God expelled from school district
Last week, the ACLU won an injunction in Florida that officially removes prayer, God, and religious activity from the Santa Rosa County School District. U.S. District Court Judge Casey Rodgers made the ruling after school officials admitted to the religious activity. The ACLU, on behalf of two high school students, sued the district, Pace High School Principal Frank Lay, and former Superintendent John Rogers.
According to the Pensacola News Journal, the injunction states the Santa Rosa County School Board and its employees are prohibited from:
- Promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school-sponsored events.
- Planning, organizing, financing, promoting, or otherwise sponsoring religious baccalaureate services at all schools within the Santa Rosa School District, including at Pace High School.
- Holding school-sponsored events at religious venues when alternative venues are reasonably available.
- Permitting school officials to promote their personal religious beliefs and proselytize students in class or during school-sponsored events and activities.
- Otherwise unconstitutionally endorsing or coercing religion.
According to the Pensacola paper, the ACLU says the school district violated the First Amendment when it allowed elementary graduations and middle school Christmas concerts to be held at churches, when teachers and staff at Pace High School preached about “Judgment Day with the Lord,” and when teachers and staff offered Bible readings and biblical interpretations during student meetings.
This ruling might actually be a blessing in disguise for all of us. Protestants tend to forget about the religious persecution endured by Roman Catholic families attempting to put their children in America’s public schools in the 19th century. The parochial school movement was started, in part, to give the children of Catholic families a persecution-free place to learn. This was during an era where Catholics were seen as enemies of Protestants.
The type of Protestant today who might object to the Florida ruling would curiously also likely raise objections to the following: elementary schools holding graduations in Mosques; classroom instruction being interrupted to pray during Ramadan, the Muslim spiritual holiday; and teachers reading and interpreting passages from the Koran in student meetings.
My guess is that the same Protestants who might object to the Florida court ruling would also object to an elementary school principal reading the Buddhist “Daily Affirmation Prayer” over the school’s intercom system everyday before school begins. The prayer reads:
Entrusting in the Primal Vow of Buddha,
Calling out the Buddha-name,
I shall pass through the journey of life with strength and joy.Revering the Light of Buddha,
Reflecting upon my imperfect self,
I shall proceed to live a life of gratitude.Following the Teachings of Buddha,
Listening to the Right Path,
I shall share the True Dharma with all.Rejoicing in the compassion of Buddha,
Respecting and aiding all sentient beings,
I shall work towards the welfare of society and the world.
Since the Bible charges the church, not the public schools, with task for spreading the Good News, perhaps this injunction will help some Christians not to rely on the state to do what the Bible calls them to do (Matthew 28:18-20). Perhaps this injunction will help some Protestants understand that if you want “prayer in school,” in a secular and pluralistic society like the United States is today, you must be willing to accept the fact your neighborhood’s children also could be praying to Allah, Buddha, Sulevia, Sirona, Rosmerta, or Epona. Protestants can no longer assume that Christians will always in be in positions to determine which religious activity is allowed and which is not.
If you want your children to have an education that is uniquely tied to a Christian worldview in the classroom, then send them to a good Christian school or teach that to them yourselves (Deuteronomy 6:1-25). If you want your children’s non-Christian friends to learn about Christianity, love them well personally and bring them to church. If you want your son’s teammates, for example, to learn about Jesus, have them over to your house for breakfast once a week before school starts to hear about the Kingdom. This is the work of the church.
Some Protestants will see the ruling as scandalous while others will welcome it. In the end, this is yet more evidence of the fact that America is not a Christian nation.

















Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top78 Comments to “God expelled from school district”
Oh for the love o’…. Abolish government schools.
Report comment to moderator
For the most part I think it is good, for the reasons Anthony Bradley gives. It’s not like God will be absent from the schools (the post title notwithstanding) – there is no prohibition on individuals praying, and while some school administrations have mistakenly thought they had to prevent students from making mention of their faith, I’m pretty sure that courts have not supported such prohibitions.
I do have some concern about school board employees being prohibited from “Planning, organizing, financing, promoting, or otherwise sponsoring religious baccalaureate services at all schools within the Santa Rosa School District, including at Pace High School.” I take it this means that baccalaureate services may be held, just not planned, organized, etc. by employees of the school board. But employees are also citizens and parents – why should they not be allowed to help with such services as citizens and as parents, as long as it’s clear it is not sponsored by the school board?
Report comment to moderator
As much as Yeah thinks the schools should exist for the purpose of aiding the (Christian) religion, the ruling is entirely proper.
I’ve about given up on talking common sense into some of you here, but please read the Buddhist prayer that Anthony quotes. If you insist that the schools have to be open to religion, then you have opened the door for any and all religion.
If you don’t want school-sanctioned pagan, Muslim, Biddhist or Shinto observances, don’t demand school-sanctioned Christian ones.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, SteveG, don’t give up on us yet! We *neeeed* you!
Government should have no involvement in schools. Whether certain prayers are sanctioned therein should be up to privately funded entities. This whole controversy (and the myriad like it) should be moot.
Report comment to moderator
It wouldn’t be a controversy if people would stop demanding that their narrow sectarian views should be part of the public school environment.
Report comment to moderator
And of course if there were only private schools, not public, no one of low or even middle income would be able to gain an education. That’s probably fine with you.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony Bradley wrote: The type of Protestant today who might object to the Florida ruling would curiously also likely raise objections to the following: elementary schools holding graduations in Mosques; classroom instruction being interrupted to pray during Ramadan, the Muslim spiritual holiday; and teachers reading and interpreting passages from the Koran in student meetings.
My guess is that the same Protestants who might object to the Florida court ruling would also object to an elementary school principal reading the Buddhist “Daily Affirmation Prayer” over the school’s intercom system everyday before school begins.
He is exactly right.
Report comment to moderator
no one of low or even middle income would be able to gain an education.
Amazing how many middle-class families I know that use private schools, even with multiple kids–it’s a matter of priority. Scholarships are available at many private schools. Plus, those families do it while still paying for the public schools they’re not using.
Home-schooling is an even cheaper option and can be shared among families to allow for shift work, etc.
Report comment to moderator
I support the ruling, and applaud Bradley for supporting it as well. Especially since that view can’t be a popular one with his employer.
