginalized when a public official prays to God or a religious symbol is displayed in public. The whole point of Freedom of Religion is that we are all free to practice our faith. For an atheist, that means they are free not to worship and not to express a devotion to any god. It doesn’t mean they are free to force non-worship and non-expression on everyone else.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

(My emphasis)

 

[rlg94086]

Yet they are free to be atheists not ruled by religious principles. This does mean freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

Actually, that isn’t true the way you wrote it. If a “religious principle” is the basis for a law of the land, upheld by the courts, then the atheist is not free to ignore it. Freedom of Religion means that no one can force an atheist to worship. When people use the term “freedom from religion,” what they are referring to is the apparent desire of some to have no religious expression (e.g. “God bless you,” “Merry Christmas,” “God Bless America”). There is no such freedom. In fact, it is the antithesis of Freedom of Religion.

 

[goofyjim]

Actually, that isn’t true the way you wrote it. If a “religious principle” is the basis for a law of the land, upheld by the courts, then the atheist is not free to ignore it. Freedom of Religion means that no one can force an atheist to worship. When people use the term “freedom from religion,” what they are referring to is the apparent desire of some to have no religious expression (e.g. “God bless you,” “Merry Christmas,” “God Bless America”). There is no such freedom. In fact, it is the antithesis of Freedom of Religion.

Fine. They have the constitutional right to respond “bah humbug” or throw their hands in the air with disgust and walk away. All expressions must be equally represented.

 

[rlg94086]

Fine. They have the constitutional right to respond “bah humbug” or throw their hands in the air with disgust and walk away. All expressions must be equally represented.

Of course they do! Who said they don’t?

 

[wabrams]

Yet they are free to be atheists not ruled by religious principles. This does mean freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion.

And I am free to be a christian not to be ruled by atheist prinicples. BTW, find some principles of law that aren’t based in religious morality.