Supreme Court To Decide If Atheism Can Keep Its Monopoly On K-12 Schools
By: By Joy Pullmann
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears a case that could determine whether parents and taxpayers have any choices about the kind of religion American children are taught with taxpayer funds. Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue concerns whether private donations may support schools that make their religious beliefs explicit. It could also undo a century of U.S. court and legislative decisions that used animus between Protestants and Catholics to attack the faith of both kinds of Christians’ children over the last century.
Five years ago, Montana’s legislature enacted a tiny school choice program that allows residents to deduct up to $150 on state taxes for their donations to private school scholarships. Eighteen states offer similar charitable opportunities, which fund private schools using private money. Montana’s taxation agency, however, banned religious schools from accessing these private donations, on the grounds that would violate the state constitution’s ban on using public funds for “sectarian” schools.
Since these school choice programs employ private funds, instead of direct taxpayer support such as through vouchers, they have been less successfully challenged in courts on the grounds Montana’s bureaucracy employed. Thirty-seven states include some variation of this prohibition in their constitutions, and several run programs similar to Montana’s, often with courts’ approval. Now the Supreme Court will deal with the discrepancy.
It is expected to use the occasion to consider anti-religious constitutional provisions like Montana’s, known as Blaine amendments , after the 19th century politician James Blaine. During Blaine’s crusade to enact these policies, the word “sectarian” was understood to mean specifically “Roman Catholic.”
That’s because it was then the norm, since the American founding, for tax funds to support openly religious schools. In the first three-quarters of the United States’ existence, many American schools were directly funded by tax dollars and run by local churches, and sometimes even taught by local ministers (often the most educated person in a town).
So until Supreme Court and legislative changes in the mid-1900s, U.S. public schools were usually overtly Christian : “In the 1800s, the country was predominantly Protestant, and public schools taught a generic Protestantism. Teachers led students in daily prayer, sang religious hymns, extolled Protestant ideals, read from the King James Bible, and taught from anti-Catholic textbooks.”
During the height of Catholic immigration to the United States, however, many Protestants didn’t want to allow Catholics equal access to local public funding for the schools their churches ran. They thus created barriers to public support for religious schooling, such as Blaine Amendments, that at first affected only Catholics, but eventually also turned on Protestants.
These barriers and others lawmakers and courts added ultimately drove Christianity from publicly supported U.S. K-12 education. They helped lay the legal and cultural groundwork for eventually substituting atheism for Christianity as the religion of U.S. schooling. It’s a sneaky move, because atheism and secularism are easier to falsely view as “neutral,” when they are in fact a competing religious understanding of the ultimate questions every faith seeks to answer.
The truth is that there is no neutrality about religion. To not believe in God is a religous belief, just as believing in God is a religious belief. To include the Bible in curricula is a religious decision, just like not including the Bible in curricula is a religious decision.
To pray or not to pray: both are religious questions. Both teach something about the importance, existence, and nature of religion, as does every other decision about a school’s instruction, teaching methods, and priorities. Instruction techniques must change based on whether one holds the religious view that humans are by nature sinful or the competing religious view that humans are born perfect and corrupted by institutions.
Yet for a century or more, we’ve accepted the dangerous fiction that it is possible for law and public institutions to be neutral on religious questions. This has had the effect of making secular atheism the dominant religion of American public life, all while pretending it wasn’t happening.
On that basis, in 1962 the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” required U.S. public schools to ban prayer. In 1962, the court banned public schools from Bible readings as part of instruction. In 1971, it banned states from funding nonreligious instruction in private religious schools. In 1985, it banned schools from allowing one minute for silent prayer or meditation, and in 2000 banned students from voluntarily leading prayers at football games.
While the Supreme Court repeatedly took a sledgehammer to American Christians’ ability to pass on their faith using their own tax dollars and supposedly locally controlled institutions, our politicians have refused to redress the bigotry against religion this entails. For if it is bigotry for Protestants to have banned Roman Catholics from equal access to public education funds solely on account of their religion, it is also bigotry for atheists to have effectively banned Protestants and Catholics from equal access to public education funds solely on account of their religion.
Either we all are allowed to educate our children according to our religious beliefs, or some get to impose their religious beliefs on others. There are no two ways about it. There is no such thing as a school that does not teach religion. There is only such a thing as a school that teaches that religion is unimportant, false, foolhardy, a side matter, unrelated to “real life,” a private matter, or not worth considering. These are all religious teachings — or antireligious teachings. Whatever you call them, they are not religiously neutral. They are religiously biased.
U.S. public schools impose religious beliefs on children. According to young Americans who have abandoned their family’s faith, they did so on average before leaving high school . One of their top reasons for abandoning the faith is the scientism they are taught in their schools. The other top reason are the sexual relativism they are taught in their schools.
The majority of young Americans believe the point of an education is to be able to buy stuff to make themselves happy , which directly contradicts religious teachings that the point of life is to love God and serve our neighbors . Thanks to Obergefell v. Hodges , public schools are now bound to take sides on the deeply religious question of what constitutes a marriage and proper relations between the sexes. Increasingly, public schools preach identity politics’ religious beliefs, such as the idea that sins like racism accrue based on skin color (intersectionalism) and can be solved through collective political action rather than individual repentance.
