Fantasy Aficionados discussion
Off Topic
>
Is there a correlation between religion and education?
S.J. wrote: "I didn't mention Hitler at all.I am not saying that it was atheism that induced the communists to do what they did. I'm merely pointing out that they did some terrible things, and that communi..."
Have to disagree, only a little. Stalin killed a lot of people, but he had specifically singled out two groups - Western Ukranians (mostly Catholic Christians) and Jews, in large part because they did not entirely give up their religion. Owning a Bible was a crime there for a long time.
Actually you did mention Hitler.S.J. wrote: "the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of Jewish descent."
Hitler and his followers did not act in the name of atheism. Most of his followers would have considered themselves Christians.
Communism was the ideology that motivated the others, not atheism. Some communists weren't even atheists, although they may not have admitted it publicly. If all communists had blue eyes, no sane person would say they killed people because their eyes are blue- there's no causal link between them. The atheism was not the cause of their actions even if it was present.
Stalin did attack certain groups of believers, but it had a lot to do with their (perceived) defiance of his rules. Some religions were tolerated while others were cracked down upon.
I am now officially backing away from the conversation as feelings are running high. While not done in the "name of atheism" (which would make no sense anyway as atheism is the belief in no supreme being or authority) the acts of Marxist are "among other things" based in their atheism or to suppress belief. That being said it doesn't mean that all atheists back the actions...any more than Christians back the evil actions of fanatics who claim to represent Christians.When a crazy blows up an abortion clinic or kills an abortionist (some) people are quick to TRY and paint all pro-life believers with that brush. Patently untrue, but good press. Just because atheist belief (or unbelief) may have led to evil actions by some it doesn't mean all atheists subscribe to them.
This sort of makes the point that we are all human and sometimes use our ideas to pervert other's teachings...again.
At the risk of sounding nit-picky, while I may have inferred that man, I never used his name. And while some of his followers may have regarded themselves as Christian, the inner party members were more pagan. Would anybody assert that the communists were Christians? Buddhists? Islamic? Hindu?
The 20th Century is full of horrors inflicted on people by powerful ideologies that made no claim to be religious.
Now, when was the last time the Pope called for a crusade? When was an accused witch last burned at the stake? Yes, terrible things were done in the name of Christianity in the past. Most of the terrible things done lately are done in the name of something else.
S.J. wrote: "At the risk of sounding nit-picky, while I may have inferred that man, I never used his name. And while some of his followers may have regarded themselves as Christian, the inner party members were..."That is pretty much the definition of nit-picky. If you had referred to "four-legged domesticated animals often kept as pets and bred from wolves," we'd all know you were talking about dogs. That is exactly what you just did, and denying it just makes you look like a liar.
There are plenty of horrors from the 20th and 21st centuries that did have to do with religion and were perpetrated by religious peoples: ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and Africa; terrorism in Northern Ireland, the Middle East, etc; bombings of abortion clinics; and numerous civil wars. The entire religion is not guilty of the acts of a few, but claiming that the horrors of the last century are all the fault of atheists is just false.
S.J. wrote: "Let's see...
The Communists under Stalin
The Communists under Mao Tse-Tung
The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot
And the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of ..."
I was actually hoping you'd come through with something more in depth and interesting than these tired old arguments. Really? Communists, pol pot and hitler?
It's like you're reading straight out of some standard "atheists are evil!" brochure produced by someone like Ray Comfort from his early banana days.
Seriously, a moment spent with you actually thinking about it instead of just parroting talking points would have been nice.
The Communists under Stalin
The Communists under Mao Tse-Tung
The Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot
And the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of ..."
I was actually hoping you'd come through with something more in depth and interesting than these tired old arguments. Really? Communists, pol pot and hitler?
It's like you're reading straight out of some standard "atheists are evil!" brochure produced by someone like Ray Comfort from his early banana days.
Seriously, a moment spent with you actually thinking about it instead of just parroting talking points would have been nice.
