List arguments for why Religion and Govt. should be separate

[Troll from MSNBC]

As an aside, I don't think pentehostiles realize the implications of chipping away at the seperation clause: can you imagine when Muslim is the majority religion in the US (which will happen at the rate their membership is growing) and the pledge gets changed again to "One nation under Allah"?

Well... when Muslims become majoirties in other contries usually more than that happesn :cough Iran, Iraq, Most of Africa, Indonesia... : Man was that a long cough... <clears throat>

That's an interesting point there I hadn't thought of adding to my notes, Muslim Majorities and the result of "Sharia" Governments

[Durandal]

I believe that the only requirement of a school be that it meet an educational standard set by a group of scholars. The people who run said institution be they Christians, Buddists, Muslims, atheists, whatever, isn't consequencial so long as the school meets those scholarly standards. I think that parents should be able to send their children to a school of their choice. Ideally the government would be totally seperated from education other than the setting of scholarly standards, but I realize that won't be happening. Short answer: yes, thats what I ment...

But you advocate compensating parents for the cost of sending their children to religious indoctrination camps to get their "education"? Religious schools tack extra stuff on to those "scholarly standards" the same way the RIAA tacks extra stuff on to the Redbook audio CD standard, like copy protection.

The thing with religious schools is that children are required to take and pass religious indoctrination courses under the guide of academics, and school religious functions (anti-abortion rallies, church services where attendence is required) in order to get a lawful certificate of education. So, in order for the state to recognize that you've completed your high school education, you must go through religious indoctrination. That violates the establishment clause, and so does funding such activity, whether directly or indirectly.

[Falcon]

I believe that the only requirement of a school be that it meet an educational standard set by a group of scholars. The people who run said institution be they Christians, Buddists, Muslims, atheists, whatever, isn't consequencial so long as the school meets those scholarly standards. I think that parents should be able to send their children to a school of their choice. Ideally the government would be totally seperated from education other than the setting of scholarly standards, but I realize that won't be happening. Short answer: yes, thats what I ment...

But you advocate compensating parents for the cost of sending their children to religious indoctrination camps to get their "education"? Religious schools tack extra stuff on to those "scholarly standards" the same way the RIAA tacks extra stuff on to the Redbook audio CD standard, like copy protection.

The thing with religious schools is that children are required to take and pass religious indoctrination courses under the guide of academics, and school religious functions (anti-abortion rallies, church services where attendence is required) in order to get a lawful certificate of education. So, in order for the state to recognize that you've completed your high school education, you must go through religious indoctrination. That violates the establishment clause, and so does funding such activity, whether directly or indirectly.

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do. Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

[Troll from MSNBC]

I believe that the only requirement of a school be that it meet an educational standard set by a group of scholars. The people who run said institution be they Christians, Buddists, Muslims, atheists, whatever, isn't consequencial so long as the school meets those scholarly standards. I think that parents should be able to send their children to a school of their choice. Ideally the government would be totally seperated from education other than the setting of scholarly standards, but I realize that won't be happening. Short answer: yes, thats what I ment...

But you advocate compensating parents for the cost of sending their children to religious indoctrination camps to get their "education"? Religious schools tack extra stuff on to those "scholarly standards" the same way the RIAA tacks extra stuff on to the Redbook audio CD standard, like copy protection.

The thing with religious schools is that children are required to take and pass religious indoctrination courses under the guide of academics, and school religious functions (anti-abortion rallies, church services where attendence is required) in order to get a lawful certificate of education. So, in order for the state to recognize that you've completed your high school education, you must go through religious indoctrination. That violates the establishment clause, and so does funding such activity, whether directly or indirectly.

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do. Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

True, although allowing the schools to function I don't see as a violation of this separation (they do have higher test scores etc. for being private, all private schools do... probably something about how the pricvate sector is more efficient with funds than the government...)

However, supporting these is not, as it gives the government a leverage to cfonotrol a religious organizastion.

