This arises out of respect for the child and his or her dignity. It is not fair to doom a child to a life of ignorance because their parents may be idiots.I’m interested in an explanation of the statement that children deserve an education. From where does this arise?
We should care for our brothers and sisters, in my opinion. We should make sure that children are cared for and receive a fair shake at life. I’m sorry you don’t agree with that, but I strongly believe that, (especially as Christians) we need to care for other people who are vulnerable in life and give them a chance.How did I incur this obligation to make sure Tommy gets an education when his own parents don’t?
I think that if the government didn’t compel people to do it, then they wouldn’t. And the only people who would suffer would be the children.And if you think he deserves an education, you pay for him, leave the rest of us out of it. Now I say that as another citizen, not as a Catholic. If I had the money I’d willing pay for other kids who couldn’t afford the tuition. But that is a moral decision and not one I think the government should be compelling me to.
I am truly sorry this makes you so angry. Maybe this discussion is hitting to close to a sore spot for you. I thought we were just discussing opposing views about the state of education in this country in a civil, friendly way.I can’t clearly, politely express how angry that attitude makes me.
Because it’s not only you and your child that is affected. Your tax dollars are NEEDED to educate children who would otherwise be left behind if it were left up to the parents. And it IS societies business how its children are educated. The children of today will be running the society tomorrow.Why is it that the “default” position is that the government has a right to my kid and my money instead of looking at it the other way? Why not start with the assumptions that 1) I can make the best decision for the welfare and education of my child 2) That there may be a variety of ways to provide an education and 3) It’s no one else’s business.
I believe any one has a right to pursue an education. Unlike natural rights, an education, by it’s definition, is something that the person must gain, either by themselves or through someone else. It is not something they are born with. In the sense of this thread, an education is something provided by someone else. We can not have a right to something else someone must provide - e.g. education, healthcare, work, safety, housing - unless someone else has an obligation to provide it. Here, though, we run into a problem. What if no one wants to provide it? What if no one wants to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a builder? Are you going to force someone to provide these things?This arises out of respect for the child and his or her dignity. It is not fair to doom a child to a life of ignorance because their parents may be idiots.
I am intersted in an explanation of which children you deem worthy enough to receive an education.
I agree. We should do it, not government.We should care for our brothers and sisters, in my opinion. We should make sure that children are cared for and receive a fair shake at life. I’m sorry you don’t agree with that, but I strongly believe that, (especially as Christians) we need to care for other people who are vulnerable in life and give them a chance.
The concept of public education is less than 200 years old. It was being provided before government got involved.I think that if the government didn’t compel people to do it, then they wouldn’t.
This same claim can be made for any number of things, and is and, if followed naturally leads to socialism or communism.Your tax dollars are NEEDED to educate children who would otherwise be left behind if it were left up to the parents. And it IS societies business how its children are educated. The children of today will be running the society tomorrow.
Well, then, we will need to agree to disagree. I believe that in a country this wealthy, EVERYONE has a right to quality healthcare, quality education, and safety. I believe that, as Christians, when we take into account the abundance of wealth in the US (and other strong nations), we MUST not just feed the poor ourselves, but ENSURE that the poor is fed; ENSURE that the poor are educated; ENSURE that the poor are provided proper health care; in summary, ENSURE the dignity of the poor.I believe any one has a right to pursue an education. Unlike natural rights, an education, by it’s definition, is something that the person must gain, either by themselves or through someone else. It is not something they are born with. In the sense of this thread, an education is something provided by someone else. We can not have a right to something else someone must provide - e.g. education, healthcare, work, safety, housing - unless someone else has an obligation to provide it.
That scenario is about as realistic as supposing that the sky falls. In reality, I think you will always have people wanting to teach, care, and tend to society through education, medicine, etc. I guess if we play the “let’s make believe” game, we could say in that case (no one wants to teach or heal), then we would need to examine new needs. By that same token, though, let’s pretend we live in a society where no food exists. What would you do then? Do you see how unrealistic that scenario sounds?Here, though, we run into a problem. What if no one wants to provide it? What if no one wants to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a builder? Are you going to force someone to provide these things?
What about people who refuse? Then we just raise our hands to the poor and say what? “Oh shucks! Sorry your babies must starve. But what do you expect? Us to MAKE people help you?”I agree. We should do it, not government.
Check the history of this claim. It was provided, alright, but primarily to the wealthy. Homeschool was done, of course, but by parents with not much educatin themselves. Additionally, in times past, people made their living with farming, and other manual labor. One really needs at least a high school education these days to make ends meet for their families. Farming for everyone in this populated country won’t do the trick, unfortunately.The concept of public education is less than 200 years old. It was being provided before government got involved.
That’s a nice opinion. I don’t find it compatible with Christianity. Jesus told the Apostles to feed the people, not find some rich people, take their money and buy food for the people.I believe that, as Christians, when we take into account the abundance of wealth in the US (and other strong nations), we MUST not just feed the poor ourselves, but ENSURE that the poor is fed; ENSURE that the poor are educated; ENSURE that the poor are provided proper health care; in summary, ENSURE the dignity of the poor.
Not at all. Some of the posts in this thread make mention of teacher shortages. A quick search will reveal doctor shortages in certain states and a short time ago stories of housing shortages occurred. In a year or two, I won’t be surprised to see food shortages because corn for ethanol is being planted instead of other crops. So there are localized shortages/absences. Complete absences? Not yet. But to the people in those localities, the people needed to provide what you feel they have a right to are not there. Does it make a difference to a student in inner city Philadelphia that there are pople willing to teach in rural Nebraska? No. What then should be done? Draft teachers and doctors?That scenario is about as realistic as supposing that the sky falls.