Ah, now what did I ever do to you, Ala, to cause you to revile me in so intemperate a way? And I denied nothing, Anne. But the last time I mentioned the N***s the thread was shut down. In mentioning communists, I was going for the bigger body counts of the century. Do I think all atheists are communists? No. Do I think communism has been responsible for tens of millions of deaths? Yes. Do I think these examples are tired and old? No.
Did anyone read my .02 worth? No one said "all atheists are evil". I assume S.J was simply pointing out that evil acts come from people and their take on any given system of belief or unbelief (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong S.J.). Old arguments go on everywhere. Christians constantly hear about the Salem Witch trials, the Inquisition etc. All acts of people who made decisions. The arguments get repetitive. We all eventually get back to our basic beliefs and try (hopefully civilly) to explain that the worst is not also the typical.
I could go on but I think the discussion has lost focus. We're not explaining to each other what we believe. We've moved to telling each other why what "you" believe is wrong. That may be part of the discussion, but it has to be done with respect. Obviously we all believe our position to be correct, we wouldn't hold it otherwise.
I think you summed everything up quite well, Mike.
FYI- Bill Maher, when confronted with the Stalin example, simply said that "Communism was also a religion," in desperate attempt to defend his assertion that religion is the cause of most violence in the world. Communism does have some trappings of religion (dogma, high priests, idols, persecution of apostates), but it's also aggressively atheistic at the same time because a belief in G-d takes away from the belief in The Almighty State.Be that as it may, this discussion has clearly run its course. I suggest we stop before things are said that cannot be taken back.
It's what I do.
*puffs pipe, adjusts monocle, toddles off*
*puffs pipe, adjusts monocle, toddles off*
I'm at work, but this is an unacceptable level of hate speech, so I'm going to try to actively monitor when I can. I admire and appreciate those of you who were able to keep it civil as long as you could and did. Pull it on track or find a new topic. May I suggest this month's Epic or Urban Fantasies?
To go back to the original question, I don't know if there's a correlation between religion and education. And would we be talking about just in the US, just in North America, just in the Western Hemisphere, or worldwide? Does anyone know of any studies along those lines?
There have been large numbers of studies on this topic. The link in post 18 contains a literature review of them (reposted link below)."Higher education is positively correlated with atheism, agnosticism, and secularity (Baker 2008; Sherkat 2008, 2003; Johnson 1997; Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi 1975). For example, 42 percent of Americans claiming to have ‘‘no religion’’, 32 percent of American atheists, and 42 percent of American agnostics have graduated from college – all higher than the percentage of college graduates in the general American adult population, which is 27 percent (Kosmin 2008; Keysar 2007). Attending college as well as graduate school – and having an ‘‘intellectual orientation’’ – are also significant predictors of who will reject or abandon their religion at some point in their life (Beit-Hallahmi 2007; Altemeyer 2009; Hayes 2000, 1995a; Sherkat and Ellison 1991; McAllister 1998; Altemeyer and Hunsberger 1997; Hadaway and Roof 1988). Furthering the link between education/intellectualism and secularity, recent studies have found that secular people score markedly higher on tests of verbal ability and verbal sophistication when compared religious people (Sherkat 2006), and secular people also score markedly higher on indicators of scientific proficiency than religious people (Sherkat 2009). And Larson and Witham (1997, 1998) found that among the members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, only 7 percent claimed to believe in a personal God and only 8 percent believed in immortality, and Ecklund and Scheitle (2007) report that professors at America’s top universities are far more likely to be atheists than the general American
population." http://www.pitzer.edu/academics/facul...
I hope I didn't step on any toes :-)Certainly don't mean to.
S.J. - regarding the "crusades" of the present pope, I'd actually be interested in what you think of the link I posted earlier in this thread. (from a religious symposion in London). If you don't want to comment that's fine :-)
Atheism is, I think, dominant in the general population here. And as we don't really go into religion or discuss it much, I can't really find any statistical material.