Report comment to moderator
Post number six is really quite offensive inasmuch as it contains assumptions only in the head of the poster and not in the person it was aimed at. This is typical, however, of leftys who can’t take the time to deviate from their party line and think for themselves. They assume they know what other people think because they’ve been told that’s the way other people think, and they will never question what the party line.
The school in question went way too far for a public school and should have known better. It isn’t even worth appealing.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Sectarian views are already a part of the public school environment. Didn’t you know that? What, you think “education” is philosophically neutral?
There aren’t too many responsibilities that are more parental than educating a child. But you want near-indiscriminate taxation to support an educational philosophy largely dictated by government bureaucrats. Nice one. It shows how absurd the current mentality is regarding public schooling when it’s assumed that sending kids to government schools for 35 hours a week is just what ya’ do. Imagine the government dictating what nutrients parents ought to provide their children, and charging everyone to provide those nutrients. Come to think of it, that would probably be fine with you.
And what a shallow view of things to think that eliminating government schooling would make education prohibitively expensive, like these things happen in a vacuum.
Report comment to moderator
Someone said: They assume they know what other people think because they’ve been told that’s the way other people think, and they will never question what the party line.
Wow, that’s ironic, in a post criticizing me for the exact same thing.
But the point I made is a sound one. Yeah’s solution for requiring public schools to be free of religious favortism (not that there’s any solution needed) is to just do away with them and make all schools private.
That would greatly affect the ability of poorer people to send their children to school at all.
1. It costs more to educate if the parents bear the entire cost rather than having it shared among a larger pool through property taxes.
2. It costs more to pay for a private profit-making school than a public school that needs only enough money to meet expenses.
3. The scholarships Cameron mentions won’t be available if there are suddenly several thousand children needing them who did not before.
Yeah is more worried about forcing prayers and religious observance into the schools than in actually providing education; my observation that he must then not mind that the action he proposes would deprive a lot of children of the opportunity for an education at all is a logical deduction from the above clues.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Sectarian views are already a part of the public school environment. Didn’t you know that? What, you think “education” is philosophically neutral?
Public education when done correctly is indeed neutral. A lot of Christians seem to think that if public schools do not include direct acknowledgements of God that God is somehow absent.
Is your god really so weak?
Answer this question: If you sent your children to a public school where most of the students were Muslim, and they had Muslim prayers and several times a day, would you approve of that? After all, your child’s in the minority, why shouldn’t the majority religion prevail? Would you think it was fair that your only other choice was to spend several thousand dollars a year on a private school?
Wouldn’t the better solution just be to keep school free of religious preference, so your Christian kids and their Muslim kids and the family down the street’s Shintoist kids could all learn algebra without having to fight over something so entirely unrelated to the curriculum?
Report comment to moderator
Bradley’s assertion is a Red Herring,
“Since the Bible charges the church, not the public schools, with task for spreading the Good News, perhaps this injunction will help some Christians not to rely on the state to do what the Bible calls them to do.”
There is not a person alive in America who wants the state to do what the Bible calls them to do. To suggest that Christians want the “state” to preach Christianity is utter nonsense.
What Christians want is the same freedom for all people of faith to express their opinions openly and freely that atheists have! This issue is not really about religion it is about freedom of speech. Along with that comes the right to criticize those religions.
And the assertion that “public school” is somehow the “state” and that teachers are vicarious Congressmen in the phrase “Congress shall make no law…” is ludicrous.
The First Amendment is about MORE SPEECH. Modern liberals (which are the antithesis of classical liberals) fight for LESS SPEECH, specifically any speech they disagree with.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah’s solution for requiring public schools to be free of religious favortism (not that there’s any solution needed) is to just do away with them and make all schools private.
Being rid of public enforcement of religious belief, including the current government-mandated agnosticism, is merely a benign side-effect of abolishing government schools. The fact is, compulsive taxation for such a fundamentally parental responsibility is unjust, and should be opposed on those grounds. Your concerns about costs may tug at hearts, but they don’t make an unjust idea into a good one.
But regarding costs, various factors mitigate against your notion that swaths of people would be unable to afford paying for education, despite your naïve conception of economics.
• When people aren’t forced to pay property taxes, they get to keep and use that money for other things, like, say, their children’s education.
• Without a government school on every corner, a demand for private alternatives creates far more incentive to provide alternatives than currently exists. There would be more private schools (do I have to explain this?) and more competition among them. Some would cost more, others less, and parents could choose among what they could afford. You picture private schools as ivy league prep academies where students wear ties and plaid skirts. There are all kinds of qualified teachers out here who could take on 20 or 30 students a week in a home or church or wherever for a relatively small cost.
• For families unable to afford lower-cost schooling, communities and churches would almost invariably fill the breach, as they so often do in such circumstances, and would do more often without the government nanny.
• Homeschooling is a very inexpensive alternative, and would be more so without the added cost of paying for the education of other people’s kids.
• Regardless, the negatives of doing away with government schools pale in comparison to those that already exist with their existence.
And now for what may be the most ill-informed, thoughtless comment I’ve seen on these boards:
So in addition to not realizing there’s such a thing as a philosophy of education, you also think there’s no such thing as a philosophy of facts, as if there’s no interpretation of fact in the learning process. You think agnosticism is neutral. There most certainly and clearly is a philosophy behind the teaching in public schools. There’s philosophy behind the teaching of anything. Sometimes the subject matter is trivial, like skiing or dance instruction, but we’re talking about history, biology, math, etc, being taught to impressionable children. To excise God from those subjects is a direct violation of Scriptural mandate.
You must like saying “Is your god really so weak?” That’s the only reason I can see for your typing that irrelevant comment. Same with your question about my kids being in a Muslim school.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: What Christians want is the same freedom for all people of faith to express their opinions openly and freely that atheists have! This issue is not really about religion it is about freedom of speech. Along with that comes the right to criticize those religions.
Oh puh-leeze! The minute you start whining about needing SCHOOL-ORGANIZED prayers, services, observances, etc., you go well past the boundaries of freedom.
NOBODY is trying to take away your right to express your opinions openly and freely. And atheists are no more entitled to spread their beliefs in public school than you are.
I’m sorry, but this line of argument is truly idiotic. Christianity is by far the majority religion in America. You can’t go three blocks in any city without encountering a church of one denomination or another. The presidential inauguration just featured overtly Christian prayers and the oath ended with “so help me, God,” as oaths always do.
Christianity is pervasive in this country. It’s on the TV and the radio, in the bookstores and music collections. It’s in our history and in our future and is not suppressed in any way at all.
