print      source      versions

Comments ... #

Sure.

Or we could just subscribe to seperation of chruch and state.

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:37:22 am     #

My analysis doesn't have anything to do with church and state. The example does in an indirect way, but that's not the point. You could replace this particular difference in desires between parents with a hundred others that have nothing to do with church and state and my point is still valid.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:48:39 am     #

I suppose if there were another reason, other than the church, to find same-sex marriage (and the exposure of, to your children) obscene, then yeah.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:54:20 am     #

But, ironically, you bring up another major downside of collective systems - that being the tendency of people wanting to get control of it to enact policy consistent with their religion. In this case, there is a religion that has a god fighting against a religion that doesn't have a god.

Once again, private schools solve the problem. You'll have your religion-without-a-god school and I'll have whatever school I want. But most importantly, my kids will not be raised with your religion.

THAT is freedom of religion.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:54:44 am     #

That sentence was on the long side. :)

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:55:18 am     #

sadly, jhostetler, many forget the second part of that statement "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

But, I'd suggest reading this article for additional perspective on the issue.

It's called: "Why we fight: How public schools cause social conflict" by Neal McCluskey...the summary:

It is all too often assumed that public education as we typically think of it today—schooling provided and controlled by government—constitutes the "foundation of American democracy." Such schooling, it is argued, has taken people of immensely varied ethnic, religious, and racial backgrounds and molded them into Americans who are both unified and free. Public schooling, it is assumed, has been the gentle flame beneath the great American melting pot.

Unfortunately, the reality is very different from those idealized assumptions. Indeed, rather than bringing people together, public schooling often forces people of disparate backgrounds and beliefs into political combat. This paper tracks almost 150 such incidents in the 2005–06 school year alone. Whether over the teaching of evolution, the content of library books, religious expression in the schools, or several other common points of contention, conflict was constant in American public education last year.

Such conflict, however, is not peculiar to the last school year, nor is it a recent phenomenon. Throughout American history, public schooling has produced political disputes, animosity, and sometimes even bloodshed between diverse people. Such clashes are inevitable in government-run schooling because all Americans are required to support the public schools, but only those with the most political power control them. Political— and sometimes even physical—conflict has thus been an inescapable public schooling reality.

To end the fighting caused by state-run schooling, we should transform our system from one in which government establishes and controls schools, to one in which individual parents are empowered to select schools that share their moral values and educational goals for their children.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa587/pa587index.html

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:56:56 am     #

Oh yeah, of course. You are totally free to have your children schooled prvately. That's one of the greatest gifts we have.

But please don't assume that simply because I choose not to demonize those who are different than me that I am an athiest. That is 100% not true.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:57:52 am     #

No, Maggie, I did not forget. See my above post.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:58:25 am     #

First of all, there are other reasons that I wouldn't want my children exposed to same sex marriage. But even if it weren't, you seem to ignore the fact that I want something different for my children.

What business of yours is what I want for my children? If you are so interested in freedom of religion, why do want to shove yours down my throat?

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 11:58:36 am     #

Again, I am not ignoring it. I am simply saying we can either choose to argue in court about this (referring to your original post), or you have other options.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:00:18 pm     #

You say: "If you are so interested in freedom of religion, why do want to shove yours down my throat?"

And I say the same.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:00:55 pm     #

<i>You are totally free to have your children schooled prvately.</i>

I am not free to have my children schooled privately if I am compelled to first pay for a public education. Some can afford to pay for two educations, but most cannot. There is no freedom there, sorry.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:01:48 pm     #

<i>And I say the same.</i>

So, are you arguing against me or with me? A collective system doesn't work. Case in point.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:03:01 pm     #

jhostetler, I didn't say you forget that portion - but that others do. :)

I'd be interested in your perspective of the Cato article...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:03:35 pm     #

Then court it is, sorry.

I happen to find demonizing those who are different from you obscene, disgusting and a sin (yes).

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:03:39 pm     #

60 pages? You'll have to wait a while on that, Maggie. ;) It's lunchtime in Chicago. I'll try to get to it later.

posted by jhostetler on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:05:23 pm     #

that's fine...good eating!

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:06:42 pm     #

Yes, enjoy your lunch. But I don't think 60 pages is necessary. The four paragraphs precisely describe the original topic. It doesn't have anything to do with religion or demonizing those that are different.