The Supreme Court has spent a century attacking religion under the guise of neutrality. Its decision on this case could reverse more than a century of injustice that the court has until now pushed apace.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
71 visitors
The Court has a chance to rectify a policy that favors atheism.
I dedicate this article to a friend.
Rules of civility will be enforced
Trump is off topic
Teaching the truths of science cannot be considered the same as advocating atheism. The teaching of any mythology (religion) in the public schools is now no longer allowed. People's personal faiths should only be taught in the home, in private groups, or in the churches. However, in the interest of kids of receiving a quality education, I believe in school choice and that vouchers be used as the parents see fit, as the public schools have failed to do a decent of educating our kids for years and years.
f that, thumpers get too many tax breaks already. if SCOTUS rules in favor, congress needs to retaliate by taxing religion as the business it really is. it costs families extra money to attend church, if they want their spawn to attend the connected madrasa, they can grab their wallets and step up to the cash register.
the bible does it best - Matthew 6:5-6
those that are unavailable to non-church attendees
I really don't expect the vast majority of taxpayers to pick up the tab for reinforcing mythological mental handicaps on the innocent children of a fringe religious cult that composes a small fraction of the population. congress has the power to levy taxes, especially when another branch of government gives financial advantages to one small group over all others, because of their votes.
They do. It's called tuition - and by paying thousands of dollars for their own they give free money to the school district to conduct underwater violin classes.
How is atheism favored exactly? Public schools are supposed to be secular, per the separation of church and state. If one wants religion with their school, there are religious based schools.
the establishment clause is my personal red line. freedom from a particular religion was a primary reason for immigration to the new world. the Constitution is clear on this and backs it up with the very next amendment.
It is a good Clause.
So why can't a Catholic kid ride the district bus to his school?
A Catholic kid can absolutely ride the district bus to his public school.
As for funding public transportation to private schools - I doubt most school systems have any money for that. They are focused on providing services for the kids who are enrolled in their school system. And around here, we can't even find enough school bus drivers for the regular bus routes.
But actually, I think you raise an interesting point. It would cut down on congestion and such if all the private school kids weren't driven by their parents ... and they have paid taxes for the school buses, when you think about it. It could be a logistical nightmare. But if the private school were located along a regular school bus route ....
"A Catholic kid can absolutely ride the district bus to his public school."
No. The Catholic kid can't ride a district bus so as to cause it to stop at the Catholic school so he could get off.
Not from any and all religion!
I can't really improve on Ms Pullman's complaint:
"Either we all are allowed to educate our children according to our religious beliefs, or some get to impose their religious beliefs on others. There are no two ways about it. There is no such thing as a school that does not teach religion. There is only such a thing as a school that teaches that religion is unimportant, false, foolhardy, a side matter, unrelated to “real life,” a private matter, or not worth considering. These are all religious teachings — or antireligious teachings. Whatever you call them, they are not religiously neutral. They are religiously biased."
Let me add my own thoughts. Through grades 1 through 8 I was sent to a private Catholic school. To this day I recall a nun telling us that our parents paid to send us there. She told us that our parents had to also pay via taxes for the public schools. She topped it all off by saying that she hoped the newly elected President, John F Kennedy, (a Catholic) would do something to change that. (I'll bet I'm the only one alive who remembers that.) Maybe that would be a kind of compromise. Those who go to private schools get a tax exemption from funding the public schools. If your answer is that it would destroy the public school system, then clearly there is something wrong with the public school system.
All are.
It's really easy to improve on her complaint, when her complaint is false.
Nobody is stopping her from teaching her children according to her religious beliefs. She is free to do so. Always has been. She is not entitled to funding for her choices.
Not being paid to do something is not the same as being forbidden to do it.
I said to a PUBLIC school. Plenty of Catholic kids go to public schools. And as I also mentioned, I'd have no problem with having the bus stop at the Catholic school if it was along the bus route - although many of the religious school parents probably wouldn't want their kids mingling with the public school kids.
That is a point well taken. What of my suggestion?
Vic,
First of all, Ms. Pullman is wrong. Public schools do not teach religion. I would know. I was a teacher for over 20 years. My children went to a public school and they were not taught a specific faith or nonfaith either. And I get really upset that this bogus excuse gets used over and over as a way of taking funds from public school.
Our founding fathers wanted a public school system for this very reason. To teach the masses without the infringement of a faith upon them. It is what makes us unique from other nations.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779
Among his many influential thoughts on laws and governance, John Adams included a short, but substantial passage about the vital need for quality education, accessible to all citizens:
But, Adams perhaps made his strongest argument for the value of a strong system of public education in a letter to British reformer John Jebb :
Private school of any sort is a choice. Public schools are there for everyone. And since they are funded by tax dollars, they can not be infringed upon. It is a slippery slope. Think about this: an extremist faith can then demand tax dollars to support their schools. Does that seem right to you?