[Falcon]

But you advocate compensating parents for the cost of sending their children to religious indoctrination camps to get their "education"? Religious schools tack extra stuff on to those "scholarly standards" the same way the RIAA tacks extra stuff on to the Redbook audio CD standard, like copy protection.

The thing with religious schools is that children are required to take and pass religious indoctrination courses under the guide of academics, and school religious functions (anti-abortion rallies, church services where attendence is required) in order to get a lawful certificate of education. So, in order for the state to recognize that you've completed your high school education, you must go through religious indoctrination. That violates the establishment clause, and so does funding such activity, whether directly or indirectly.

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do. Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

True, although allowing the schools to function I don't see as a violation of this separation (they do have higher test scores etc. for being private, all private schools do... probably something about how the pricvate sector is more efficient with funds than the government...)

However, supporting these is not, as it gives the government a leverage to cfonotrol a religious organizastion.

If a religious organization wants to engage in these types of activities then they have to accept governmental oversight. If they cannot accept that they can still have a school, though it would not be accredited nor would it get tax payer money.

[Durandal]

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do.

Parents can indoctrinate their kids on their own time or send them to Sunday school. School time is not for such things. You're right that parents are deciding to send their kids there, but why should the state officially fund the parents' decision to waste school time on religious indoctrination rather than real classes? That voucher money would be better spent on improving the public education system, which is more deserving of that money.

Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

Wrong. Religious schools operate on the same hours as public schools, and they cram in a religious indoctrination class, which does take time away from real education because there are only a limited amount of hours that the school is open per day. Also, religious schools will often cut classes short and cancel them to force all students to attend religious services. So, yes, the teaching of religion interferes quite a bit with real education. It did in my school.

And, my "phobia of anything moral"? What exactly does that mean?

True, although allowing the schools to function I don't see as a violation of this separation (they do have higher test scores etc. for being private, all private schools do... probably something about how the pricvate sector is more efficient with funds than the government...)

Allowing them to hand out legal certificates of education is a violation of separation, but their test scores are higher. I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with private schools in general, just religious ones.

However, supporting these is not, as it gives the government a leverage to cfonotrol a religious organizastion.

That's an interesting perspective on the subject.

By the way, I love you avatar.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do. Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

I agree with Durandal on this one. Why should a state fund religious indoctrination? It is a parents choice to send their child to a religious indoctrination camp, but that decision should not be funded or sanctioned by the stare. Allowed, but not santioned. I go to a horribly underfunded school. The money that the government gives out in vouchers, could be used to give my german teacher(works a 17 hour day, and has 7 kids, and gets paid a flat, pathetic 30k a year) a raise. Or to buy new books, or scrap the graffiti off the wall. But do they? No! they give that money to religious schools that do nothing but produce religious fundamentalists, who start the fucking cycle all over again. You know what I have to say about that? FUCK NO!

[Falcon]

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do. Religion doesn't interfear with the teaching of math, most science, reading, writing, etc... Your phobia of anything moral is apalling. Going to a religious school would be completely voluntary and if the school couldn't meet the same standards as EVERY OTHER SCHOOL as far as their scholarly programs then they wouldn't be permissable. Praying at lunch doesn't interfear with learning about math.

I agree with Durandal on this one. Why should a state fund religious indoctrination? It is a parents choice to send their child to a religious indoctrination camp, but that decision should not be funded or sanctioned by the stare. Allowed, but not santioned. I go to a horribly underfunded school. The money that the government gives out in vouchers, could be used to give my german teacher(works a 17 hour day, and has 7 kids, and gets paid a flat, pathetic 30k a year) a raise. Or to buy new books, or scrap the graffiti off the wall. But do they? No! they give that money to religious schools that do nothing but produce religious fundamentalists, who start the fucking cycle all over again. You know what I have to say about that? FUCK NO!

Why fund religious indoctrination, simple answer, religious schools, if properly acredited like a public school, is not indoctrination. Education is education as long as it meets the same standards, no matter the source. Performace is what matters, if religious schools can produce students who can pass the same tests as a public school student then where is the problem? I know that religious schools often turn out some very bright people. Agree with their beliefs or not, they get the job done...