It is about systems that adapt to diversity.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 12:10:30 pm     #

From BabbleMan:What business of yours is what I want for my children?

None, so long as your children are not neglected, abused or allowed to remain ignorant.

From BabbleMan:If you are so interested in freedom of religion, why do want to shove yours down my throat?

Because you're a devil worshipping pagan?

posted by madjack on Sep 14, 2007 at 02:05:27 pm     #

You probably have to question to the legitimacy of compulsory schooling, which has little to do with actual education. Schooling hasn't been around that long and was largely considered unnecessary and a luxury of the wealthy for learning about art and literature. Yet before compulsory schooling literacy rates were higher (close to 100% and if you've read 17th, 18th, and 19th century literature, it's much more complicated).

Charles Koch, the founder of Cato,is an interesting character. He inherited a private family oil business that now pegs his net worth around $14billion and is highly critical of the stock market and publicly held corporations as inefficient and ineffective. He also believes wages should rise with productivity and that financial institutions undermine capitalism. And he calls it all the "science of liberty."

Koch seems to love Hayek, who wrote an essay entitled "Why I am not a conservative" and called himself a classical liberal.

posted by charlatan on Sep 14, 2007 at 02:19:08 pm     #

yes, charlatan, Cato is a libertarian-leaning think tank. Personally, I rather like the definition of a 'classical liberal.'

But I do believe this is an interesting article on public schooling - and it addresses an issue that isn't often discussed in the concepts on public schools, charter schools, vouchers, etc...

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 14, 2007 at 02:54:50 pm     #

A bunch of disjointed thoughts -

Let me see if I understand the argument:
People with different values sometimes, even often, argue. Therefore, people with different values should seperate themselves from each other and we should eliminate public institutions that don't easily allow people to be separated.

Is that the argument? That's really sad that we are so ready to run away from everyone else and lock ourselves up in private schools and gated communities.

And aren't schools supposed to prepare people for life? Last time I checked, there's conflict in life. There are different people, different ideas, different interests, just plain differences everywhere. You have to know how to deal with that.

Your tax dollars don't pay for your children's education; your tax dollars help pay a small share for a system to educate the public. You obviously benefit if you have children, but you also benefit if educated populace can read what you write, work for you...

But this also sounds like Robert Putnam's new book, about how diversity decreases civil engagement. But to me, that is an observation of an obstacle to overcome, not a reason to stay only with our own.

Lastly, I've been in lots of arguments and disagreements in my life. Sometimes I didn't get my way. And a lot of those times I learned something new and was thankful in the end.

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Sep 14, 2007 at 04:16:35 pm     #

Cato is all over the map, Locke was all about a more equal distribution of wealth. Rothbard was for anarcho-capitalism. Hayek deeply critical of Keynes work (and was allegedly afraid of him), yet Keynes endorsed his road to serfdom. That said, Koch sounds like a conventional Keynesian. Cato has ties to the Sierra Club and Enron. And didn't they publish an article stating everything you buy has a de facto 80% sales tax?

I think it's more to the point to challenge the need of any formal education. It's not like water or food.
Before schools were imposed on the masses, families and communities would teach/mentor/apprentice their children to use the tools of the day and develop skills.

posted by charlatan on Sep 14, 2007 at 04:26:11 pm     #

It used to be that there were no public schools. Everyone got together and agreed that it was better to have them.

posted by ilovetoledo on Sep 14, 2007 at 04:30:31 pm     #

ifX, you understand the argument completely. Thank you so much for not mentioning gay parenting.

You say that it is sad that we would run away from everyone else and lock ourselves up in private schools and gated communities. But if that's what you think is teh result of having a choice, what is your argument for allowing the existence of both Coke and Pepsi? Google and Yahoo? How do you justify any free choice?

The problem in this particular case is that, knowing that people don't have a choice, two religions are battling for control of the minds of children. One group is telling them that gay parents are sinful and the other is saying that gay parenting is normal despite the fact that its occurance in our culture is statistically non-existant.