But let a court rule that “Promoting, advancing, aiding, facilitating, endorsing, or causing religious prayers or devotionals during school-sponsored events” should not be allowed, and you’re here shrieking about how your freedom of religion is being infringed.
You sound like a four-year-old throwing a tanturm. You’re sitting amidst a pile of toys bawling your eyes out because Dad said you can’t have another one right now.
Seriously, grow up.
Report comment to moderator
“1. It costs more to educate if the parents bear the entire cost rather than having it shared among a larger pool through property taxes.
2. It costs more to pay for a private profit-making school than a public school that needs only enough money to meet expenses.
3. The scholarships Cameron mentions won’t be available if there are suddenly several thousand children needing them who did not before.”
Statistics please?
Public school costs just as much if not more per child than private does I believe. Considering that even Obama says our education system is failing too many kids, and that this failing is at a high cost per child, I think its fair to at least begin asking the question of whether or not a public school system has a point.
Taking out public schools, handing them over to local private institutions, might work wonders for a broken system. The poor and lower income classes would not be left out as you guess at Steve. In fact the cost per child per results would go down, not up.
I’m all for kids having free access to learning to read and write and do arithmetic, but college, upper level education is not a consitutional right. It’s a priveledge.
The
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: You think agnosticism is neutral.
No, I think that teaching inherently a-religious subjects without any reference at all to religion is neutral.
There is no Christian algebra vs. agnostic algebra. Hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water whether you’re Jewish or wiccan. King George V sought to tax the American colonies while denying them representation whether you’re Buddhist or humanist.
Why do you insist on injecting religion into places it has no need to be? Schools are for children of any religion or none to learn about things that are true regardless of your religion.
The only places where there might even be a hint of a religious concern might come in the teaching of evolution, sexuality and possibly some literature. So be it. Those are debates that older students can have, and they’re debates that parents can have with school authorities. None of it justifies imposing Christian prayer on students who are not all Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: You must like saying “Is your god really so weak?” That’s the only reason I can see for your typing that irrelevant comment. Same with your question about my kids being in a Muslim school.
Both comments are entirely relevant. I think you know that if your child were in a public school where Muslim prayers were offered — in the America you think you want to live in where religion permeates the schools — you would not be particularly agreeable. But you think it’s just fine to make Muslim students sit quietly for Christian prayers.
And if your God needs to be expressly endorsed in schools in order for all to be right with your world, then perhaps your God is weak. Otherwise the idea of having a few hours a day for non-religious education wouldn’t feel so threatening to you.
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I’m all for kids having free access to learning to read and write and do arithmetic, but college, upper level education is not a consitutional right. It’s a priveledge/
Well we’re only talking about public schools here. K-12, not college.
Report comment to moderator
“It’s in our history and in our future and is not suppressed in any way at all.”
That’s not true. I’ve seen many television programs where the Christians are mocked simply because of their beliefs, and it is usually by liberals who look down their noses at the Christian characters.
As usual, the leftys cannot and will not respond to the real issue which Xion stated plainly: “The First Amendment is about MORE SPEECH. Modern liberals (which are the antithesis of classical liberals) fight for LESS SPEECH, specifically any speech they disagree with.”
Report comment to moderator
No, I think that teaching inherently a-religious subjects without any reference at all to religion is neutral.
There is no Christian algebra vs. agnostic algebra.
-snip-
Why do you insist on injecting religion into places it has no need to be?
And there we have it: Education According to SteveG.
With all due respect, SteveG, and without addressing your ridiculously naïve assumption about the neutrality of facts, parents should decide how much or little religion to include in subjects like history and algebra. For Christians, it’s an entirely inadequate and incomplete education if it doesn’t explicitly reference God as back of each. Not your decision, pal.
And how have I not been clear on this? I oppose public school. I’m not advocating Christian prayer in public school any more than I’m advocating teaching Creation there. I reject the whole crap sandwich. Why do you keep talking like I want to garnish it?
Report comment to moderator
It isn’t a question of whether God “needs to be expressly endorsed in schools.” God has no such “need.” It is a question of whether the students wish to express their love for God. As usual, the lefties miss the point and want to deny people their freedoms. This must be what SteveG means when he says to Xion “…you go well past the boundaries of freedom.” He wants to keep freedom in a small little box which he defines.
Report comment to moderator
#16 SteveG “Oh puh-leeze! The minute you start whining about needing SCHOOL-ORGANIZED prayers, services, observances, etc., you go well past the boundaries of freedom.
When have I ever said that? Once again that is a complete mischaracterization. Watch the movie Expelled and let me know what you think. It is about a different subject, but the censorship is equally ominous and harsh.
Report comment to moderator
Good point NJL #23. The ACLU is continuously shrinking the boundaries of freedom. While the 1st Amendment was meant to produce MORE SPEECH, the ACLU (and SteveG apparently) argue incessantly for LESS SPEECH. They turn the law on its head.
Report comment to moderator
Private schools are rarely profit-making, in my experience. They use far less per pupil, though, so the burden would not be as SteveG describes. While I can’t find exact numbers, simply searching “profit, private school” turns up very few schools that are both, shy of the college level, where diploma mills flourish.
Report comment to moderator
If the issue were about students expressing their beliefs it wouldn’t be an issue.
OK, I leave it here. There’s just no communication to be had on this subject. You all enjoy your totally unwarranted persecution complex.
Report comment to moderator
Well, there goes our voice of reason.
Report comment to moderator
That’s not true. I’ve seen many television programs where the Christians are mocked simply because of their beliefs, and it is usually by liberals who look down their noses at the Christian characters.
Which infringes your right to believe and worship how, exactly?
It’s about “more speech” that you agree with, eh? And not so much any differing points of view.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Yeah that in a first best world, we should separate school & state and abolish public schools. The problem is, I don’t see us getting to that first best world anytime soon.
Anti-statist political libertarianism (what I am) is, in my opinion, the only true “classically liberal” or “neutral” political system.
We often hear that “government can’t promote morality,” to which the other side correctly counters all law is based on some kind of moral idea. Fine, but in a pluralistic nation and world where we disagree on “the good,” it is quite problematic for government to attempt to legislate any kind of comprehensive moral worldview system. Libertarianism, because it believes in the least amount of government, necessarily believes in the least amount of imposition of a moral system with which an individual might disagree.