You go to an underfunded school, don't worry, this won't affect you. The only money to be pulled from a school would be the money that the school would have had to expend to educate the voucher student. A school with less students would have the same money per student with or without vouchers.

You people are clearly not listening to what I'm saying, you are just ignoring the merits of vouchers because of your xenophobia of religion.

[Durandal]

Why fund religious indoctrination, simple answer, religious schools, if properly acredited like a public school, is not indoctrination. Education is education as long as it meets the same standards, no matter the source. Performace is what matters, if religious schools can produce students who can pass the same tests as a public school student then where is the problem? I know that religious schools often turn out some very bright people. Agree with their beliefs or not, they get the job done...

You obviously have never attended religious schooling. It's primary purpose is to indoctrinate while under the guise of education. The sad fact is that the public school system has gotten so bad that people pretending to be educating children can do better.

Oh, and public schools turn out bright kids, as well.

You go to an underfunded school, don't worry, this won't affect you. The only money to be pulled from a school would be the money that the school would have had to expend to educate the voucher student. A school with less students would have the same money per student with or without vouchers.

You people are clearly not listening to what I'm saying, you are just ignoring the merits of vouchers because of your xenophobia of religion.

And you're not listening to us. Religious schools divert many hours per week away from real education for religious indoctrination sessions. The point is that an underfunded school could receive more money if you took the money that would be used for vouchers and put it toward public education.

[C.S.Strowbridge]

As long as the school is certified by the same standards that every other school is certified by then why does it matter? The parents are deciding to send their children there, their parents will be teaching them the same religion at home so no doubt the children believe it too, and often religious schools are very excellent at what they do.

Parents can indoctrinate their kids on their own time or send them to Sunday school. School time is not for such things.

Damn striaght. School and religion should be as seperate as possible.

Once the kids are taught to think for themselves the parents can try and teach them whatever bullshit superstitions they want.

[Falcon]

And you're not listening to us. Religious schools divert many hours per week away from real education for religious indoctrination sessions. The point is that an underfunded school could receive more money if you took the money that would be used for vouchers and put it toward public education.

It doesn't matter if they divert away X number of hours towards twiddly winks if they can get the same performance. Performance is what matters.

Basically you want poor parents to be unable to be able to choose where they send their kids to school and you want to rob wealthier parents of their tax money if they don't want to send their kids to a school with poor performance. Wow, I'm glad you're here to take people's money and tell them what they can and cannot do with their own children, what would the world be without busybodies like yourself?

[papachulo10]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, these points are good, I am also thinking of maybe pointing toward the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages and the problems that caused without the separation of Church and State, and how religious freedom from the English Government/Church is why the original colonists went to America in the first place.

Actually Christianity kept the roman empire together for a bit longer. If it wasn't for Constantine and Christianity the empire would have prolly fallen sooner. For some reason it was christianity that held the empire together in the waning years of the west. I guess the importance of discipline, obedience, a benevolent savior who preached being moral to one another, and ONE god helped the empire live on until 1453. The ONE god part is important cause the emperor could cash in on this. ONE god in heaven, ONE emperor on earth.

It was just the damn infighting between the christians. I mean it was horrible, the not just persecuted each other but pagans as well. I mean in the early empire and the republic, if you just payed respects to the state gods, u could go home and practice whatever you wanted (the christian persecutions weren't as rampant as they are held out to be believed). Hell, it ain't the US Constitution but compared to the rest of the world and europe in the Dark, middle, and renasance (spelled wrong) period it was quite liberating.

Hell religion did play a big part in morals, the afore mentioned reason of christianity and the preachings of Mohammed were actually quite "nice" by the standards of the day. I mean mohammed preached no alcohol, three wives only(give or take a few), and a moral character, not too shabby. And contrary to public opinion, the first Muslums treated the Christians and the Jewish people the conquered quite nicely (until the turks that is). It was only with the Persians when the decked out the conversion by the sword decry.

