$1 billion of taxpayers money funds religious curriculum

  • 53 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for lamprey263
#1 Posted by lamprey263 (33349 posts) -

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.html

below are just snippets, the entire article is a lot longer, 3 pages, worth a read though

"...many of these faith-based schools go beyond teaching the biblical story of the six days of creation as literal fact. Their course materials nurture disdain of the secular world, distrust of momentous discoveries and hostility toward mainstream scientists. They often distort basic facts about the scientific method — teaching, for instance, that theories such as evolution are by definition highly speculative because they haven’t been elevated to the status of “scientific law.” "

"One set of books popular in Christian schools calls evolution “a wicked and vain philosophy.” Another derides “modern math theorists” who fail to view mathematics as absolute laws ordained by God. The publisher notes that its textbooks shun “modern” breakthroughs — even those, like set theory, developed back in the 19th century. Math teachers often set aside time each week — even in geometry and algebra to explore numbers in the Bible. Students learn vocabulary with sentences like, “Many scientists today are Creationists.” "

"Some 26 states are now considering enacting new voucher programs or expanding existing ones..."

"Not all religious schools, of course, teach creationism. Many have top-notch science programs with multiple Advanced Placement options. Many Catholic schools, in particular, make sure students get a solid grounding in evolution in biology class, no matter what they’re learning in theology."

"Voucher proponents often describe the programs as a chance for students to escape failing public schools and obtain a better education. Yet the review of school websites and curricula found that some voucher schools openly declare that academics come second to their chief mission: training students to obey and glorify the Lord."

How do you feel about vouchers being used to go to private religious schools to promote a distrust of science?

Like the article notes not all schools that are religious push religious worldviews in areas like math and science. I went to a Catholic school fortunate to be run by Jesuits who didn't push theology in the classroom. But then again they didn't get voucher subsidies, and they're probably in the minority with being a religious school that didn't teach religion.

I guess what I find most disturbing is not that the money goes toward schools that teach religion, but that they're teaching religion in non-religious subjects, and it's a rather perverse religious worldview that distrusts science and crowning scientific discoveries.

How is the United States supposed to better itself with scientific innovation and the demands of a changing more competitive world when religious extremists are dragging us back in time? How are educators supposed to refine the curriculum to meet these needs when they're too exhausted trying to keep religion out of the class room and textbooks? How are we supposed to elect political leaders who can shape job and economic policies around science and technological advancements when the electorate is too fixated on whether a politician's religious principles meet their own?

I find it quite scary that more money will be going to institutions that promote religious extremists views, as an alternative to improving public education. It's already bad enough that half the electorate is made up of young earth creationists, that's probably not going to improve with growing religious extremism in education.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#2 Posted by foxhound_fox (95866 posts) -

Avatar image for renegadesteve
#3 Posted by RenegadeSteve (262 posts) -

So this why we don't have better space technology

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#4 Edited by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?
>_>

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#5 Posted by foxhound_fox (95866 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#6 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

Avatar image for Master_Live
#7 Posted by Master_Live (18542 posts) -

Lets go charter.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
#8 Posted by ferrari2001 (17691 posts) -
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

So you can't learn about religion in schools? Considering Christianity is the single most important thing that shaped western society, to not teach Christianity in schools would be a disservice to the students. Also to ignore the teaching of other religions fuels misunderstanding and ignorance of the belief systems of a majority of people. I think the no religion policy is one of the worst decisions the public school systems have ever made. How can you teach students about society, history, arts etc properly without first having a basic understanding of the underlying religious factors that shaped those aspects? History and basic teachings of various faith denominations should be required for all students. It obviously needs to be taught in an unbiased way, but it needs to be taught. Although to teach 6 day creationism as fact should obviously be discouraged and eventually denied public funding.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#9 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@ferrari2001 said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

So you can't learn about religion in schools? Considering Christianity is the single most important thing that shaped western society, to not teach Christianity in schools would be a disservice to the students. Also to ignore the teaching of other religions fuels misunderstanding and ignorance of the belief systems of a majority of people. I think the no religion policy is one of the worst decisions the public school systems have ever made. How can you teach students about society, history, arts etc properly without first having a basic understanding of the underlying religious factors that shaped those aspects? History and basic teachings of various faith denominations should be required for all students. It obviously needs to be taught in an unbiased way, but it needs to be taught. Although to teach 6 day creationism as fact should obviously be discouraged and eventually denied public funding.