Although I’d like to meet the person who disagrees that it’s wrong to kill, steal, defraud or involuntarily harm other people (because that’s all we libertarians believe government should be in the business of dealing with).
Report comment to moderator
For those who insist that private schools, homeschooling etc can take the place of public education, miss some of the reasons public education was established and made mandatory. Public education fulfills an economic need for a literate workforce. And it serves as a means of social order not only by promoting citizenship and responsibility but by simply ensuring 14 year olds are not wandering the streets all day and night. The last part is crucial. Many of you assume parents want to educate their children and will discipline their children when needed when common sense and prior experience points to a different conclusion. Shut down public education and crime rates will rise and social disorder will become common. There are pragmatic reasons for public education.
On the issue at hand, the ceremonial use of religion or the use of religious houses of worship never bothered me nor is it an issue in most Cdn schools. A little common sense with a little less legalism avoids problems.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Nah. That stuff won’t happen, nor would it be any worse than it is right now. And it’s not great right now; you could check the papers.
Jon Rowe,
I agree we’re not close to the goal, but Christians could give a big nudge that way if they would disabuse themselves of the notion that public schooling is just a given. I know you see it from a different angle, but the idea of government schooling is antithetical to Scripture, and should be rejected by the Christian on that basis alone.
Report comment to moderator
I agree we’re not close to the goal, but Christians could give a big nudge that way if they would disabuse themselves of the notion that public schooling is just a given. I know you see it from a different angle, but the idea of government schooling is antithetical to Scripture, and should be rejected by the Christian on that basis alone.
If we lived in a theocracy that might actually be relevant.
However, public schooling is important, and even most Christians have no problem with it. While I’m no longer surprised that you think making it harder for children to get an education would be a good thing, your arguments to justify it hold no water.
Report comment to moderator
If we lived in a theocracy that might actually be relevant.
OOOOOOOohhhhhhh….In creeps the specter of theocracy. Scaaarrrryyyyy.
And relevant to what?
And what is it with you always impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree? You may think it’s fun to slur your conversational opponents, but I think these conversations are more interesting when sticking to the merits. Eh, each to his own.
Report comment to moderator
#6 Steve G
“And of course if there were only private schools, not public, no one of low or even middle income would be able to gain an education. “
There is an easy answer for both sides. Vouchers!
Report comment to moderator
Hi Bob Buckles,
Vouchers are problematic, as well. Frank in Spokane pointed out a few pitfalls over in this thread, and also provided some worthwhile links addressing the subject.
Report comment to moderator
There is nothing wrong with the notion of government schools for the education of the populace. However, they should be very cost effective and give you a basic government education, teaching you the three R’s and to love your country and how to be a good citizen. If you want more than that, then you should have the ability to opt-out and go private without having to pay twice.
As it is now, government schools are sprawling institutions with mega sports complexes and beautiful labs and shiny new buses. They cost three times what private schools provide with half the education. And that education is heavy on the latest politically correct pablum contrary to common sense and the views of many parents. It does not prepare the kids to compete in the world.
Obama’s failed Chicago experiment eliminated most teaching standards and gave the kids a full diet of racist multicultural nonsense. And now the new education secretary comes from that background. Guess what’s next …
Report comment to moderator
I realize that the writers here believe they can do without common schools. However, that perspective only reinforces the perception that Evangelical Christians are odd and not really a partner to be trusted with leadership in society.
Xion complains about shiny new labs… this leaves me scratching my head. Don’t we want our kids to be prepared?
The public policy questions of education are diverse, the funding questions especially complex. Costs vary by school (elementary v high school), district, and certainly by social class. One size solutions to not work.
The questions of how to accommodate varieties of belief in our schools has vexed folks from the days of Horace Mann. The solution then as now, was to go for the general subjects that every one could agree on and leave off the sectarian (political or religious) aspects. So public schools are bland. That blandness gives them the freedom to educate all, to extend the promise to all.
Frankly, the well-being of our society, the types of opportunity we have, the types of jobs, and so forth all depend on the education of our youth. The questions of justice also intrude: family-centered education, the pattern of elites from time immemorial, shut out the physically, the economically, the racially disadvantaged.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: OOOOOOOohhhhhhh….In creeps the specter of theocracy. Scaaarrrryyyyy.
And relevant to what?
You misunderstand me. As usual.
I do not say theocracy to be scary. I say it to note that we do NOT live in one, and therefore, Biblical arguments have no weight in matters of civil government. The government’s supposed to work for the good of all people, not just enforce your opinions.
And what is it with you always impugning the motives of those with whom you disagree? You may think it’s fun to slur your conversational opponents, but I think these conversations are more interesting when sticking to the merits. Eh, each to his own.
What slur? The merit of your argument is that there should be no publicly-funded education, based on your reading of the Bible. My argument is that there should be publicly-funded education for the good of the society at large, based on the need for everyone to have, at a minimum, a high-school education.
Report comment to moderator
The question of whether there ought to be publicly funded schools revolves around the base intelligence of a men and women. Advocates claim people simply do not have the intelligence to teach themselves. Thousands of years of civilization point and laugh at them.
The truth is that innate stupidity is incredibly rare. It must be produced. From all the children in our nation it is well known that victims of public education are the least educated. (If in doubt ask someone else to produce the statistics. You know they’re out there.) Rather than what one might think, this is probably worse than nothing. There is little point in a student learning to read when the love of reading is systematically crushed out of the poor kid.
The American school system is making things worse. Private school students always perform better by any standard. Maybe rich people are just more intelligent. One master race coming right up! Homeschoolers and the “unschoolers” not only fill out tests better, they can survive in life. All of this without thirteen years of expert intervention, modern facilities, and enough money to get us out of national debt. (Just kidding about the last one. That would take a miracle.)
Child labor laws were summoned as a reaction to excessive use of children in harsh environments. Adults felt sorry for children crammed into inhumane quarters and the like. Now the children are in school, which is mental rather than physical degradation.
The impersonal processes principals, teachers, and the federals bring to bear encourage conformity in some respects and rebelliousness toward family, community, and religion. No matter how hard a student works, or how much one accomplishes, he will be forced into another set of people (or class) of the ‘gifted’. They will then be forced into conforming into a pattern while fooled by a guise of external individuality. Ever hear of African American Culture? Let me tell you that a black person will be no different than a white because of his skin. That is an illusion. We are individuals internally, not because of differing appearances. Look at the world around you. People are always classified by externals. Always.
