The rise of faith schools

I'm sure there's something to be said for that approach, but it's the long way around and life is short. Are you going to learn Islam by living among Muslims for a while, and then do the same with Hinduism, and Shintoism? Of course you can read their scriptures, but how will you be able to judge their claims to truth? Having a strong point of view gives you a standard for judging. If your point of view is wrong, there is nothing to keep you from recognizing its errors since I'm advocating exposure to many different points of view through the one.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 12:57 PMThis message has been edited by Faith, 04-07-2006 12:57 PM

Yes, we know that you disagree.That is why each of us presents the best case possible for our position. That way those reading the thread can see who has supported their position, who has not, and make their own decisions.That is the function of this board.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You don't have to immerse yourself in every faith to get a new perspective on your own. A smogasbord has only a hundred or so of the thousands of available dishes. I may try only a dozen in one meal, but that's enough to learn that the whole world isn't roast beef. I may even make a permanent (stuffed-pepper) change in direction. So you're saying:1. You can't slice a stuffed pepper as thin as roast beef.
2. An apple doesn't have as much protein as roast beef.
3. An orange isn't the same colour as roast beef.Therefore, roast beef is the "true" food.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

How is that different from the case of people who have to pay taxes to support the public schools, while paying tuition costs to send their children to private secular schools?

Good example. It's the same thing. Sort of. The people who send their kids to private schools usually have more money although that doesn't affect the principle of the thing of course.

quote:

---

Of course you can read their scriptures, but how will you be able to judge their claims to truth? Having a strong point of view gives you a standard for judging. If your point of view is wrong, there is nothing to keep you from recognizing its errors since I'm advocating exposure to many different points of view through the one.

---

As a fellow citizen, I like folks who communicate a strong point of view to their kids regarding right and wrong. That is more likely to make those kids good fellow citizens.For religious teachings, I have no problem with the indoctrination from a strong point of view, either. Freedom of religion and the rights of citizens grant us that right. As long as the practice of that religion does not infringe on my rights (such as those who would want to sacrifice my chickens to some deity), I am fine with it.For knowledge and skills of reading, writing and math, it's hard for me to imagine how a point of view is relevant.This brings us to science in general and biology in particular. I do think that the indoctrination of creationism limits kids in this field of study and in critical thinking. To say that creationists present a knowledgable and fair presentation of evolution is false. In a trial, it's like granting the defense lawyer the additional role of prosecutor. Would the outcome be anything other than not guilty?Even though there are fewer scientists/engineers coming from faith-based education, and this weakens our country (IMO), I think the value of faith-based education in generating quality human beings outweighs my objections.In the words of public school English-as-a-second-language teacher Ruby Rios's students: "We gots two stay together and protest against the new law that wants two be passed against all immigrants. We gots two show the U.S. that they aint (expletive) with out us (sic)."

I'm one of those parents. And sending children to a private school is not cheap. Nevertheless, I do not in any way resent paying taxes to support the public schools.There are two different issues here. I paid to send my children to a private school, because I want my children to be as well educated as possible. I support taxation for public education, because it is in my best interest and in my children's best interest that my neighbors' children be as well educated as possible.

You can send your kids to private school AND pay taxes for their spot (vacant) in public school. You have a choice, because your economic situation allows it.But, how about the economically-disadvantaged? (who probably need a boost in kids education anyway, because parents are likely not well-educated to assist them)
Why not give them more opportunity to make a choice?Think of it this way: It's MY money (taxes paid)! I should have a choice in where to spend most/some of that education money for my kids. If I choose to send my kid to public school, then I should pay that entity more than just the overhead cost that everyone (including singles) pay.This message has been edited by ThingsChange, 04-07-2006 05:09 PM

I think I agree with that. There should be a certain level of taxation that everybody pays for education, regardless of whether or not they have children in the system. People who do have children in the (public school) system should pay an additional tax - or people could choose to use that additional money for private schools instead.(Because God knows our tax structures aren't complicated enough. )On the other hand, I completely disagree with the idea of using private schools to indioctrinate children in any one religion.Edit: changed "any religion" to "any one religion".This message has been edited by Ringo, 2006-04-07 02:54 PM

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

No, it isn't.If it were my money, I would be paying a lot lower taxes than I currently pay. For example, I would not be paying for a stupid, ignorant and unjust war in Iraq.The taxes paid are the membership fee for being part of the society that collects the taxes. If we don't like it, we can consider joining a different society. I have to disagree with that. It's about incentives. If it costs more when you send children to public schools, then society will have created incentives that encourage illiteracy and ignorance, including the "ghettos of holy ignorance" that jar criticized.

quote:

---

If it costs more when you send children to public schools, then society will have created incentives that encourage illiteracy and ignorance

---

Did you leave out a word? That makes no sense.

Maybe I didn't understand your post. In Message 53 you wrote: You seem to be saying that it should cost you more if you do send your child to public school than if you don't. I was commenting on the implications.

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that it should cost you more if you do send your child to public school than if you don't. I was commenting on the implications.

---

Are you saying the implications of incentives for private/home schooling would be encourages and therefore bad results?
If so, then we just disagree. I believe that evolution leads to better product, and that competition (as in the evolutionary models) is a primary driver of change for the better.

Home schooling is usually a bad idea, so should not be encouraged. Private schools can be good and can be bad. The state won't discriminate between those possibilities in what it encourages, so such encouragement could lead to a deterioration in education of the citizenry. That's a misunderstanding of evolution. There is no standard of "better" that directs evolution. If incentives are given that encourage something that is worse, then something worse could well evolve.Look at the news reports on the TV networks. At one time they were run as benevolent dictatorships, paid for by the entertainment programming. Now they are faced with the competition of the market. They have become far worse than they were.

quote:

---

2. Faith-based schools are more likely to produce honest, ethical, law-abiding citizens (this is based on what peer pressure is exposed to the children)

---

So, this is supported by what evidence, exactly?