Which is what this is about. The rest of your post I agree with 100%, students should be taught the bible and other religious texts/beliefs/history in school (in a secular manner of course). You can't fully appreciate/understand western culture without some working knowledge of the bible.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#10 Posted by LJS9502_basic (158759 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#11 Edited by foxhound_fox (95866 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#12 Posted by LJS9502_basic (158759 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#13 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#14 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

So?

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

Sorry, I couldn't come up with anything better at the time of my post. >_>

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#15 Posted by LJS9502_basic (158759 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#16 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

So?

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

Sorry, I couldn't come up with anything better at the time of my post. >_>

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

I don't think anybody's arguing that vouchers shouldn't be granted to religious schools, just that those schools should have to meet certain educational standards. Teaching science in the way described in the OP is pretty inappropriate.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#17 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

"Calvary Christian Academy, this one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., describes the goal of its AP Biology course as preparing “students to have faith in Jesus in an age of science by evaluating college-level biology, chemistry and physics from a purely biblical perspective.”"

"at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Ga., the biology curriculum presents Charles Darwin’s theories mostly in the context of showing students how to rebut them. Students are taught to argue, for instance, that cellular mutation could not lead to increased genetic variation. A class goal: “Discuss the importance of a right view of evolution.”"

Avatar image for AmazonTreeBoa
#18 Posted by AmazonTreeBoa (16745 posts) -

I am okay with this.

Avatar image for lostrib
#19 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

The thread title is misleading

It's a billion dollars in vouchers for private schools, which includes religious schools; not 1 billion dollars toward religious curriculum

Avatar image for GreySeal9
#20 Posted by GreySeal9 (28247 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

"Calvary Christian Academy, this one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., describes the goal of its AP Biology course as preparing “students to have faith in Jesus in an age of science by evaluating college-level biology, chemistry and physics from a purely biblical perspective.”"

"at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Ga., the biology curriculum presents Charles Darwin’s theories mostly in the context of showing students how to rebut them. Students are taught to argue, for instance, that cellular mutation could not lead to increased genetic variation. A class goal: “Discuss the importance of a right view of evolution.”"

*cringes at those quotes*

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#21 Edited by Perfect_Blue (28711 posts) -

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

"Calvary Christian Academy, this one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., describes the goal of its AP Biology course as preparing “students to have faith in Jesus in an age of science by evaluating college-level biology, chemistry and physics from a purely biblical perspective.”"

"at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Ga., the biology curriculum presents Charles Darwin’s theories mostly in the context of showing students how to rebut them. Students are taught to argue, for instance, that cellular mutation could not lead to increased genetic variation. A class goal: “Discuss the importance of a right view of evolution.”"

LOL jesus christ

Avatar image for lostrib
#22 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

"Calvary Christian Academy, this one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., describes the goal of its AP Biology course as preparing “students to have faith in Jesus in an age of science by evaluating college-level biology, chemistry and physics from a purely biblical perspective.”"

"at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Ga., the biology curriculum presents Charles Darwin’s theories mostly in the context of showing students how to rebut them. Students are taught to argue, for instance, that cellular mutation could not lead to increased genetic variation. A class goal: “Discuss the importance of a right view of evolution.”"

LOL jesus christ

well yeah, that's kind of the point

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#23 Posted by foxhound_fox (95866 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Taxpayer money should not have any connection with religious institutions.

Here in Canada, they can get away with that because there is no formal separation of Church and State, but in the US? Shameful.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#24 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -
@GreySeal9 said:

@The-Apostle said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

Sorry, I couldn't come up with anything better at the time of my post. >_>

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

I don't think anybody's arguing that vouchers shouldn't be granted to religious schools, just that those schools should have to meet certain educational standards. Teaching science in the way described in the OP is pretty inappropriate.