Child labor laws must be eased up. They inhibit children from learing real skills, similarly to unnacountable welfare handouts.
Reading is an essential skill because it allows a man to teach himself. Knowledge is free. Teachers are misnamed. One can only assist; it is impossible to truly teach another. All learning is self directed. Most importantly a person is exposed to the wide world of ideas, and may learn to think.
I’m glad you’ve read my kooky beliefs. Do you truly believe people are so stupid as to need years of instruction to function? Do you truly believe public school really helps much? If they were gone would it be all that bad?
Report comment to moderator
Almost any man or woman can learn to do almost any job well in less than a year. If he keeps doing it he’ll get better. Did you know that in the world wars the German forces consistently killed about thirty percent more than they lost?
Superior equipment? Not much. Troop training matched throughout. American, English, and French officers all underwent rigorous testing and psychological analysis. German officers underwent a kind of apprenticeship with a deep level of personal interaction between superior and subordinate. They valued traits such as creativity and initiative. (If you went to public school look those words up in a dictionary. If it was a particularly systematic school a dictionary is a book that defines the meanings of words. Any word at all, isn’t that crazy?)
Real life is far superior to canned schooling.
Report comment to moderator
Provost: Advocates claim people simply do not have the intelligence to teach themselves. Thousands of years of civilization point and laugh at them.
I don’t agree with the premise that intelligence has anything to do with it. Through most of those thousands of years of civilization, most ordinary people have been illiterate. They can learn to do their jobs, but the elites have held power because only they had the education to do more than just work day to day.
Reading is a necessary basic skill to be sure, but there is much merit in having a systematic curricula that provides information gradually, introducing advanced concepts when the students have mastered the basics. There is also a value in having teachers who know what the students don’t yet know, to guide them to discovering it, or to explain concepts that are not clear from the books. And there is a value in the social aspect of learning to cooperate and get along with a lot of other people from differing backgrounds.
It’s not that people can’t educate themselves. It’s that a good educational program can do a much better job of it.
Report comment to moderator
Oh Steve, how daft.
You misunderstand me. As usual.
No, you repeatedly misread me when you perceived I advocated Christian prayer in public schools. I was pretty clear about that not being the case.
Take a moment and re-read the thread to see how we got here.
I said Christians should oppose government schools on Biblical grounds, and you say that notion would only be relevant if we lived in a theocracy. You’re wrong…and the theocracy reference is also irrelevant.
First off, Christians can oppose government schooling on Biblical grounds without simultaneously advocating a theocracy (how ludicrous to think that). Secondly, Christians have every right to oppose govt school on those grounds, and make public arguments on that basis. There is no prohibition anywhere against “Biblical arguments [having] weight in matters of civil government” (how misinformed).
But it’s convenient that you propose to win arguments so effortlessly. On your (hilarious) logic, you need only assert that those with whom you disagree are basing their case on the Bible, and case closed. Besides, Jon Rowe demonstrates opposition to public schooling isn’t limited only to Christians.
You say,
Please demonstrate the relevance of this statement, and do so without it having equal force against anything you argue.
What slur[s]? In #6, you suggested it was fine with me that low income kids remain uneducated. In #19, you claimed I think it’s fine to make Muslims sit under Christian prayer (this was more of your careless misreading than a slur, but it was certainly meant to insult my goodwill). In that same post, you argued that I felt threatened by infringement of Christians’ rights in the schools (again, this stems from your misreading, but whether I feel “threatened” isn’t relevant to anything). And in #33 you said I think it’s a good thing to make it harder for children to get an education. This is just poor argumentation, SteveG, not to mention I addressed a lot of that stuff substantively (if briefly) earlier in the thread, without any significant counter-response from you.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
“the elites have held power because only they had the education to do more than just work day to day”
“there is much merit in having a systematic curricula that provides information gradually, introducing advanced concepts when the students have mastered the basics”
The elites hold power on authoritarian vanity. There is always a claim of expertise. Kings have claimed a divine right, communists their ‘from each according to his ablity’, and school teachers their credentials. The standard credential program is mostly liberal propaganda with a dose of psychological management technique. The products of that process ought to be called commisars. Naturally, it makes no allowance for people who can already teach well.
Reading is a process of thought because it introduces new ideas. It questions the notion of the sacred expert that is at the heart of all tyranny. Notice that all our senators knew each other in college?
A systematic curricula is unnecessary because children love to learn. A systematic curricula produces systematic children. The american system certainly does not comprise a quality education, or a positive contribution to humanity. Might as well abolish it.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: OK, you do make some fair points here. Let me respond.
I said Christians should oppose government schools on Biblical grounds, and you say that notion would only be relevant if we lived in a theocracy. You’re wrong…and the theocracy reference is also irrelevant.
First off, Christians can oppose government schooling on Biblical grounds without simultaneously advocating a theocracy (how ludicrous to think that). Secondly, Christians have every right to oppose govt school on those grounds, and make public arguments on that basis. There is no prohibition anywhere against “Biblical arguments [having] weight in matters of civil government” (how misinformed).
Granted, anyone has a right to express their opinion about what should be the law, on any grounds. However, our civil government is supposed to exist for the good of all citizens. If some percentage of the population advocates eliminating public education on the basis of his interpretation of the Bible (I have never before heard the Bible cited as the source of an anti-public school argument), that should have no sway over those who do not hold that view.
Civil laws properly stem from non-religious arguments. All of us have to live under them, so they should not derive from religious beliefs that pertain to only some of us. (And this is why we need courts and “activist” judges.)
I did not say — for the third time — that you are advocating a theocracy or that we have a theocracy. I said that only in a theocracy would it be proper to develop laws based solely on religious beliefs.
What slur[s]? In #6, you suggested it was fine with me that low income kids remain uneducated. In #19, you claimed I think it’s fine to make Muslims sit under Christian prayer (this was more of your careless misreading than a slur, but it was certainly meant to insult my goodwill).
OK, perhaps fair. So let me ask: Given that we do have public schools, whether or not we should, what is your opinion about the degree to which officially-sponsored religious expression should be part of the schools?
I did assume, I admit, that you probably think school-sponsored Christian expression is commendable, and probably do not similarly approve of school-sponsored expression of other religions. Many of your fellow Christians do, and since you reacted so strongly in #1 to news of a public school being told it could not do what it had been doing, I assumed you approved of the school’s actions.
I will gladly stand corrected if I am mistaken about that. Am I?