That gets back to then I should get a tax exemption from funding the public schools, because I don't send kids to them either.
The government has no obligation to fund people's religious training. It provides public schools and you can use them or not. Just as it funds public transportation and I can choose whether or not to use it. I don't get money back if I drive rather than using the public transportation which I subsidize.
I have to disagree. A tax exemption for religious school is playing religious favorites with tax money - treating religion (any religion) better than lack of religion.
It seems we have both done her an injustice.
Public schools are there for everyone.
They are the bottom line. How would you say they are performing?
Think about this: an extremist faith can then demand tax dollars to support their schools. Does that seem right to you?
Absolutely not! Is it possible we could declare an extremist faith extremist?
I share that concern. We funded religious extremists once. It hasn't turned out well.
Sure, and why stop there! People who don't have kids shouldn't have to pay, right? And I haven't driven on many of the roads in my State, so why should I have to pay taxes for that either? Every man for themselves! Let's go back to just predatory survival of the fittest and forget about this shitty thing called society that the people around me want to force me to participate in! Unless it's a power line going to my house or the sewer taking away my crap, I shouldn't be taxed for any of this infrastructure used to make other peoples lives better. It has to make MY life better or I'm not giving a penny! /s
The majority decided that having a basic educational standard makes all of our lives better, even if you're not directly benefiting from some of the programs. We have a country because our founders brought us together under one constitution. It's sad to see so many who claim to be patriotic reject the very foundation of our society and are bitter they can't take what they want from it but refuse to give back. I believe that most often this selfish nature is nurtured by groups that exclude and ridicule others in society, that get angry and bitter at the thought of their tax dollars being spent on lgtbq Americans, minorities or, Dog forbid, an atheist.
I can't either, but only because it's total worthless garbage.
Yes there is. Public schools do not teach any religion in their curriculum.
Bullshit. Simply not teaching you to be a stuffed shirt Christian does not mean the school is teaching you religion is "unimportant". But the fact is, it's not a public schools responsibility to teach children that religion is important. What this religious extremist nut wants is to take my tax dollars, infect them with her beliefs and then inject them into children that have no say over it. What horseshit.
Public schools in America are not religiously neutral. I truly wish they were, but unfortunately the virus of organized religion has long infected our Public schools. It's been getting better, there are fewer and fewer Christian themed events and more support for other faiths and cultures, but that's likely what is prompting religious extremists like Ms Pullman to get so bitter about her tax dollars going to public schools. She likely got her panties in a bunch when they decided not to do the annual Christmas manger play and she wasn't able to pass on the hand-me down beard for a wise man to her 10 year old.
That is an excellent analogy. Ok, and what about those who don't care about religion and just don't like the quality of education in the public schools? I'm thinking of those moms in the inner city would desperately want a choice.
I can't argue with that.
What this religious extremist nut wants is to take my tax dollars, infect them with her beliefs and then inject them into children that have no say over it.
I know the feeling, especially when "A People's History of the US" is being used as a textbook in many schools.
She likely got her panties in a bunch when they decided not to do the annual Christmas manger play and she wasn't able to pass on the hand-me down beard for a wise man to her 10 year old.
The public school system would be represented by the innkeeper who tells Mary & Joseph "there's no room at the inn."
Extremists don't generally consider themselves extremists. They consider themselves right. And it can be a very fine line between an extremist and non-extremist religion, or a cult.
Yes, of course, but that is what the rest of us have to decide. For instance a religion which calls for death to all those who are outsiders is clearly extremist and should be designated as such.
No.
He's telling Mary, Joseph, Muhammed, Shiva, Odin, Zeus, and Mars that there's no room at the inn, and they'll have to recruit followers who are free to walk away, unlike public school pupils.
I get that, the hand is evenly turned against all religions
Many of those inner cities have tried charter schools for just this reason, and generally they have failed miserably. Which Betsy DeVos conveniently ignores. We've tried forced busing to get kids from poor neighborhood to better schools. We've tried so many things and so far don't seem to have a clue.
Just like other things we pay taxes on for the general good, we need to figure out how to improve the quality of education in the public schools rather than siphoning the money away. But there is no easy answer, especially when the parents are so often a major part of the problem. As is poverty. Rural schools have just as many problems as inner cities.
Getting kids to read - I loved Laura Bush's pet project - is key. Involving parents is also key, but far too many parents don't do a thing to help educate their own kids at home, to supplement what they learn in school.
I just read a great book called The Book Woman of Troublesome Creek, which was mostly about a program the government started in Appalachia in the 30s. Women were hired to deliver books to the isolated people of the hollows via pack mule. Many of the people were suspicious of the "government books" and threatened by the idea of literacy. Many of them simply couldn't imagine how literacy could improve their lives, and those of their children. Some even threatened the book women because they didn't want their women and kids getting ideas in their heads (and thus maybe wanting to improve their lives).
Which protects all religions, as well as the non-religious.
Many religions' holy books do that, including the ones involving the Abrahamic god. It's all about the interpretation.