Only by your definition of natural rights and one’s ownership of them.I believe any one has a right to pursue an education. Unlike natural rights, an education, by it’s definition, is something that the person must gain, either by themselves or through someone else. It is not something they are born with. In the sense of this thread, an education is something provided by someone else. We can not have a right to something else someone must provide
Not at all, something granted by law is a privelege, not a right, because if it is granted, it can be taken awy. Rights occur naturally, to all people, whether or not the right is recognized within a certain locality or time.A “right” emanates from the law, which grants a legal authority to the recipients of whatever the law itself grants.
Sure there is - I pay for it or the government, eventually, will send men with guns to force me to comply.There is no slavery in the education system within the United States,
No. That is once again your definition (or more accurately a Libertarian definition). My definition comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia and it is far more practical and meaningful.Not at all, something granted by law is a privelege, not a right, because if it is granted, it can be taken awy. Rights occur naturally, to all people, whether or not the right is recognized within a certain locality or time.
Because you live in a society and not in a land of pure individualism. Moreover, your story is embelished. Being defunct on property taxes (which is how local governments pay for education) does not result in armed thugs arresting you.Sure there is - I pay for it or the government, eventually, will send men with guns to force me to comply.
We have a disagreement over terms. (edited to add) There are Natural Rights and Political Rights. In a practical way, if a right is granted by law, how is it not taken away by another law?No. That is once again your definition (or more accurately a Libertarian definition). My definition comes from the Catholic Encyclopedia and it is far more practical and meaningful.
Yes it does, sooner or later.Ther emay be a whole litany of legal efforts, and actions, etc, but in the end, in the plainest language, which may be uncomfortable to come to terms with, I pay or I die.Being defunct on property taxes (which is how local governments pay for education) does not result in armed thugs arresting you.
Oh, it certainly could be. Public education could be removed by a state, it is a reflection of the will of the people that it remains (at least in a republican form of government). People rejected a national healthcare system in the United States, but it is the right of people in the United Kingdom to have healthcare free at the point of service because they continue to support the NHS.We have a disagreement over terms. In a practical way, if a right is granted by law, how is it not taken away by another law?
I doubt that you will die, but that is a point of semantics. But yes, if you make a freewill choice to defy the laws of society then you have to live with those consequences, do you not?Yes it does, sooner or later.Ther emay be a whole litany of legal efforts, and actions, etc, but in the end, in the plainest language, which may be uncomfortable to come to terms with, I pay or I die.
So we agree that the “right” to education is not the same as the right to life and so discussion about eliminating this Political right to education should not be met with the same shrill opposition that the Right to Life is?Oh, it certainly could be. Public education could be removed by a state, it is a reflection of the will of the people that it remains (at least in a republican form of government). People rejected a national healthcare system in the United States, but it is the right of people in the United Kingdom to have healthcare free at the point of service because they continue to support the NHS.
Certainly, and I would ask that every member of a society consider hetrher or not they are willing to kill to enforce the latest political decision, because, ultimately, that is what it means. In this instance, you and other public school supporters are willing to kill me to provide an education for everyone.I doubt that you will die, but that is a point of semantics. But yes, if you make a freewill choice to defy the laws of society then you have to live with those consequences, do you not?
That does not change the fact that it is a right, agreed upon by the people and formulated by law. We have an obligation to respect that legality (which as I stated earlier does not force anyone into slavery to educate the children).So we agree that the “right” to education is not the same as the right to life and so discussion about eliminating this Political right to education should not be met with the same shrill opposition that the Right to Life is?
That’s bizarre hyperbole Chris. If you choose to break the law, then we have to follow justice. In this case your violation of the law is not warranted by any real moral justification. You are not Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr.Certainly, and I would ask that every member of a society consider hetrher or not they are willing to kill to enforce the latest political decision, because, ultimately, that is what it means. In this instance, you and other public school supporters are willing to kill me to provide an education for everyone.
To an extent. There is Medicaid, Medicare, state programs, disability, and the prescription drug program. So there are some legal rights to health care in the United States, but nothing as extensive as the United Kingdom’s NHS.Another point. In the US at least, you would agree that people do not have a “right” to Health care, since we rejected a National Health Care system? The right was never created, correct?
But we can lobby, or otherwise work to change it, correct? If I can change enough minds (basically 50%+1) the right goes away?That does not change the fact that it is a right, agreed upon by the people and formulated by law.
I would agree. I simply ask that those considering passing another law or who are supporting an exisiting one, that, partcicularly in the creation of a political right, they are condoning the use of violence in it’s enforcement. I have no problem with accepting the entire concept - what I am asking for in passing a lawand what I am going to face if I break a law. I don’t think most of the rest of you do.That’s bizarre hyperbole Chris. If you choose to break the law, then we have to follow justice. .
That’s not at all true and I’ll ask you to stop making accusations about my motives. I oppose the use of violence for anything but the protection of natural/I] rights. I am not willing to walk next door and put a gun to my neighbor’s head to pay for my son to go to parochial school. I simply ask my neighbors not to do the same to me. IF I had the money (instead of paying it to the government before I even get it) I would be willing to pay for a couple other kids to go to my parochial school if they couldn’t otherwise afford it. I am opposed to paying for a kid to go to a school which teaches things I disagree with.You simply don’t wish to pay taxes with the rest of society.