I feel private schools should be allowed to teach what they want and still be able to receive vouchers. Why force them to teach what they don't believe?

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#25 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

Religion once again doing wonders for society...

Avatar image for wis3boi
#26 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@GreySeal9 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

Separation of church and state...ie the government can't force religion on you. And a religion doesn't run the state. And?

You didn't read the OP.

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Not really, this money is obviously going to waste if it's funding creationism.

You do know regular classes are taught? Apparently not....they have to follow state curriculum dude.

"Calvary Christian Academy, this one in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., describes the goal of its AP Biology course as preparing “students to have faith in Jesus in an age of science by evaluating college-level biology, chemistry and physics from a purely biblical perspective.”"

"at Cherokee Christian School in Woodstock, Ga., the biology curriculum presents Charles Darwin’s theories mostly in the context of showing students how to rebut them. Students are taught to argue, for instance, that cellular mutation could not lead to increased genetic variation. A class goal: “Discuss the importance of a right view of evolution.”"

*cringes at those quotes*

welcome to america, where fundamentalism in the classroom is widespread and the more sane christian groups put their fingers in their ears and go "Well it isn't me!"

Avatar image for wis3boi
#27 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -
@The-Apostle said:
@GreySeal9 said:

@The-Apostle said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

Um yes one would hope so, that's why these institutions are nominally called "schools"

Sorry, I couldn't come up with anything better at the time of my post. >_>

@foxhound_fox said:

@The-Apostle said:

So what if they teach religion? What do you think religious institutions are for? Learning about non-religious teachings?

>_>

"Taxpayer money"

That whole "separation of church and state" deal-y.

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

I don't think anybody's arguing that vouchers shouldn't be granted to religious schools, just that those schools should have to meet certain educational standards. Teaching science in the way described in the OP is pretty inappropriate.

I feel private schools should be allowed to teach what they want and still be able to receive vouchers. Why force them to teach what they don't believe?

because it's factually wrong and sending children the wrong message and out into the workforce with misinformation is a disservice to humanity. Especially in a world that relies so heavily on chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#28 Edited by LJS9502_basic (158759 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Taxpayer money should not have any connection with religious institutions.

Here in Canada, they can get away with that because there is no formal separation of Church and State, but in the US? Shameful.

*sigh* I don't think you understand what separation of church and state means.....

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#29 Posted by foxhound_fox (95866 posts) -

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Taxpayer money should not have any connection with religious institutions.

Here in Canada, they can get away with that because there is no formal separation of Church and State, but in the US? Shameful.

*sigh* I don't think you understand what separation of church and state means.....

I seem to understand it better than you. The government is not supposed to support or legislate in favour of one religion over others, and using taxpayer money to support Christian private schools is definitely supporting them.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
#30 Posted by LJS9502_basic (158759 posts) -

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@foxhound_fox said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

Yeah I did. And some private schools get some money from the government to subsidize the education...which would cost taxpayers more money if they had to educate those students in full.

Taxpayer money should not have any connection with religious institutions.

Here in Canada, they can get away with that because there is no formal separation of Church and State, but in the US? Shameful.

*sigh* I don't think you understand what separation of church and state means.....

I seem to understand it better than you. The government is not supposed to support or legislate in favour of one religion over others, and using taxpayer money to support Christian private schools is definitely supporting them.

And they aren't. Those schools mentioned above are not the only private schools that get subsidized. No religion is being favored over others. Christians support schools with tax money....they should get some benefit from that as well....and no...you don't seem to understand what the intent was.

Avatar image for JimB
#31 Posted by JimB (1261 posts) -

If the objection is about teaching science I have a problem. The public schools are teaching a topic that is based on computer models with no proven data on guesses and it is one of the largest hoaxes ever pulled on mankind. It is called global warming or now climate change once it was proven the planet was not warming but cooling. What is actually occurring is wealth transfer.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#32 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@The-Apostle said:
@GreySeal9 said:

@The-Apostle said:

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

I don't think anybody's arguing that vouchers shouldn't be granted to religious schools, just that those schools should have to meet certain educational standards. Teaching science in the way described in the OP is pretty inappropriate.