There are 33,000 sects of Christianity alone, and countless other sects of other religions - how to determine which ones are extremist, especially the more secretive ones? And then we get into even the non-extremist ones, such as Catholicism, which teaches girls that they are inferior to boys. Why should public money be spent enforcing that type of discrimination?
Bottom line is, we'll never get people to agree on which are extreme, or maybe aren't extreme but are teaching values that go against our country. I think a religion which teaches that gays are evil is horrible; others think a religion which teaches that gays are normal and must be accepted is horrible.
That's not what I've heard. Could you give some evidence?
Not against religion per se - against the government promoting any religion. There are plenty of opportunities for people to teach their children religion at home, in church, at Sunday school (I remember going to CCD every Monday evening), at camp ... just not in school.
Um-hum.
There are 33,000 sects of Christianity alone, and countless other sects of other religions - how to determine which ones are extremist, especially the more secretive ones?
How many of those would fit the definition of "extreme?"
And then we get into even the non-extremist ones, such as Catholicism, which teaches girls that they are inferior to boys.
How on earth does it do that?
Bottom line is, we'll never get people to agree on which are extreme
I don't think it's that difficult. You pointed to one right away. (you meant Allah)
DC is a perfect example. Charter schools don't seem to have figured out how to fix the very same problems that other public schools face. And they have added additional problems in many cases, including financial fraud (just google Pennsylvania charter schools and fraud), lack of accountability, etc. They also don't admit as many special needs children, from what I've read. That's not to say that some of them don't do well, but then so do some "regular" public schools. They are no panacea, that's for sure.
She's right. Both the Old Testament and the Quran (based largely on the OT) give death as the penalty for apostasy. So that particular criterion could apply to all the Abrahamic religions. Sure, most don't follow it, but it's there in their scriptures. So those claiming to be Biblical literalists could reasonably be considered extremists.
By forbidding women positions within the church which are open to men.
That is quite a report but I'm not sure where it compares performace.
They also don't admit as many special needs children, from what I've read.
No they don't, just like UPS hands unprofitable deliveries over to the US Post Office. Special needs kids really have no choice.
Nonsense. They are the ones saying "There's room for everyone here, but we only have the basics. If you need a shrine to your God to pray, you'll have to go elsewhere to find one."
That doesn't really equate to teaching that women are inferior. The Catholic Church has it's female wing. They are called nuns and they used to be tasked with educating and civilizing children. That along with a lot of other functions of he Catholic Church seems to be falling by the wayside.
You are talking to the wrong person. You missed what I said in Post 1. I don't get angered by that statement. It would take someone who believes in something greater than one's self.
It's based on Biblical verses forbidding women to hold positions of authority over men. No such injunction against men being in positions of authority over women. There's really no getting around this one, Vic. The church holds women to be inferior.
I wasn't crystal clear in my first statement - let's not run it into the cattails. The public system gets a free ride from private education.
Well, I sure don't!
the one with a foot out of the door?
There's another thread also talking about that. My take is if a state is going to allow vouchers for school choice then they must allow all schools. Excluding religious schools is just another case of discrimination. It must be an all or nothing approach.
I personally approve of school choice. Having put three children thru the public school system, I got rather tired of the one-size fits all solutions and the teaching to the lowest common denominator. And the past 10 years or so teaching to pass a test rather than teaching children how to think for themselves. Our public school system has failed to many of our children.
Yes, from a much different perspective.
I personally approve of school choice. Having put three children thru the public school system, I got rather tired of the one-size fits all solutions and the teaching to the lowest common denominator. And the past 10 years or so teaching to pass a test rather than teaching children how to think for themselves. Our public school system has failed to many of our children.
Thank you for that.
I agree. My position is they get nothing. Any money taken away from public schools makes the problems with public schools worse. If the state has extra money for other schools then every public school in that state better be at the top of academic excellence - every classroom should be at optimal student to teacher ratio and fully stocked with current text books and supplies.
Public schools take all kids, with a few exceptions. There is a very small number of kids who cannot be permitted in a classroom for psychological, behavorial reasons.
But public schools take almost all kids, irregardless of their parents income, the kids learning curve, their color, creed or politics.
If the emphasis in teaching children moves from public schools to taxpayer subsidized private schools innumerable kids will be "left behind" by the resulting system. Private schools dont have to take every kid, and dont.
The overwhelming emphasis in K-12 education should be kept on the public schools, with private schools an option for those who want it and can manage the cost.
And we cannot have it a government policy to pray in school. We have a separation between church and state.
And they should not be teaching about "gender identity and equality" in grade school, as my city is planning to do shortly.
According to science, there are only two genders.
You don't want them teaching gender equality? Back to girls being required to take Home Ec and secretarial courses, and boys taking shop, then?
Scientists actually don't say there are only two genders.
What do they say?
Scientists don't have to say it....there are only two genders according to science...male and female.
All the rest, like gender identity, is a mental construct.
I should have not used the word equality in this case
No you were fine to use it. You see, with the advent of boys in girl's sports, they are equating the genders already.