[Colonel Olrik]

It doesn't matter if they divert away X number of hours towards twiddly winks if they can get the same performance. Performance is what matters.

Ridiculous. A school can form a student both proficient in math and xenophobical hatred. If you have a child being indoctrinated ten hours a week in the ways of a particular sect you're influencing her reasoning. Fitting her views to your own. Whatever they may be.

That's why teaching at schools must be secular.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And you're not listening to us. Religious schools divert many hours per week away from real education for religious indoctrination sessions. The point is that an underfunded school could receive more money if you took the money that would be used for vouchers and put it toward public education.

It doesn't matter if they divert away X number of hours towards twiddly winks if they can get the same performance. Performance is what matters.

Basically you want poor parents to be unable to be able to choose where they send their kids to school and you want to rob wealthier parents of their tax money if they don't want to send their kids to a school with poor performance. Wow, I'm glad you're here to take people's money and tell them what they can and cannot do with their own children, what would the world be without busybodies like yourself?

That is just Duranal's point. Performane IS what matters. Have you ever talked to a student who went to a religious school for their entire schooling? They end up being fundies. Those schools are started for one purpose..To "educate" students about religion, while also teaching them reading, writing and arithmatic. however a christian school leaves out the biological science, in favor of "creation science" or "intellegent design" They force mandatory prayers, and reguire religious courses purly to indoctrinate children. The state should not fund that, and if a parent wants to shove religion down their childs throut they shoud have to front the cash themselves.

[Troll from MSNBC]

Or to buy new books, or scrap the graffiti off the wall. But do they? No! they give that money to religious schools that do nothing but produce religious fundamentalists, who start the fucking cycle all over again. You know what I have to say about that? FUCK NO!

The public schools already have more than enough money in most states. In California, a place with horrible scores, they have very very high funding ($8000 a year per student plus bond money to make new buildings) however, 45% of this is squandered by the District headquarters most of the time, to go toward unnecessary research and reinventing the wheel that doesn't help students at all. I dont' think money is the cause of all the problems, but how it is USED is. Altough, we voted down vouchersr anyway.

This schools issue is turning into a pretty interseting discussion a mod should split it into a new thread.

[Exonerate]

To quote Calvin and Hobbes: "If the government was 75% efficient, we'd be estatic!"

[Durandal]

And you're not listening to us. Religious schools divert many hours per week away from real education for religious indoctrination sessions. The point is that an underfunded school could receive more money if you took the money that would be used for vouchers and put it toward public education.

It doesn't matter if they divert away X number of hours towards twiddly winks if they can get the same performance. Performance is what matters.

Better performance is achieved by smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are achieved by building more schools. More schools mean money. You do the fucking math.

Basically you want poor parents to be unable to be able to choose where they send their kids to school and you want to rob wealthier parents of their tax money if they don't want to send their kids to a school with poor performance. Wow, I'm glad you're here to take people's money and tell them what they can and cannot do with their own children, what would the world be without busybodies like yourself?

Tough shit. Why don't you go and complain that your tax dollars are being used to repair a road that you personally never travel on, too? Taxes are a pool, and the money gets diverted as needed. If parents choose not to take advantage of the education system they pay for and want to pay extra to have their kids indoctrinated into ancient superstitions, that's too fucking bad.

Hell religion did play a big part in morals, the afore mentioned reason of christianity and the preachings of Mohammed were actually quite "nice" by the standards of the day. I mean mohammed preached no alcohol, three wives only(give or take a few), and a moral character, not too shabby. And contrary to public opinion, the first Muslums treated the Christians and the Jewish people the conquered quite nicely (until the turks that is). It was only with the Persians when the decked out the conversion by the sword decry.

Mohammud also preached killing unbelievers. Gee, what a nice guy. Read through the Bible sometime and see how much of it we'd consider morally acceptable today.

[Falcon]

Better performance is achieved by smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are achieved by building more schools. More schools mean money. You do the fucking math.