I feel private schools should be allowed to teach what they want and still be able to receive vouchers. Why force them to teach what they don't believe?

Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Avatar image for lostrib
#33 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Barbariser said:
@The-Apostle said:
@GreySeal9 said:

@The-Apostle said:

So? Vouchers also go to secular private schools. Providing them to secular schools but not religious ones wouldn't be fair. After all, children should be able to go where they want as long as they meet the school's requirements, even if they're poor.

I don't think anybody's arguing that vouchers shouldn't be granted to religious schools, just that those schools should have to meet certain educational standards. Teaching science in the way described in the OP is pretty inappropriate.

I feel private schools should be allowed to teach what they want and still be able to receive vouchers. Why force them to teach what they don't believe?

Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Because the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.

Avatar image for limpbizkit818
#34 Posted by limpbizkit818 (15044 posts) -

The teaching of creationism is indefensible.

It's a shame that this may give a bad name to religious schools, as the Catholic School is my area is top notch and regulatory out-performs local public schools on standardized exams.

Avatar image for lostrib
#35 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@limpbizkit818 said:

The teaching of creationism is indefensible.

It's a shame that this may give a bad name to religious schools, as the Catholic School is my area is top notch and regulatory out-performs local public schools on standardized exams.

Of course it's defensible

Avatar image for Barbariser
#36 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:
Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Because the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.

Governments assume responsibility for the spending habits of their beneficiaries, since the main point of giving benefits to people is to create a social good rather than to just hand you some resources to be used for whatever reason. That's why the government restricts what you can buy with food stamps and why you can't take these education vouchers and try to use them to help pay for a car.

The fact that parents in this case choose of where their kids go doesn't actually let their governments off the hook. The beneficiaries are taking public money and using it for socially harmful activities, and that blatantly clashes with the actual function and purpose of the vouchers.

Avatar image for lostrib
#37 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:
Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Because the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.

Governments assume responsibility for the spending habits of their beneficiaries, since the main point of giving benefits to people is to create a social good rather than to just hand you some resources to be used for whatever reason. That's why the government restricts what you can buy with food stamps and why you can't take these education vouchers and try to use them to help pay for a car.

The fact that parents in this case choose of where their kids go doesn't actually let their governments off the hook. The beneficiaries are taking public money and using it for socially harmful activities, and that blatantly clashes with the actual function and purpose of the vouchers.

Take it up with the supreme court

Avatar image for lamprey263
#38 Posted by lamprey263 (33349 posts) -

well, if religion isn't bad enough for education, read this...

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/03/26/aclu-tennessee-religious-freedom-law-would-turn-public-schools-into-sunday-schools/

...the law would make discrimination in school allowed if used under a religious pretext

also, the law would allow students in class to not be penalized on homework and tests for giving religious answers to questions

“The bill states ‘a student may express beliefs about religion in homework, artwork, and other written and oral assignments free from discrimination based on the religious content of their submissions... a student could merely write ‘God’ on a chemistry test as the answer to a question asking where water comes from."

hmm, if I were in school, I'd just write Flying Spaghetti Monster or Satan if I didn't know the answer to a question, hell you can get all As with this bullshit

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#39 Posted by comp_atkins (33801 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:
How do you feel about vouchers being used to go to private religious schools to promote a distrust of science?

Like the article notes not all schools that are religious push religious worldviews in areas like math and science. I went to a Catholic school fortunate to be run by Jesuits who didn't push theology in the classroom. But then again they didn't get voucher subsidies, and they're probably in the minority with being a religious school that didn't teach religion.

I guess what I find most disturbing is not that the money goes toward schools that teach religion, but that they're teaching religion in non-religious subjects, and it's a rather perverse religious worldview that distrusts science and crowning scientific discoveries.