And sandy-lotsanumbers, no one is saying that. Hell when I was in junior high boys were required to take home ec for at least one grading period. Girls, shop class (wood working) and as far as I know, with my son graduating from HS last year and now attending college, students can take whatever courses they want beyond the pre-requisites.
First, let's decide if we're talking about "gender" or "sex". The existence of intersex people has long been recognized by medical science, as it is not terribly rare for babies to be born with ambiguous genitalia.
There are not only 2 biological sexes.
There are genetic disorders, such as Turner's and Kleinfelter syndromes, in which a person has an extra copy of a sex chromosome, or is missing a copy. They may appear as either male (Kleinfelter) or female (Turner's), but lack some secondary sex characteristics, and may have characteristics in common with the opposite sex (lack of breast development in women with Turner's or broad hips in men with Kleinfelter).
If we're talking gender, science has recognized that many people's psychological gender does not match their physical appearance, and identified possible causes (among them, gender assignment surgery of infants with ambiguous genitalia).
So, yeah, scientists are not saying that there are only 2 genders.
Nope.
Scientists say, "It's complicated".
Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia
Actual research shows that sex is anything but binary
---------------------
By Simón(e) D Sun on June 13, 2019
.....
....
BIOLOGICAL SEX: HOW YOU GET IT
....
THE BRAIN: WHERE STUFF GETS “MADE UP”
....
THE BODY AND THE BRAIN AND THE HORMONES BETWIXT
.....
SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: BETTER TOGETHER
Exactly so.
Every human produces both male and female sex hormones; the balance of those hormones results in the development of secondary sex traits. Individually, those balances vary, and they are not constant throughout life - consider the changes that come with puberty, both positive and negative. Boys and girls alike can thank testosterone for that embarrassing and sometimes painful acne. Premenopausal women can thank estrogen for protecting them from heart disease, but lose that protection at menopause, about the time that testosterone reasserts itself in the form of female facial hair.
Prenatal exposure to excess male or female sex hormones has effects on the fetus that we have only recently begun to sort out.
And then there are the effects of genetics, ranging from missing or extra sex chromosomes to inherited hypersensitivity or resistance to the effects of sex hormones.
It's complicated enough that I'm a bit surprised more people aren't intersex or transgender.
And the idea that atheism has a monopoly of any kind is absurd.
I wonder if the author of this article would like to see taxpayer funded Muslim schools. Probably not.
Of course you feel the need to try and insert religious bias where none was present.
Why can't the funds follow the child and the parents can pay any of the extra tuition at private schools?
That's a great question
"Scientism". Good grief. What paranoia.
It's not so much paranoia as a desperation to be found relevant in the age of science. By throwing an "ism" on the end, they're trying to equate their own faith based theories to scientific theories which anyone who actually knows anything about the two know they are polar opposites of each other.
This is true, but certainly not in the way the author intended. Schools still, in violation of the First Amendment, impose religion on students, but it's generally the Christian religion. Coach-led prayers, religious songs in choir, prayers (but only by Christian pastors) before football games.
Schools do not teach atheism, which is not a religion, anyway. If students leave their churches because they're taught science (not "scientism", which is also not a religion), then perhaps their churches' message is weak and lacking the support of science.
The author needs to teach her kids her religion at home, and leave my kid out of it. I won't interfere in her rights, if she doesn't interfere in mine. She has a boundary issue.
And this is why my very large, very extended, predominantly RC family spread over 7 or 8 states, almost all risk everything
on raising those kids in a high tuition Catholic elementary school and high school,
never mind that a layoff or death could plunge the individual families into instant poverty.
I don't think she is saying it should be mandatory for children to be taught any religion in public schools.
She seems pretty upset that her own isn't being taught, which leads to her lie that atheism is being taught.
Not teaching religion is not the same as teaching atheism, which is what she'd have us believe. Some of us see through the lie.
I didn't read this anywhere in the article. Seems to me she is upset that religious based schools are discriminated against by withholding funding. One can agree or disagree with this, but nowhere is she telling you or anyone else to teach their child a religion. Seems dishonest to attack her for it.
Guilt by omission.
She is equating neutrality towards religion in public schools with "teaching atheism". That's dishonest, and not very Christian.
And yeah, to me, that reads like she's not very happy that Christianity isn't being taught in public schools.
So does that.
Guilt of what? Fortunately, nobody is required to teach religion in public schools. To do so would violate the First Amendment. There is no guilt in not violating the Constitution.
So, by not teaching kids the Muslim religion in schools, we're teaching atheism?
Good grief.
Sounds to me like she is saying their is only one option and that is secular.
Again, not advocating for religion to be taught in public education, just referring to the public funding.
If you want to use taxpayer money, there should only be one option. She can reach religion at home and take her children to church, if it's that important to her. She shouldn't expect the teaching of her religion to be important to anyone else, or to be supported by them financially.
No, that's a pretty obvious complaint about public schools, which have generally been locally controlled, no longer spreading Christianity, which is the local majority religion in most areas of the US. That's why she used "supposedly" - she thinks that local schools being in control gives them the right to violate the US Constitution, or should.