I know what benefits my child and it is neither of these lies. But this is what happens when free choice is gone - especially in education.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 04:41:58 pm     #

Babbleman; so it would be also be Ok if the issue was interracial couples instead of a gay couple. I mean what if instead of opposing the gay couple, people were objecting to an interracial couple, saying they don't want their kids to know about them, or worse to accept that as normal.

posted by roygbiv on Sep 14, 2007 at 05:48:37 pm     #

babbleman; the reason that gay parenting is "statistically non-existent" is that Zealots like yourself, refuse to allow them to adopt, and would rather that kids sit in foster care being abused by their foster families and and the system then let some one with a different sexual orientation raise them. And for your information 6-10 million children are raised in a household with Lesbian, Gay, or Bisexual parents.

posted by roygbiv on Sep 14, 2007 at 06:11:46 pm     #

According to the 2000 census, there were 59 million opposite sex households in the US and less than 0.5 million same sex households (less than 1% gay).

Of the opposite sex households, 43% had children under 18. Of the same sex households, 28% had children under 18. That means that there are 140,000 gay partner households in the US with children compared to 25,370,000 same sex households with children.

The occurance of gay parenting, then, is about one half of one percent of that of straight parenting and slightly over 1/10 of one percent of all households. That is, 0.001%.

I know that the humanist religion passionately wants there to be as much same sex parenting as possible becuase it strikes at the heart of the values of their mortal enemies, the Christians - but don't tell my kid that something that almost never happens is "normal".

So anyway, roygbiv, if there are 6 to 10 million children being raised in 140,000 gay households, that means there are between 42 and 71 children per household. Wow, that must be quite a line for the shower in the morning.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 09:57:49 pm     #

And for the record roy, I could care less if gay people want to adopt children. I just don't think public education should be used to inculcate children into the state religion.

posted by babbleman on Sep 14, 2007 at 10:11:01 pm     #

And for the record roy, I could care less if

It's "I couldn't care less", as in "I could not possibly care less".

but don't tell my kid that something that almost never happens is "normal".

That is a very good, solid argument, and it's the first time I've seen it quantified so neatly.

Wow, that must be quite a line for the shower in the morning.

So who used all the hot water?!

Putting it bluntly, I don't want any school teacher telling the children in my community that there is nothing wrong with a homosexual lifestyle, and that it's normal.

posted by madjack on Sep 15, 2007 at 09:55:19 am     #

To me, the issue isn't 'separating' children from such issues, it's the right of the parent, versus the schools, to control how and when that child is 'educated' about such issues.

Further, the problem isn't the individual parent's right on how this is done, it's the fact that parents of differing opinions - but the same rights - end up in conflict over such social issues in the schools. And, as some of the more contentious of these issues have roots, for some, in their religious unbringings and teachings, seldom is 'compromise' a viable alternative without sacrificing such personally-held religious principles.

I don't know if I understood IfX's comment, but it seems to me that you're saying such conflicts in school help teach children how to deal with conflicts outside of school. But that, in and of itself, is an opinion on how to educate children (method) that may conflict with another parent's perspective. And one parent may say that's okay while another parent may say that conflict over such issues needs to wait until a child reaches a higher grade level. Even your argument that 'it's good for the kids to learn this' can be the source of conflict with another who believes that it's not good for kids to learn this in this manner. Hence, proving the point about how public schools end up being the battle ground for differing opinions.

With an option for another source of schooling for your child, and without the compulsion to fund schooling with which you disagree, you could find a school that reflects your own values (not necessarily just religious ones), thus avoiding subjecting your children to such conflicts among the parents and with the school.

I've not yet reached a conclusion on this issue, but I find the ideas and perspectives very educational. :)

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 15, 2007 at 10:01:06 am     #

"Oh yeah, of course. You are totally free to have your children schooled prvately. That's one of the greatest gifts we have." - jhostetler

In this you're partially correct. Yes, you can send your children to a private school if you want. However, you can not opt out of paying for the public schools. So regardless of whether you agree with their curriculum or not, you're still forced to pay for it...that's wong!

posted by mholdri on Sep 15, 2007 at 10:12:30 am     #

"the humanist religion passionately wants there to be as much same sex parenting as possible becuase it strikes at the heart of the values of their mortal enemies, the Christians".

Ya know, that is true. Anybody ever wonder why it's only the Christians that are in the crosshairs of the humanists?? Muslims seem to dodge that bullet despite their views. I Wonder why that is.

posted by billy on Sep 15, 2007 at 10:22:17 am     #

<I>one in which individual parents are empowered to select schools that share their moral values and educational goals for their children.</I>

In my view school should teach knowledge in the physical reality, and parents should be the ones to teach their kids faith, moral values.