Thank you for that insightful, fully documented, and completely proven point. Though I agree smaller classes are benificial, unfortunately you utterly missed what I have been proposing. You see, no money would be drained from the school, the ratio of money per student would remain static under vouchers. If these 'underfunded' schools are to get more money then it must come from further appropiations, not from theft from parents who opt for private or other public schools (not always, or even often, religious schools)

Tough shit. Why don't you go and complain that your tax dollars are being used to repair a road that you personally never travel on, too? Taxes are a pool, and the money gets diverted as needed. If parents choose not to take advantage of the education system they pay for and want to pay extra to have their kids indoctrinated into ancient superstitions, that's too fucking bad.

Excuse me, but your analogy proves my point, I can use any road of my choosing if my tax payer money has been used for it, why should not my child have my tax money attached to them? Religious schools are just one option, other options for poor parents include better public schools, private non-religious schools, etc... It isn't fair to the poor in society that their children are stuck in failing schools just because of some people's religious bigotry.

[XPViking]

That is just Duranal's point. Performane IS what matters. Have you ever talked to a student who went to a religious school for their entire schooling? They end up being fundies. Those schools are started for one purpose..To "educate" students about religion, while also teaching them reading, writing and arithmatic. however a christian school leaves out the biological science, in favor of "creation science" or "intellegent design" They force mandatory prayers, and reguire religious courses purly to indoctrinate children. The state should not fund that, and if a parent wants to shove religion down their childs throut they shoud have to front the cash themselves.

Okay. You're speaking from personal experience here but allow me to intrude. A friend of mine also went to a Catholic school and he isn't a fundie today. I suspect he isn't the only one. As well, perhaps you could show me a curriculum from a christian school that backs up your claim about "leaving out biological science" and have required religious courses. You would also have to prove that such a school is not meeting the minimum state requirements in scholastic achievement otherwise your argument falls.

Better performance is achieved by smaller class sizes. Smaller class sizes are achieved by building more schools. More schools mean money. You do the fucking math.

Sure. But to say that vouchers would suddenly alleviate this problem and lead to an increase in more schools and smaller classes may be a stretch. How much is spent in the voucher program? I'm not sure, but I'd reckon that the voucher program is only a small part of the total educational budget. You need to reallocate the existing resources. How often have you heard about one fighter jet can buy x amount of books, or something along that line?

Besides, you are forgetting a critical element in your argument. In order to achieve smaller classrooms you need more teachers, not necessarily more schools. It may be a matter of As well, equipping the existing schools with better resources might help as well.

From where I see it, the defenders of the voucher program say it enables people to have more options in their children's education while the critics say that the government is indirectly funding religious schooling. Is there a better way?

XPViking

[XPViking]

Of course the government discriminates. However, discrimination isn't necessarily bad; it's only bad when you discriminate based on subjective conclusions. Is it bad if a construction company discriminates against HIV-positive people by not hiring them, out of concern for the rest of their work force? Of course not; he has a reasonable, objective reason to discriminate against HIV-positive people. Do employers have objective reasons to discriminate against black people? No. That's the difference.

So what do you think are the objective conclusions that the government has in this case? That is, what objective reasons does the government have for giving money to couples who live together before marriage rather than to ones who don't? Other than, there's no reason for it, it's just our policy.

The government's discrimination against religion is necessary in order to abide by the establishment clause. That's why religious charities and schools don't (or shouldn't) get money. Now, I don't know Asia's laws, so it's a bit hard for me to really comment on them at all beyond coming from an American separation of Church and State perspective. Also, unemployment insurance laws are a mess of their own, anyway.

Ah. I should have been more clear. This incident happened in Canada. But don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the government is condoning my religious beliefs if they gave me unemployment insurance? What if I said to them, that I don't want to live before marriage because of <insert objective reasons here>. If I could prove that, then the law crumbles. After all, I think both you and I can agree that is how we change laws. By proving that the existing law is stupid.