Yeah, it seems that some folks here want to fund madrassas.
Which is an excellent point.
Well we will see..
She isn't asking it to be important to you or anyone else, she just wants the same funding that public schools receive not your opinion. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but she is not advocating religious beliefs be taught in public schools to your child.
If she wants me to pay for it, she is.
Right over your head it flies. By not offering opposing views, which could be made available through course selection, It stands to reason they want to shy away from it and teach one viewpoint only. Thus guilt by omission. This is about choice and hasn't that been a hot topic this last week?
No, she just wants the same funding for education. You may disagree but your importance is irrelevant. Our tax dollars are used for many different things that as individuals may not be important.
The court will decide.
That is up to each state, but after almost 400 years of evolving, it would seem to be rather onerous to change what we have all grown up with and have radically different rules in different states.
Technically, since the word education is nowhere to be found in the Constitution, SCOTUS should not even be entertaining this case.
It should have ended with the Supreme Court of Montana.
Which viewpoint do you think they are teaching?
She has it. In public schools.
That religion(s) aren't relevant to life..........at all. O M I S S I O N
It's not the job of schools to teach religion. If people want their kids to be religious, they can take them to church/temple/mosque or whatever.
Schools are supposed to teach science, not mythology. It is not "guilt by omission" - the one viewpoint they teach is that of facts. Suppose there are 100 different religions practiced by students at a school, do you really expect the school to offer 100 different religious courses? Hell, there are 33,000 Christian sects alone. A fundie isn't going to want to be subjected to Catholic doctrine, an Episcopal isn't going to want to be subjected to holy roller doctrine ... your comment is patently absurd.
Certain idiots may claim that "intelligent design" and the Christian creation myths are equivalent to science and should thus be given equal consideration, but they're full of shit. What if I want the creation myth of Atum masturbating people into existence, or the Native American creation myth of a turtle barfing everything into existence? How can those idiots prove that my creation myth isnt' the correct one?
Trump fans really seem to hate the Constitution.
There is no reason for public schools to consider religion at all. That's the parents' job.
A comparative religion class in high school could certainly be offered, but I doubt that's what you want.
Why does it have to be a public school? Parents who home school or private school their children should receive the same funding as public schools. If the state doesn't have the expense and burden of educating the child, they don't need the funding.
They don't teach any such thing.
They are public schools, which means that they are not supposed to advocate for a religion. What they do teach is comparative religion in high school. They also don't teach atheism. Is that omission too?
Why? Public schools are funded with public money to educate children, not indoctrinate them. This woman is either indoctrinated or a liar. She thinks, or pretends to think, that her religion not being taught is the same as atheism being taught. Nobody should be forced to pay to raise similarly doctrinated or dishonest students.
Nope, they can send their kids to public schools. Home schooling can be a total joke and so are some charter schools. If taxpayer money went to those who home school, then we'd be able to put a lot of constraints on those parents and hold them accountable - and they would screech like hell. Many home schoolers are simply trying to keep their children from learning facts, which is their choice, but not on our dime. You don't get taxpayer money to teach your children that the earth is only 6000 years old or that gays are evil. Save that shit for church.
They could teach the Atum masturbation myth. The reactions of the sanctimonious would be hilarious. Are you all stocked up on popcorn?
I would love that! Funny how they get so insulted when we point out that their creation myth is just that, a myth - but I assume they have no such problem with our referring to other religions' creation myths as myths.
Lol, that's great!
What a close minded ignorant statement. But not surprised. I home schooled my oldest daughter for two years because she had some special needs that the public school would not provide. I also had a tutor come into my home which we had to pay for. In the meantime we still had to pay our taxes and pay for the dumbass lazy ass public school kids who had to attend summer school or night school to get their lazy asses graduated from HS.
Like all other public funding, taxpayers pool the funds for the general good.
If I never use a particular airport or road, can I ask for my portion of the taxes back?
The next step would be to only have schools funded by people who have school aged children.
What a windfall that would be for us older adults /s
Well it isn't up to you to decide what is an education and what is indoctrination. We will see what the court decides.
I said it CAN be a total joke.
My sister home schooled her son so he wouldn't be subjected to nasty facts about dinosaurs living millions of years before humans, or anything that would conflict with the brainwashing she wanted to inflict on him. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to home school.
But the fact is, if taxpayers dollars go to education, there has to be a standard so that we know the kids aren't being taught bullshit.
I'm glad you have so much concern for the dumbass lazy ass public school kids who might also have had special needs that you aren't aware of.
Funny I thought the Constitution conveyed that government was not to establish a national religion. With all the variations thereof that may be of interest, and the simple fact that GovCo provides funding for schools, I don't see how this crosses into the realm of it's against the separation of church and state. I guess that is what the court must sort out.
**I am NOT for funding of specific religion's schools with GovCo (my) funding and private schools are a different story.** Isn't that what this story is all about? But when one tucks "Catholic School, Muslim School, etc into that drawer it is no longer just a private school. I should have made that clear in the beginning so as not to raise so much angst ...........................