In that same post, you argued that I felt threatened by infringement of Christians’ rights in the schools (again, this stems from your misreading, but whether I feel “threatened” isn’t relevant to anything). And in #33 you said I think it’s a good thing to make it harder for children to get an education. This is just poor argumentation, SteveG, not to mention I addressed a lot of that stuff substantively (if briefly) earlier in the thread, without any significant counter-response from you.
I do think that many people depend on the public schools to educate their children. They would not be able to afford private school tuition, and the financial aid that is currently available is possible largely because there’s a relatively small number of people asking for it. If there suddenly were no public education, I do think many children just would never get educated, at least not past a basic level.
I’m no expert on that however, and I may well be wrong. But it does seem to defy common sense. And while one person suggested that the savings in property tax would cover the cost, I think that’s true only if you have just one child to educate and the tuition costs are relatively low. For most people in most taxing districts, you couldn’t send two kids to a private school on what you’d save.
Report comment to moderator
I just spent about $1000 for next year’s curriculum (science, math, language arts, and history/civics) for 4 children.
We’ll spend a bit more to get another computer for one of the kids to work on, and may invest in some other elective-type materials.
On the high side, it will cost $500/child to homeschool the older kids. (We already have what we need for the youngest to start.)
To put these same 4 children in public school will cost the country, estimating at $6000/child, a grand total of $24,000 as opposed to our $2000.
And 100% of my school-aged kids read well, are on or above grade level in math, and the older ones can dissect an argument (critical thinking).
Public schools may be helpful for some children whose parents are in a crisis situation, or are unmotivated or uneducated themselves.
For the general public, though, this default thinking that public schools are a boon to the society is just an expensive hoax.
When the middle class hands their kids over unthinkingly to a gov’t school, JUST BECAUSE IT”S THERE, the elites have won. They WILL indoctrinate the next generation.
Report comment to moderator
God created government to keep the peace – not to educate. Abolish public schools.
Report comment to moderator
…America is not a Christian nation.
Praise the Lord for that!
“#46″ For the general public, though, this default thinking that public schools are a boon to the society is just an expensive hoax.
No it’s not – it ensures that most of our society won’t be taught the sectarian nonsense that you teach your kids – i.e., that the world was created instantaneously just a few thousand years ago – that’s what happens when unqualified parents arrogantly take it upon themselves to indoctrinate (not really educate) their children for the sake of cloning themselves!
Thank “God” for public secular education
Report comment to moderator
Public schools ensure that most kids will be taught the nonsense that life evolved by chance, by an accumulation of mistakes. That’s what happens when government arrogantly takes it upon itself to indoctrinate other people’s children for the sake of eliminating ideological diversity.
There, fixed.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Matt!
Spinoza, you don’t even know me. I most certainly am qualified to teach my own children.
I guess you think that YOU, or “education experts”, ought to decide who is and who is not entitled to teach. You sound as though you’d like the gov’t to be a gatekeeper, screening those who would teach to be sure only secularists have access to children.
Must protect those little ones from their own parents!! And public schools keep them away from home, and away from the influence of nutty parents like me.
Obama supports taking little ones out of their homes even younger, and wants to fund longer school days, too. All for the good of the children, you understand. Don’t worry about the poor results the schools are getting. Give the failing system more money, and more time, and I’m SURE the results will improve.
Yeah, I understand!
Report comment to moderator
#49 was parody – I’m not actually opposed to public schools, or to evolution, as the dominant theory among scientists, being the main theory taught in public schools.
Bradley wrote, The type of Protestant today who might object to the Florida ruling would curiously also likely raise objections to the following: elementary schools holding graduations in Mosques; classroom instruction being interrupted to pray during Ramadan, the Muslim spiritual holiday; and teachers reading and interpreting passages from the Koran in student meetings.
My guess is that the same Protestants who might object to the Florida court ruling would also object to an elementary school principal reading the Buddhist “Daily Affirmation Prayer” over the school’s intercom system everyday before school begins.
Good point. But Spinoza’s attitude is worse. The type of Protestants mentioned by Bradley wouldn’t oppose private Buddhist schools, or Muslims homeschooling. But Spinoza would force everyone to be taught his ideology; no room for Christian private and homeschools.
Report comment to moderator
Anthony is to be commended for this entirely sensible article! He continues to impress me.
Comparing private schools with public schools is completely unfair.
When private schools have to take all-comers, without regard to educational level, educational ability, income, race, religion or disability, as public schools are required to do, then we can make a comparison on success and the cost of educating them. Also most private schools pay their teachers a lot less than their counterparts in public schools.
Ever since conservative Christians lost their preferential status in public schools they’ve been working to destroy it. They would gladly see it shut down and tens of millions of children dumped into the streets with no place to go to school.
It’s wonderful that folks like Momof5 are wealthy enough to be able to stay at home and educate their own children. But the vast majority of American families are not wealthy enough to live on only one person bringing home the bacon. Both parents have to work just to keep food on the table, etc.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: All civil laws are based on some kind of belief, and it’s irrelevant whether that belief is religious or secular. A secular argument is not more right because it is secular. You might not base your views on the Bible, but that doesn’t mean that a Bible-based argument is wrong.
For example, a Christian might believe that parents should be more involved in their children’s education than a government system allows. He might also believe that government is violating its proper role by getting involved in education; which if true would mean that government cannot do it as well as private entities. He might base that view on the Bible. But that does not make his opinion less right or legitimate than a view based on something else.
For myself, I mostly agree with what Xion wrote in #37: There is nothing wrong with the notion of government schools for the education of the populace. However, they should be very cost effective and give you a basic government education, teaching you the three R’s and to love your country and how to be a good citizen. If you want more than that, then you should have the ability to opt-out and go private without having to pay twice.
However, I would limit school choice to students from low-income families in the worst school districts.
Report comment to moderator
Ever since conservative Christians lost their preferential status in public schools they’ve been working to destroy it. They would gladly see it shut down and tens of millions of children dumped into the streets with no place to go to school.
That paragraph alone tells me that I don’t have to take seriously anything else that is said in that post.
Report comment to moderator
Hi SteveG, I appreciate the graciousness of your reply, and your continuing to take time to interact.
I’m just responding on the fly, so my response may not be wholistic (I know that’s not a word, but whatever. I don’t have time to proofread, so sorry for typos or formatting confusion.