How is the United States supposed to better itself with scientific innovation and the demands of a changing more competitive world when religious extremists are dragging us back in time? How are educators supposed to refine the curriculum to meet these needs when they're too exhausted trying to keep religion out of the class room and textbooks? How are we supposed to elect political leaders who can shape job and economic policies around science and technological advancements when the electorate is too fixated on whether a politician's religious principles meet their own?

I find it quite scary that more money will be going to institutions that promote religious extremists views, as an alternative to improving public education. It's already bad enough that half the electorate is made up of young earth creationists, that's probably not going to improve with growing religious extremism in education.

high five. i also went to a catholic school ( 12 years worth ) that NEVER injected religion into class outside of RELIGION CLASS. we had a whole class dedicated too indoctrinating us. we didn't need it in all the other ones as well.

Avatar image for perfect_blue
#40 Posted by Perfect_Blue (28711 posts) -

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:
Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Because the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.

Governments assume responsibility for the spending habits of their beneficiaries, since the main point of giving benefits to people is to create a social good rather than to just hand you some resources to be used for whatever reason. That's why the government restricts what you can buy with food stamps and why you can't take these education vouchers and try to use them to help pay for a car.

The fact that parents in this case choose of where their kids go doesn't actually let their governments off the hook. The beneficiaries are taking public money and using it for socially harmful activities, and that blatantly clashes with the actual function and purpose of the vouchers.

Take it up with the supreme court

Dat rebuttal

Avatar image for lostrib
#41 Posted by lostrib (49999 posts) -

@Aljosa23 said:

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:

@lostrib said:

@Barbariser said:
Look, everyone knows you're a huge fucking idiot but can you at least make a half-assed attempt at reading the OP or at least understand GreySeal's post? Why on earth should the government allow entities to receive public education funding if they're failing to actually educate or are teaching incorrect information?

If your institution is taking government money as payments then it shouldn't be allowed to actively lie or misinform students by feeding them bullshit like creationism, simple as that. If your private school wants to present stinking piles of biased crap as "science" go ahead, people with brains don't want to fund it using taxpayer dollars that are meant to be used for actual education.

Because the incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual aid recipients not the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits.

Governments assume responsibility for the spending habits of their beneficiaries, since the main point of giving benefits to people is to create a social good rather than to just hand you some resources to be used for whatever reason. That's why the government restricts what you can buy with food stamps and why you can't take these education vouchers and try to use them to help pay for a car.

The fact that parents in this case choose of where their kids go doesn't actually let their governments off the hook. The beneficiaries are taking public money and using it for socially harmful activities, and that blatantly clashes with the actual function and purpose of the vouchers.

Take it up with the supreme court

Dat rebuttal

What?

That was the supreme court's majority decision

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#42 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

the government has no role in education, their own effectiveness proves this.

Avatar image for chessmaster1989
#43 Edited by chessmaster1989 (30204 posts) -
@surrealnumber5 said:

the government has no role in education, their own effectiveness proves this.

Do you have empirical justification for this?

Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#44 Edited by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

not in any single one chart or graph that would be digestible by the political folk

Avatar image for wis3boi
#45 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

@lamprey263 said:
How do you feel about vouchers being used to go to private religious schools to promote a distrust of science?

Like the article notes not all schools that are religious push religious worldviews in areas like math and science. I went to a Catholic school fortunate to be run by Jesuits who didn't push theology in the classroom. But then again they didn't get voucher subsidies, and they're probably in the minority with being a religious school that didn't teach religion.

I guess what I find most disturbing is not that the money goes toward schools that teach religion, but that they're teaching religion in non-religious subjects, and it's a rather perverse religious worldview that distrusts science and crowning scientific discoveries.

How is the United States supposed to better itself with scientific innovation and the demands of a changing more competitive world when religious extremists are dragging us back in time? How are educators supposed to refine the curriculum to meet these needs when they're too exhausted trying to keep religion out of the class room and textbooks? How are we supposed to elect political leaders who can shape job and economic policies around science and technological advancements when the electorate is too fixated on whether a politician's religious principles meet their own?