I'm glad your are so concerned about kids who have to be home schooled.
somebody has to flip burgers after trump deports all the immigrants that aren't already employed by major campaign donors
I actually am - I think it's good that the home school community is banding together to provide better resources for the kids, so they have a chance to succeed. But again - if you want taxpayer dollars to do that, then you get subject to the accompanying controls. Lots of parents aren't actually qualified to home school, and it's impossible for most parents to have the breadth of knowledge they need to actually produce an educated child.
And lots of parents pay for tutors, not just those with special needs children. They don't get taxpayer dollars for that either.
Sadly, you're likely debating folk who think "not" teaching people that homosexuality is a sin and is to be ridiculed is by default teaching them to be gay. They don't want to reason, they don't want to debate, they just want to beat everyone into submission. We had thousands of years of forced conversion practiced by almost every religion on the planet, I suppose only having to deal with their more subtle attacks on reason and logic should be viewed as progress.
I remember the first time I debated home schooling on Facebook. One mom who home schooled her kids because she thought that public schools were terrible really needed to review basic English grammar, in particular, the run-on sentence. There was not a bit of punctuation anywhere in her comments. I try not to be a grammar stickler on Facebook, but when somebody is claiming educational superiority, they really should know the basics taught to elementary school students.
Yeah sure sounds like it...
gee, that comment kind of flies in the face of the right wing memes that democrats don't have jobs and the gov't gives us everything, don't it? we don't own guns either.
I remember one teacher going to prison for fking her student. Perhaps that isn't the public education some parents are seeking.
And? Do you think that doesn't happen in private schools? Or even home schoolers? One reason for more oversight over home schooling families is that it provides ample opportunity to hide child abuse and neglect, including sexual abuse. Consider the Turpins or the Duggars.
That goes on in private school, too. You can't make your case on the occasional deviant.
Remember the private school headmistress who went to jail for killing her lover? Perhaps that wasn't the private school education some parents were seeking
Nor on a Facebook debate. Seriously Facebook?
Religion certainly isn't relevant to my life. Not at all. So saying its relevant is not entirely accurate and is also a matter of personal preference. But it's not a school's purpose to say religion is relevant. Especially with which particular religion is referenced. That alone means a school might focus on one religion over others or non religion, which is blatantly unconstitutional.
I'm pretty intelligent and educated, and I think many of us in here are - but still, I can't imagine most of us are knowledgeable in all the areas we'd need to home school. And when you add willful ignorance to the mix, it can be a horrible thing. For those who want to, though, they can band together to get their kids educated in things like science or math or whatever areas they're not proficient in, get them involved in sports in the community, and such (because the social isolation can also be bad for the kids' future lives), and not screw up their children. It does allow the kids to avoid the bullying and other horrible aspects of middle school (one common reason to home school), but you have to find some way to make up for the limitations. Some parents are great at figuring it all out, but it takes a lot of effort. It still needs more oversight, though.
Do you think one's grammatical abilities (or lack thereof) are not readily on display on Facebook?
Also, she's not the only home schooling parent I've known. Some, like my cousin and his wife, and I will assume you, were educated people who had both knowledge and the ability to pass on that knowledge, and were good educators. Some were religious people who didn't want their children exposed to "the world", and used a curriculum that they knew was dumbed down, but didn't care. One to my certain knowledge had mental health issues.
Same. I have a good education myself, but I wouldn't want to try to teach math or history. I only enjoyed history after I was no longer being tested on it, and I hate memorizing dates. And math - well, I remember trying to tutor my ex (we were high school sweethearts) in math, and failing. I'm not sure if it was him or me, but while I might understand math myself, I'm terrible at explaining it to someone else (or he was terrible at understanding it). I wouldn't want to risk my son's education on my questionable teaching abilities.
You can debate in here, but can't grasp how some people use Facebook to debate with their friends? Seriously?
Went over your head didn't it? One example was used for a home schooling parent and I used one example for a public teacher but for some reason the one example I used wasn't sufficient.
Seriously?
My FB Friends do not push their political agendas on me on FB and neither do I butt some of my Friend's Friends, inevitably far rightwing Trump supporters, are intent upon doing so. When they post fake news I sometimes post a link to a fact checking service that debunks their tawattle. That usually results in them blocking me which at least stops me and my Friends from being subjected to them spreading fake news, rank misinformation and divisive foreign propaganda.
I have no problem paying for education. We have several programs that are tax funded such as Head Start etc. which I feel are great programs but why does the state need the money to provide an education to a child who doesn't attend? Are we refunded our taxes collected when a child chooses a private school? Where does the money go?
The money goes to the same place the money collected from someone who doesn't have children goes, into the overall school budget. Whether or not you have children in public schools has nothing to do with it. But then, I'm pretty sure you already knew that.
Not even close to what I said. I was addressing the child's enrollment regarding the taxes allocated to public schools.
But I will post for you again...
Sigh. School taxes aren't budgeted on a one-to-one basis per child.
But hey, I have an idea - if you decide not to send your kid to public school, do I get a refund for the percent of my taxes that would have covered that one child, since you seem to think there is a one-on-one correlation?