If I want to better my connection with God I'll go to church or do some soul searching, but if I want to learn calculus or biology I'll go to school. Why can't it work this way? What does school have to do with religion?

posted by jshriver on Sep 15, 2007 at 08:38:10 pm     #

<i>I know that the humanist religion passionately wants there to be as much same sex parenting as possible becuase it strikes at the heart of the values of their mortal enemies, the Christians</i>

You know this? Please provide documentation that specifically states this. Unless you can do so, this is not knowledge, this is a belief. And there is a big difference between the two.

posted by valbee on Sep 15, 2007 at 10:02:50 pm     #

Valbee, given the context from which that sentence came, I think it was clearly implied that I was referring to only those factions from each of two (diametrically opposed) religious beliefs that are fighting for control of the central education system that the government forces citizens to fund.

What you copied and pasted makes it look far more general.

posted by babbleman on Sep 15, 2007 at 11:11:39 pm     #

And also, valbee, let me say that, for the sake of this argument, I don't really care what humanists think. So don't think I was slamming them. Nor do I care what Christians think. I'm not trying to slam them either.

I just want to be free from them both.

The point is how this is an example of the fundamental inefficiency of collective systems and, more importantly, the dangers of them.

posted by babbleman on Sep 15, 2007 at 11:46:07 pm     #

I have a Christian perspective. I don't want the schools teaching morals and ethics. How to play nicely with others? Yes. How to read, write and understand mathematics? Yes.

At what point did we decide that the schools could start teaching our children what their morals should be?

I find it inappropriate that the schools discuss sex outside of straight biology.

Is anyone ok with the idea that someone they don't know is setting up a curriculum and discussing this with our kids?

Who is creating the curriculum? What is their belief system?

posted by katie82640 on Sep 16, 2007 at 08:55:34 pm     #

Ok, 'straight biology' was a poor choice of words. Translation: a discussion of human reproduction.

posted by katie82640 on Sep 16, 2007 at 08:56:28 pm     #

I do think that different people have different views on how to educate children, and I do trust that public school systems can listen to a lot of those views, and teach a curriculum that I don't find objectionable. Not that they slways do.

And I recognize even that is my own belif that others may not share. Then those people can put their child in a school that they think will teach their children a curriculum that they don't find objectionable. But these schools might not always be unobjectionable. I haven't seen any data that shows that private schools have a better track record than public schools for mass education.

But I don't understand why the decision to put your own kids into private schools should relieve you of your obligation to help pay for public education. We all pay our share of the public defense and don't complain about it, even if we go out and buy a gun. But why do people complain about paying for public education 10 times more than they complain about paying for public defense, when 10 times more of our tax dollars, at least, are spent on public defense?

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Sep 16, 2007 at 09:56:01 pm     #

And I recognize even that is my own belif that others may not share. Then those people can put their child in a school that they think will teach their children a curriculum that they don't find objectionable.

Of course, the problem is that "those people" are expected to make the change - rather than you or the schools making the change. Hence, the continuing problem of the schools ending up as the social battleground. Who gets to "decide" is always the sticking point.

And parents don't want to pay for education that does not benefit them. Paying taxes for national defense benefits everyone with the nation. Paying to educate your own children - and paying again to educate others - is the sticking point. Parents who don't want their kids in a failing public school, or a school that teaches them things they're not ready for or that the parents disapprove of, end up paying twice.

"...relieve you of your obligation to help pay for public education."

This 'obligation' is relatively new and some would question why there is an 'obligation' in the first place...

What if I, not having children, could say that I want my tax dollars to go to a school other than the public school system? I want to help provide for the education of children, as others did for me, but I'd rather put my tax dollars toward a private religious school or the arts charter school - or any other non-public school. If such a system of contribution were possible???

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 17, 2007 at 08:21:22 am     #

The obligation to pay for public education is as old as this state's constitution. It's older than the idea that slavery shouldn't exist.

I can see and experience the benefit of having free public education to all, regardless of whether I have children in the public school system, a whole lot more than I can see the benefit of invading Iraq. (Although I do see the benefit of the war - I have a former military friend that is making huge amounts of money with his military contractor right now.)

And people argue and have different viewpoints of how we should conduct our national defense. Is that proof that we shouldn't have to pay taxes that support national defense? Government defense doesn't work because people argue about it?