I find it quite scary that more money will be going to institutions that promote religious extremists views, as an alternative to improving public education. It's already bad enough that half the electorate is made up of young earth creationists, that's probably not going to improve with growing religious extremism in education.

high five. i also went to a catholic school ( 12 years worth ) that NEVER injected religion into class outside of RELIGION CLASS. we had a whole class dedicated too indoctrinating us. we didn't need it in all the other ones as well.

The people in my hometown like to laughingly call catholic schools "atheist factories"

Avatar image for lamprey263
#46 Edited by lamprey263 (33349 posts) -

@comp_atkins said:

high five. i also went to a catholic school ( 12 years worth ) that NEVER injected religion into class outside of RELIGION CLASS. we had a whole class dedicated too indoctrinating us. we didn't need it in all the other ones as well.

we had religion classes in school but they didn't even teach religion, it was just "religion" by name only, hell one class a brother just taught us film history, and in another one we were basically taught life lessons like how to budget for job and income and expenses like rent, food, utilities, transportation, etc, and practical life stuff but nothing to do with religion, and in another we just did community service

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#47 Edited by comp_atkins (33801 posts) -

@wis3boi said:

@comp_atkins said:

@lamprey263 said:
How do you feel about vouchers being used to go to private religious schools to promote a distrust of science?

Like the article notes not all schools that are religious push religious worldviews in areas like math and science. I went to a Catholic school fortunate to be run by Jesuits who didn't push theology in the classroom. But then again they didn't get voucher subsidies, and they're probably in the minority with being a religious school that didn't teach religion.

I guess what I find most disturbing is not that the money goes toward schools that teach religion, but that they're teaching religion in non-religious subjects, and it's a rather perverse religious worldview that distrusts science and crowning scientific discoveries.

How is the United States supposed to better itself with scientific innovation and the demands of a changing more competitive world when religious extremists are dragging us back in time? How are educators supposed to refine the curriculum to meet these needs when they're too exhausted trying to keep religion out of the class room and textbooks? How are we supposed to elect political leaders who can shape job and economic policies around science and technological advancements when the electorate is too fixated on whether a politician's religious principles meet their own?

I find it quite scary that more money will be going to institutions that promote religious extremists views, as an alternative to improving public education. It's already bad enough that half the electorate is made up of young earth creationists, that's probably not going to improve with growing religious extremism in education.

high five. i also went to a catholic school ( 12 years worth ) that NEVER injected religion into class outside of RELIGION CLASS. we had a whole class dedicated too indoctrinating us. we didn't need it in all the other ones as well.

The people in my hometown like to laughingly call catholic schools "atheist factories"

well, yeah. there's an easy way to turn a kid off of religion. make them wear uncomfortable uniforms and force them to go to church every first friday

Avatar image for lamprey263
#48 Edited by lamprey263 (33349 posts) -
@comp_atkins said:

well, yeah. there's an easy way to turn a kid off of religion. make them wear uncomfortable uniforms and force them to go to church every first friday

we had a dress code not uniforms, long pants and a collared shirt could translate into cargo pants and a hawaiian shirt

and religious days were always half days, where we got out of school early, what's there to hate about that?

Avatar image for wis3boi
#49 Posted by wis3boi (32507 posts) -

@lamprey263 said:
@comp_atkins said:

well, yeah. there's an easy way to turn a kid off of religion. make them wear uncomfortable uniforms and force them to go to church every first friday

we had a dress code not uniforms, long pants and a collared shirt could translate into cargo pants and a hawaiian shirt

and religious days were always half days, where we got out of school early, what's there to hate about that?

the point being that a sealed off fundamentalist school/church shows only their point of view and nothing else, the catholic school separates reality and fantasy and the kids more often than not will pick the more logical conclusion

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
#50 Posted by -Sun_Tzu- (17384 posts) -

@surrealnumber5 said:

the government has no role in education, their own effectiveness proves this.

It's not government schools that are teaching pseudoscience