/smh
Sorry but that isn't how FB works, If you are blocked you don't see their posts, it has nothing to do with your friends. Maybe you should have fact checked your own comment....
Sure, why are you paying for a service that is not being completed? Seems rather dumb.
Is it or is it not the responsibility of the school district to educate a child? If the child is not there, then why is the money needed?
Since you can't answer the question, I will assume you don't have an answer.
It someone blocks you on FB then you do not see their comments or what they post and visa versa. You completely misrepresented what I said. FYI, since my friends can see anytime I comment if someone blocks me then my friends who aren't their friends are also spared their bullshit! Are you that very desperate to always be contentious? To always be confrontational? To mount an argument even when there is none? Sheesh!
When enrollment is down are your taxes lowered? Where is this money being siphoned off to? We spend increasingly more money on our public schools but we receive less and less education for our kids. This is why homeschooling and charter/private schools are becoming more appealing to parents. Good grief third world countries are out ranking the US in education. Why shouldn't private schools receive the same funding? Public schools are not holding up to any standards. They meet the lowest standards possible to push kids through.
Again not how FB works.
No I didn't, It's there for everyone to see. You posted a false scenario to take a dig at the right with your "far right-wing trump supporters". Again no matter how you spin it if you are blocked it has nothimg to do with what your friends see which is exactly what you stated.
If you feel being contentious is calling out fake posts then I guess yes I am.
LMAO coming from you this is Hillaryious.
No argument just calling out your false information, So you are sticking with the whole if my friends, friends block me your friends no longer see their posts thing...
In your mind I am sure it has.
Attempting to cover lack of reading comprehension with snark doesn't work too well for you. But thanks for playing.
You seriously don't understand how school taxes work. As has been explained to you, there is not a one-on-one correlation to school taxes and individual children. If you decide to take in 3 foster kids in the middle of the school year, the school doesn't suddenly increase its budget for those 3 kids, any more than it reduces its budget if you decide to use private schools. It's pretty basic.
I'm glad I can stay out of this debate regarding FB since I've thankfully never used it. That being said, the debate about it above seems rather petty, but I guess that's just par for the course for some who'll spend days arguing over their own obtuse misunderstandings.
No kidding? That is what I have been saying.
If there was, taxes would be lowered due to the fact that public school enrollments have been dropping for many reasons but mostly due to a declining population, but public schools still need the same or higher budget to educate less pupils.
It isn't that difficult to understand. Even those who have a minimal understanding of SBB budgets can understand.
Public schools do not teach religious beliefs. They do teach in high school comparative religion as part of the social studies curriculum. It is utter nonsense that they teach atheism.
False.
Belief in a god is religion. Not being convinced a god exists is not religion, it is the absence of religion.
The old example of absurdity:
'not stamp collecting' is a hobby
... is clear enough but people often ignore logic so as to promote their agendas.
This point would have legs is there was an active curriculum in schools teaching that no god exists. The article seeks to claim that not discussing a god is somehow teaching atheism as a religion. An emotional argument that contradicts facts and reason.
It cracks me up when religious people claim that atheism is a religion. It's as though subconsciously, they realize the absurdity of their religious claims, so they try to pretend that atheism is just as ridiculous as their claims.
And it is totally possible for the law and public institutions to be neutral on religious questions, or at least it would be if certain religious folks would stop trying to push their faith into our laws and public institutions.
It show the lack of a counter-argument thus the attempt to redefine common English words. It is intellectual dishonesty.
Indeed it is possible. In fact it is necessary if everyone is to be treated fairly. Objectively the question of religion or irreligion must be ignored when dealing with an individual or providing government services.
Of course not, which is one reason this article is ridiculous. Public schools don't teach students to question the existence of God (any of the gods). They are, and should be, legally prohibited from doing so. But to the author, not teaching religion is the same as teaching atheism.
I guess the author only considers her religion important enough to teach if somebody's paying her to do so.
I'm an agnostic atheist and I love Christmas! And I don't care if schools celebrate Christmas as long as they include other cultural and religious holidays as well - learning how other people live and celebrate is always a good thing and fosters tolerance and inclusion, as well as being what our Constitution requires rather than just covering one religion's holidays. Just as I'm a fan of comparative religion classes. It always amazes me how many people claim their religion is the one true one, when they've never taken the time to really learn about any of the others.
agree, well said
When young people are exposed to science and learn that our planet is 4.54B years old, evolution is extremely well corroborated and taken as a given nowadays, etc. and compare that with what their religious teachers have told them, they will likely find the need to resolve contradictions. I can only hope that the resolution nowadays favors well-established scientific explanations over religious explanations which are based not on evidence and formal reason but on what ancient men merely claim.
This opens a door with unknown consequences, Anybody can make up a religion and it is just as real as the mainstream churches. Might not be a good thing to start.
Yup.
Louisiana Republican: When I Voted for State Funds to go to Religious Schools, I Didn’t Mean Muslim Ones
Final thoughts:
We managed to get through this one with civility. Thanks to all.
And to my good friend: I did the best I could with it.