XPViking

[Durandal]

Thank you for that insightful, fully documented, and completely proven point. Though I agree smaller classes are benificial, unfortunately you utterly missed what I have been proposing. You see, no money would be drained from the school, the ratio of money per student would remain static under vouchers. If these 'underfunded' schools are to get more money then it must come from further appropiations, not from theft from parents who opt for private or other public schools (not always, or even often, religious schools)

You obviously miss the point entirely. I'll try and be more clear. People want to get compensated for sending their children to religious indoctrination camps. That compensation requires money. That is money that could be used to improve public education or any number of other productive causes.

Excuse me, but your analogy proves my point, I can use any road of my choosing if my tax payer money has been used for it, why should not my child have my tax money attached to them? Religious schools are just one option, other options for poor parents include better public schools, private non-religious schools, etc... It isn't fair to the poor in society that their children are stuck in failing schools just because of some people's religious bigotry.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as a private road, so your point is invalid. Religious schools aren't a part of the public schooling system, so they shouldn't receive tax money in any form, directly or indirectly. This school voucher shit is just Christian fundamentalists in Congress wanting to fund Christian indoctrination with government money, and they know that the majority of private schools are Christian schools.

I wouldn't really care about compensating parents for sending kids to secular private schools, but religious schools violates the establishment clause because their first priority is to break the spirit of children and indoctrinate them into a specific set of religious beliefs. Giving money to parents to compensate for religious school education is indirectly funding religious indoctrination.

Okay. You're speaking from personal experience here but allow me to intrude. A friend of mine also went to a Catholic school and he isn't a fundie today. I suspect he isn't the only one. As well, perhaps you could show me a curriculum from a christian school that backs up your claim about "leaving out biological science" and have required religious courses. You would also have to prove that such a school is not meeting the minimum state requirements in scholastic achievement otherwise your argument falls.

I went to Catholic school, and my biology class never brought up intelligent design or creationism; the teacher was an inept bitch, but that's beside the point. The Theology classes, on the other hand, did bring such idiocies up. "The eyeball is too complex to have formed without intelligent intervention," and all that shit.

The schools do not meet the state standards because they tack religious indoctrination on to it, and they take away from classtime for religious indoctrination sessions. Religious indoctrination isn't a part of the state education standards, so these schools do not meet those standards, just like copy-protected "CD's" don't conform to the Redbook audio standard.

Sure. But to say that vouchers would suddenly alleviate this problem and lead to an increase in more schools and smaller classes may be a stretch. How much is spent in the voucher program? I'm not sure, but I'd reckon that the voucher program is only a small part of the total educational budget. You need to reallocate the existing resources. How often have you heard about one fighter jet can buy x amount of books, or something along that line?

I paid roughly the same amount for my high school tuition as I did for my first year at university, minus living in the dorm. They're quite expensive. However, why not use that voucher money to buy some computers, or new books?

Besides, you are forgetting a critical element in your argument. In order to achieve smaller classrooms you need more teachers, not necessarily more schools. It may be a matter of As well, equipping the existing schools with better resources might help as well.

That's very true. However, more classrooms isn't the only way extra money can be utilized for education.

From where I see it, the defenders of the voucher program say it enables people to have more options in their children's education while the critics say that the government is indirectly funding religious schooling. Is there a better way?

Yes. If Congress is so willing to waste my tax money on indoctrinating children into Christianity, they surely won't mind using that money to improve public education. Vouchers can be used for private, secular schooling, but not religious schooling; that seems like an acceptable compromise. Of course, Shurb won't like it, because it takes away from their chief goal: to officially support Christianity with government money.

Ah. I should have been more clear. This incident happened in Canada. But don't you think it's a bit of a stretch to think that the government is condoning my religious beliefs if they gave me unemployment insurance? What if I said to them, that I don't want to live before marriage because of <insert objective reasons here>. If I could prove that, then the law crumbles. After all, I think both you and I can agree that is how we change laws. By proving that the existing law is stupid.

I agree. It's not like the only reason engaged couples don't live together before marriage is religious; they could simply be very far apart.