If some percentage of the population advocates eliminating public education on the basis of his interpretation of the Bible (I have never before heard the Bible cited as the source of an anti-public school argument), that should have no sway over those who do not hold that view.
Regarding Scripture contra govt school (and this will be oh-so-skeletal; I recognize that this wouldn’t be persuasive to anyone without fleshing it out): Two main points taken from Scripture: (A) Educating children falls outside governmental purview and (B) The State is inadequately equipped to fulfill what is a parental responsibility.
And you’re not alone in having never heard the Bible cited in this regard. A lot of Christians, also, don’t realize that God has weighed in on these things.
Civil laws properly stem from non-religious arguments. All of us have to live under them, so they should not derive from religious beliefs that pertain to only some of us.
Civil laws may stem from any kind of argument; when religious ones are excluded, it is solely on an arbitrary basis. Any law that exists has behind it a certain philosophy (or a mélange of philosophies). They don’t come to us wrapped in bows. I would argue that any non-Biblical basis for a law is one that is, at bottom, hopelessly arbitrary—which describes much of the prevailing philosophy of government, but that’s another post. The laws that “all of us have to live under” are whatever the most powerful person or persons have persuaded the necessary person or persons to enact. Clearly, some laws do not enjoy the support of the majority.
I did not say — for the third time — that you are advocating a theocracy…
No, no, SteveG. Don’t go razzin’ me for not hearing you right. You brought up the theocracy thing, which turned out to be irrelevant to anything anybody said. Any misunderstanding here is not on me.
So let me ask: Given that we do have public schools, whether or not we should, what is your opinion about the degree to which officially-sponsored religious expression should be part of the schools?
We’re back to the crap sandwich. I don’t want to eat it, no matter how much mayo you put on there. Do you have a wife or girlfriend you’re deeply committed to? What if I asked you who you would like as a mate in the event your girlfriend died in a car crash? It’s a fruitless question.
I assumed you approved of the school’s actions.
Same sandwich, but I’ll throw in a bone. Public schools (which shouldn’t exist) are ill-equipped to advocate religiously. Christian parents who turn their kids over State-run schools only get what they’re asking for. I should note that I do not begrudge some Christian parents who, due to circumstances, must place their children in public schools. Their goal should be to get them out as soon as their situation allows.
You mention the cost of school if we were to do away with public funding of them. I was the one who said the savings in property taxes could defray the costs (I didn’t mean they would cover them entirely, although I suppose that may be possible for some families). But without government schools, the landscape would be far different. I mentioned a few differences and possibilities above. It is by no means necessary to assume scores of kids would be left illiterate, on the streets….which is kind of what we have now!
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
We are hardly wealthy. We have made choices so I can stay home.
A sampling:
Used cars (one at almost 200,000 miles).
Mobile home in the sticks where land is cheaper.
Clothes bought at Goodwill, etc.
Husband works far more than 40 hrs a week.
I work from home helping my husband with his home business.
Food cooked primarily from scratch–my goal is about $4.00 a meal for the 7 of us. Oatmeal, dried beans, rice…you get the idea.
Teaching my own children is WORTH SACRIFICING FOR!!!
Report comment to moderator
My point in #56:
We are not wealthy.
We are, instead, committed to what’s best for our children.
Report comment to moderator
Momof5 – You are wealthy in what is far more important than money.
(So are we, who also homeschool.)
Report comment to moderator
I appreciate Yeah’s take on the issue. But I will have to wonder whether his model (#15) produces a better product. At the very least, he seems to be creating an educational system with wider variability in outcomes — or else he will be bringing in some sort of governmental supervision (testing) to assure quality. I would also suggest that he’s underestimating the cost of education.
Ah well, in any case, that is a matter of a much more full throated discussion.
Finally, to challenge the parent/family orientation: may we ask about justice for the child? What expectations of justice does the child have? If you are not born to a good family (the lucky gene pool) then what? One of the explicit roles of common schools is to overcome the handicap of birth. With the family, there is also a community engagement,a community stakeholding in education.
Report comment to moderator
Hi Harris,
I will have to wonder whether his model (#15) produces a better product.
But the bar is set so very low. We’d be better off.
Regardless, (A) education just isn’t a governmental responsibility (c’mon, just think about that for a minute), and (B) a coercive tax (I know that’s redundant, but I have to emphasize that coercive part) on people who not only don’t have children in ‘the System,’ but oppose the System’s whole conception of education, stinks.
Report comment to moderator
#56, Karen,
You’re right!
Report comment to moderator
I mean, #58.
Oy!
Report comment to moderator
Yeah:
I think you’re letting your neo-libertarian thought take over re: government responsibility.
Think of it this way: education is a societal good, a common enterprise. You and I both need and desire an educated society if for no other reason than economic well-being. The more people who are well-educated, the better.
To your points.
I agree that it is not just a government responsibility (tho’ if you saw our school board, you’d wonder if the words “government” fairly apply — just sayin’). There is a ton of evidence that the linkage of parents and of supporting cultural institutions (churches, sports leagues, scouts etc) all can make a big difference. Yet in urban districts (I coach in one of these), there will be students who do not have these advantages. Who will stand for the kid with the single (sort of ) working mom? That is, how do we as a society tap this potential? It’s for these children that common schools can work. You may still want to ask how to we bring accountability to the system — even in a distributed model some one has to say, ‘this works’ and ‘this does not.’
(B) If education is a societal good, than you and I will pay for it one way or another. There’s not point letting the childless off, since they depend on and benefit from strong schools. When we covenant together in society, we agree to obligate ourselves. Thus, even in your model, there exists the tax. And from a pure economic model, it makes more sense to distribute the cost of education to as many, since all prosper from it.
Report comment to moderator
#52 “It’s wonderful that folks like Momof5 are wealthy enough to be able to stay at home and educate their own children.”
So Anlir, you support the right to homeschool? If so, I was too harsh and I apologize.
My concern is that educational options (homeschools, private schools) will be over-regulated until they are dead.
Report comment to moderator
Momof5: Just how are academic standards enforced in homeschools? How do children learn about specialized subjects from parents who aren’t trained teachers?
Knowing how to read doesn’t mean you know how to teach a child to. I use English grammar well, but I doubt I could teach more than the basics to a child.
I can kind of see how it could work for lower grades, but what about high school? I know I couldn’t teach chemistry or algebra at a high school level. I doubt there are many parents who could. Teachers get specialized training.