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Sep 17, 2007 at 04:28:54 pm     #

While the idea of a citizen's "obligation" to pay taxes to support public education might predate the elimination of slavery, it doesn't change the fact that many question this "obligation".

National defense is a constitutional authority (Article 1 section 8). There is no federal authority for 'education' thus making education the sole purview of the states. As such, you cannot compare the collection of taxes for national defense and the provision of an army and navy (as called for in the Constitution) to the decision of residents of particular states to tax themselves (or not) for school systems. It's a fallacious argument and a poor comparison.

That being said, parents with equal rights to have their children educated, but with opposing views about the method or curriculum that is taught, end up 'arguing' these opposing views within their local schools. When a system tries to be a 'one-size-fits-all' there will inevitably be someone who doesn't fit the size. In such instances, it is not fair to that person to have to pay for the 'one-size-fits-all' AND the custom size which does fit.

Further, you and I can disagree about many things and have good, pleasant, respectful conversations about such differences. We can even agree to disagree. But if our disagreement was over whether or not a 5-year-old should be taught about homosexuality (using this topic for example only), I'd guess that both of us would reject giving the other the authority to decide that on behalf of our kids. When it comes to children, emotions run high, further complicating the job of teachers, principles and school boards and making these social issues a lightning rod for conflict within the schools. And in such issues, compromise is rarely something parents are ready to do when it comes to their children.

So what is the solution to such conflicts? Some say that parents can send their kids to private/charter schools if they don't like the public education. But those parents are paying as much as anyone else to have their children in public schools - so why should they have to compromise - why can't the 'other side' compromise? Which leads me back to a comment I made earlier. It's not the DECISION - it's WHO GETS TO DECIDE.

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 17, 2007 at 05:49:03 pm     #

I came across this interesting article on Education in the colonies. I thought it gave a good historical perspective.

I especially liked the last line of the article:

"Years ago, Abraham Lincoln said, “The philosophy of the classroom will be the philosophy of the government in the next generation.”"

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 18, 2007 at 10:59:12 am     #

I guess you and Abraham Lincoln are right. What you use to educate yourself - like an "article" from the Foundation for Economic Education - can determine your politics. Or vice versa.

And I also agree that there are some things that I would not compromise on in a child's education, like teaching ridiculous political arguments like your article, rather than credible scholarship. Just a quick scan through one of the cites in that article, Lawrence Cremin's American Education, shows that the author is making "fallacious arguments". While the book does describe the important role of family in education, it also describes early public education that undercuts the article's whole arguments. The book describes a law in Massachusetts that required public schools in 1647. (p. 181) It notes that other colonies quickly followed suit. (p. 182) And it describes how these schools came to be publically supported in much the same way our schools are supported -

"Her study reveals, too, the concomitant variety in sources of support: the initial efforts to raise adequate funds via subscription, rents, tuition and grants of land, and the gradual-and, again, often reluctant-settlement on town rates, once it became clear that the abundance of land rendered more traditional modes of endowment unsatisfactory." (p. 193)

By the way, I was able to review the cite because of a quick trip to the public library.

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Sep 18, 2007 at 09:16:08 pm     #

ifX...too bad you had to assume that my posting of an article that I found interesting had to imply my support of said commentary. I don't see anywhere that I indicated support, opposition, concern, etc...about the article, other than to note it offers a good historical perspective.

As for the quote from Lincoln, the reason I liked it (not that you asked - you just assumed) was because I think it represents why people are so passionate about what is taught in public schools and how - and it further demonstrates why I believe public schools are the battlegrounds that they are today.

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 18, 2007 at 09:41:28 pm     #

I don't see why you think I implied anything more than I wrote - that anybody learning anything from the "good historical perspective" you posted was not learning facts, but political rhetoric.

posted by ifXthenWhyNot on Sep 18, 2007 at 11:01:43 pm     #

School is compulsory social engineering.
Turning gold into fools.

posted by charlatan on Sep 19, 2007 at 02:29:19 am     #

ifX - it was a perspective...it contained historical information not yet discussed...it contained facts - and opinion, too. It has no more rhetoric than anything else we've all posted or referenced. If the impression I got from your post was not as you intended, I'm sorry.

posted by MaggieThurber on Sep 19, 2007 at 08:21:23 am     #

home • about • help • contact

© 2003-2008 Toledo Talk

current date: 15-Oct-2008 7:02 P.M.

old version of Toledo Talk