[XPViking]

I went to Catholic school, and my biology class never brought up intelligent design or creationism; the teacher was an inept bitch, but that's beside the point. The Theology classes, on the other hand, did bring such idiocies up. "The eyeball is too complex to have formed without intelligent intervention," and all that shit.

The schools do not meet the state standards because they tack religious indoctrination on to it, and they take away from classtime for religious indoctrination sessions. Religious indoctrination isn't a part of the state education standards, so these schools do not meet those standards, just like copy-protected "CD's" don't conform to the Redbook audio standard.

Okay. I'm looking for some numbers here. I thought perhaps you or Alyrium Denryle had that before making the claim. I hear you guys saying that these schools aren't meeting the state's educational standards but so far no supporting evidence. I'm not downgrading your experiences here, so please don't misunderstand. I'm looking for other sources of information.

I paid roughly the same amount for my high school tuition as I did for my first year at university, minus living in the dorm. They're quite expensive. However, why not use that voucher money to buy some computers, or new books?

Good question. I suppose it comes down to questioning the motivation behind the voucher scheme in the first place.

That's very true. However, more classrooms isn't the only way extra money can be utilized for education.

Right. And that's what I pointed out earlier. You seemed to be thinking that more classrooms was the only answer. Glad we can agree.

Yes. If Congress is so willing to waste my tax money on indoctrinating children into Christianity, they surely won't mind using that money to improve public education. Vouchers can be used for private, secular schooling, but not religious schooling; that seems like an acceptable compromise. Of course, Shurb won't like it, because it takes away from their chief goal: to officially support Christianity with government money.

I can live with that. I'm not exactly sure how religiously-orientated schools work in Canada. When I was living in Southern Alberta, I did a pre-education class in a Catholic school. But I didn't inquire into their source of funding nor peeked at their cirriculum. More digging required here.

I agree. It's not like the only reason engaged couples don't live together before marriage is religious; they could simply be very far apart.

Right. At the time, I was working but lived far away (1000 miles plus) from my ex. When I quit and then moved back, I was in the same city. Can I assume that some kind of "distance" clause would be a valid objective reason in order to collect unemployment insurance in that case of a couple not living together before marriage? I hope you see what I'm driving at here.

XPViking

[Falcon]

Thank you for that insightful, fully documented, and completely proven point. Though I agree smaller classes are benificial, unfortunately you utterly missed what I have been proposing. You see, no money would be drained from the school, the ratio of money per student would remain static under vouchers. If these 'underfunded' schools are to get more money then it must come from further appropiations, not from theft from parents who opt for private or other public schools (not always, or even often, religious schools)

You obviously miss the point entirely. I'll try and be more clear. People want to get compensated for sending their children to religious indoctrination camps. That compensation requires money. That is money that could be used to improve public education or any number of other productive causes.

You're still missing the point, the ratio of money to students would be unchanged, further funding would come from the proper appropriations via increased taxes, not the theft of money from someone who wants to send their kid to a private school, any private school, not just religious. The money would be attached to the student, thus allowing poor families to choose better education for their kids. Indocrtination is a moot point since any school in the voucher system would have to meet the same standards as government run schools, performance is what matters, not the name on the side of the building.

Excuse me, but your analogy proves my point, I can use any road of my choosing if my tax payer money has been used for it, why should not my child have my tax money attached to them? Religious schools are just one option, other options for poor parents include better public schools, private non-religious schools, etc... It isn't fair to the poor in society that their children are stuck in failing schools just because of some people's religious bigotry.

Bullshit. There is no such thing as a private road, so your point is invalid. Religious schools aren't a part of the public schooling system, so they shouldn't receive tax money in any form, directly or indirectly. This school voucher shit is just Christian fundamentalists in Congress wanting to fund Christian indoctrination with government money, and they know that the majority of private schools are Christian schools.
[/quote]

There is no such thing as a private road? I live on a private road, I could charge toll if I wanted lol. However, if I accepted government funding for my road then I would have to meet certian road standards no doubt. I'm asking no less of schools, they accept government money they much meet scholarly standards set by the government. Your religious xenophobia has descended into the irrational...