The above questions are one concern I have about your concerns about “over-regulated.” Where do you draw the line between enough regulation to ensure the quality of education is adequate, and too much?
Report comment to moderator
Hi Harris,
I think you should un-dismiss opposition to government funding of schools as merely a neo-libertarian fixation. Consider: The way it currently stands, we have the forced extraction of payment from citizens to fund the compulsory, 35-hour a week education of children aged 5 (!) through 18 (to say nothing of higher ed). Many of those citizens do not have children in schools at all, and a sizable number strongly disagrees with the content and philosophy of what is taught in those schools. Now, make the Biblical case for all of that.
I appreciate that you want me to bear in mind that education is a societal good and illiteracy is a societal not-good; I do understand that–honest.
I don’t have lots of time to delve in here. This PDF file is brief, and addresses some of what you mention in your last post.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
In FL, we are required to either do standardized testing or have the children evaluated annually by a certified teacher. They must show progress according to their abilities.
We keep a portfolio with samples of work, tests, first and final drafts, etc. We keep a log of books read, field trips taken, and videos watched (primarily historical/anthropological, geographic, and scientific–90%+ are NOT from a creationist viewpoint, either).
All this is reviewed by the certified teacher. She interacts with the kids, tests their math skills, reading comprehension, and vocabulary, etc.
As an extra, I write up my own evaluation of their progress for the teacher’s use. Then she writes an evaluation and I submit it to the Superintendent of schools.
All that said, the parents I’ve met who homeschool are intensely aware of the great responsibility that they bear. As a group, homeschoolers are quite academically focused and committed. We aren’t just keeping our kids around for playtime. It’s all on us, and we know it. Can’t blame anyone else if our kids aren’t learning.
Personally, I think there’s probably more per/child accountability for homeschoolers than for either private or public school students or teachers.
At least in FL.
Hope this wasn’t overkill–I know most people think we just “do our own thing”, and I wanted to give a fuller picture of the reality here.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
Much of what you ask has been covered every time we have a homeschooling thread. There are coops and families who share talents. Many (most?) states require testing as the student ages. As they get older, community college offers much of what they need. Plus, the availability to do courses by internet/video, etc. is growing, even at the interactive level.
Report comment to moderator
Oh, Yeah:
Interesting document, thanks for passing it along. I think when it celebrates “Austrian economists” we’re letting in the libertarian influence (:-) ).
My difficulty with the paper is that there is no larger perspective, it is still at the level of “me and yours” i.e., the personal or at best small scale congregation. That’s fine for a gathered church of 100, but what of the larger societal questions? At the very least, this sort of reading of Scripture is poor guidance for our modern, large-scale enterprises.
Finally, the theonomist vision makes the antithesis too sharp. I would hold that a Christian view of education does not necessarily mandate the separate schools. Of for that matter that separate schools necessarily deliver a Christian education. Christian anthropology and a sense of fundamental values can take root in common schools — there is room to advocate and live out those values. I generally think of it as an extended prolegomena.
And you asked about a biblical base? I would suggest that it lies more in the vows I take every time we baptize. Baptismal vows (sorry Baptists) carry with them a sense of a community — a public — broader than the boundaries of my particular community. In that light, “do good to all in the community of faith” and the saying that as we have done it to the least of these… Baptism, Incarnation, Servanthood, these are the themes I hear in Christians who work in the common schools.
Report comment to moderator
I just did a search on this article page and the many post contained and evangelism and witness is not used once. What about the individual responsibility of a Christian school administrator, teacher or student’s to evangelize those around them? I have not read in the Scriptures of an exception for the command to be a witness of the Gospel.
Report comment to moderator
JohnGB,
Not sure where your modifier belongs. Are you talking about the administrator of a Christian school or an administrator who is Christian? Assuming the latter, since it is more relevant to the topic, we are also called to obey our governing authorities. When I taught public school, I was forbidden from evangelizing. Students were in no doubt as to my faith, however, for various reasons, without direct evangelism.
Report comment to moderator
Harris’s appeal about the needs or betterment of the “larger society” means nothing to conservative Christians. They care about their own family, not the large masses. If tens of millions of American children were without an education or schooling, it would be no concern of theirs. They’d just dig a deeper moat around their “castle” and try to hold out till Jesus comes and rescues them.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I laughed out loud at your notion of homeschoolers as wealthy. The ones I’ve known are sometimes beneath the poverty level. One such family, when their firstborn was a baby, heated only her bedroom (Georgia), because they couldn’t afford to heat the whole house. Another family with five children (ten months to ten years) currently has a food budget of less than $250 a month. I’m sure that some homeschooling families are wealthy, but many sacrifice greatly just to stay on top of daily expenses–and by the way, several of these families have been frugal enough their homes have been paid off by the time the parents are fifty because they live within their means.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
(Rolled eyes.) You’ve been on this blog long enough not to speak so ignorantly of Christians. Who is doing foster care and other volunteer work–heathens or Christians? Who gives more money to nonprofit causes (not even counting church giving)? Really, sir, you aren’t as ignorant as you pretend to be, so I don’t know why you try so hard at the pretense.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, do you also live under the assumption that our public schools have kept people from growing up illiterate and ill-prepared to make productive contributions to the work force? Yeah, the “larger society” is really enjoying the “betterment” provided by State schooling. And I like your use of the phrase “tens of millions.” I’m surprised you didn’t say “jillions.”
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
It sounds as though you’d prefer for all children to have the *same* opportunity rather than for citizens to have *freedom* to choose different educational approaches for their children.
If that’s right, then everyone would be pushed down to the lowest common denominator…
Report comment to moderator
I’m lazy and can’t be bothered to read the second half of this thread, but I’d have to say I agree with Bradley. Let the parents teach the religion and keep the state out of it. It wouldn’t be fair to force all students to sit through regular Muslim prayers. “Do unto others”, and all that.
As for public schools being a bad thing, how about this: instead of saying “we’d be better off without them!”, why don’t we look at how well off we were before we had them? Were we better or worse?
The question of whether there ought to be publicly funded schools revolves around the base intelligence of a men and women. Advocates claim people simply do not have the intelligence to teach themselves. Thousands of years of civilization point and laugh at them.
This sounds rather silly considering the standard of living for the typical person for these “thousands of years of civilization”.
Report comment to moderator
Cuthalion,
When you ask whether we were better or worse before State-run schools, is that a rhetorical question? Either way, I’m curious what your answer is.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!