I wouldn't really care about compensating parents for sending kids to secular private schools, but religious schools violates the establishment clause because their first priority is to break the spirit of children and indoctrinate them into a specific set of religious beliefs. Giving money to parents to compensate for religious school education is indirectly funding religious indoctrination.

So you arn't against vouchers so much as you are just against all religion. Well may that be, but you don't have the right to dictate to everyone else anymore than I have the right to dictate to you. If the roles were reversed you'd be screaming like a little baby about being forced to endure 'indoctrination'

[Durandal]

You're still missing the point, the ratio of money to students would be unchanged, further funding would come from the proper appropriations via increased taxes, not the theft of money from someone who wants to send their kid to a private school, any private school, not just religious. The money would be attached to the student, thus allowing poor families to choose better education for their kids. Indocrtination is a moot point since any school in the voucher system would have to meet the same standards as government run schools, performance is what matters, not the name on the side of the building.

As it stands, the state has a certain amount of money is devotes to education. Vouchers will not take away from this pool; they will take away from the rest of the pool. My point is that the part of the pool that vouchers take away from could be diverted to the education pool, thus making it larger. This is as simple as I can make it for you.

There is no such thing as a private road? I live on a private road, I could charge toll if I wanted lol. However, if I accepted government funding for my road then I would have to meet certian road standards no doubt. I'm asking no less of schools, they accept government money they much meet scholarly standards set by the government. Your religious xenophobia has descended into the irrational...

Ooh, very nice tactic. Declare me xenophobic of religion for trying to uphold the establishment clause. It works for the morons in Congress, but that shit doesn't fly here. Allowing parents to use government money for religious indoctrination is respecting an establishment of religion, period. As I've said before, the standards of a religious school are severely altered from those of a public school, as religious indoctrination is placed above the educational needs of students, because religious functions frequently cut classroom time short. Last I checked, that wasn't a part of the standard.

So you arn't against vouchers so much as you are just against all religion. Well may that be, but you don't have the right to dictate to everyone else anymore than I have the right to dictate to you. If the roles were reversed you'd be screaming like a little baby about being forced to endure 'indoctrination'

I'm against the government supporting religion with my fucking tax money. Nice strawman, though. Feel free to stop plugging it at your convenience; we'll all be waiting for you to make a real argument. Parents have the choice of sending their kids to religious schools, but they have to pay for it. Religious schools put indoctrination first; regular private schools put education first. Giving money to the latter is not a violation of the establishment clause; giving money to the former is.

Okay. I'm looking for some numbers here. I thought perhaps you or Alyrium Denryle had that before making the claim. I hear you guys saying that these schools aren't meeting the state's educational standards but so far no supporting evidence. I'm not downgrading your experiences here, so please don't misunderstand. I'm looking for other sources of information.

It's quite simple. Religious schools put religious indoctrination ahead of education on the priority list by robbing from classroom time to hold religious indoctrination sessions, like church services, anti-abortion rallies, celebrate religious holidays, et cetera. Religious schools turn out better standardized test scores because they have smaller classroom sizes, better relationships between teachers and students, and they can be more selective about who they admit. It's not hard to figure out that there is a correlation between poverty and performance on standardized test scores. Since only the students who can afford it will go to religious schools, they're more likely to have better education and performance on standardized tests. Of course, the same goes for secular private schools.

[Alyrium Denryle]

A religious school meets the math, reading, and writing standards of my state. They aslso meet the graduation requirements for science in my state.

However, they do this by leaving out biology, and focusing almost soley on the physical sciences, like chemistry, and physics. This of course is based on what a friend of mine, who whent to a catholic school, tells me. Sure it is anecdotal evidence, but what the hell.

The simple matter is, they indoctrinate children into their religion. The state should not pay for, in any way, directly or indirectly, ant form of religion. That would be a violation of the establishment clause. By giving out vouchers, they are funding a religious institution, and as such is unconstitutional