@ Anne- Zero surprise that intellectual elites in most countries are atheists. They are also politically liberal (hence the common wisdom that conservatives are stupid). Part of it is self-selection, with academia attracting certain types of people. Part of it is peer pressure, with students entering college with values they got from their families and abandoning them after being "enlightened" by their professors.What is a more interesting question is a correlation between religion/atheism and critical thinking skills. I'm not talking about standardized tests, but actual THINKING instead of repeating what they learned in school. My husband is a college professor and has many Orthodox Jews among his students. He always tells me what a pain they are to teach because they question EVERYTHING. It's part of their religious tradition. That's how they learn religion, and that's how they approach all their studies. Atheism does not necessarily encourages critical thinking because people substitute something else (science, politics) for religion and parrot "established wisdom/science" with the fervor any fundamentalist would envy.
One more thing- it's hard to make generalizations of atheists because an atheist philosophy can range anywhere from Communism (no critical thinking, no individual rights, no respect for life) to Objectivism (great respect for individual rights, reason is the highest value). Those two extremes will lead an individual in completely different directions, just like different religious interpretations may lead some people to science and others away from it.
Interesting Masha, my experience with religions like Islam, and various Christian movements like Jehova's Witnesses is that you don't question what the book/imam/priest says - under any circumstances.I'd say we're very critical in our liberal/democratic society, towards authorities, bosses, teachers, politicians and big companies (I've even read that Asian and American companies that branch out to Denmark, need extra courses to deal with Danish employees, because as a boss you get questioned and asked for good arguments all the time, and respect is something you earn by doing a a good job).
But maybe Judaism has more of a tradition for discussing and debating than other religions?
Masha wrote: "One more thing- it's hard to make generalizations of atheists because an atheist philosophy can range anywhere from Communism (no critical thinking, no individual rights, no respect for life) to Objectivism (great respect for individual rights, reason is the highest value). ..."What anoys me with this statement is that you are shelving Communism with Atheism. Communism is a sociopolitical movement and Atheism is the lack of religous belief so stop associating them with each other.
Judaism is definitely more into discussing/debating. But I'm thinking any religion would need some of that because in every generation people will have their faith challenged and a good priest/minister would need to be able to defend it. I would think they would even need to be up on science to be able to argue about parts where they disagree. Like, not just to say there was no evolution, but to point out where the theory of evolution may be flawed, real science wise (after all, even Darwin admitted there were some things he could not explain.)
Mach wrote: "Masha wrote: "One more thing- it's hard to make generalizations of atheists because an atheist philosophy can range anywhere from Communism (no critical thinking, no individual rights, no respect f..."I should have been more precise. You are right that Communism is not a philosophy. I meant Marxism (even more precisely, dialectic materialism, if you want to go that far). Marxism is an ATHEISTIC philosophy to which my descriptions above would apply.
No, marxism is not a philosophy it is a system of political and economic thought and has nothing to do with Atheism. Marxist's and communist's can be christian, atheist,muslim and pretty much believe in anything, it has nothing to do with religous belief it is only political.An atheist can be a conservative capitalist and a communist can be christian for example.
If anyone had even considered reading beyond the more famous writings of Marx they'd have found this comment proving that Marxism is not strictly Atheist even though its adherents would prefer it that way:"The religious majority does not cease being religious by being religious in private" ~ Karl Marx (On the Jewish Question)
This shows clearly that the correct term here is 'Secular' and not 'Atheistic'. (There is a difference before someone tries that one).
As much as I love semi-self-flagent debate. I'm going to beg out of this one, other than to offer a warning. There's a lot of "wearing the hairy shirts" going on here.
This thread ahs gotten out of control, once, twice and it'll surely get out of line agian.
The question, relating and comparing education and religion is based on a faulty premise. Start with a faulty premise and you'll wind up with a wacky conclusion.
On one hand, if you favor religion, the question sugguests that there is some type of class warfare pitting professionals in higher education against people of faith. It reaks of hearts on sleeves over sensitivity of some (not all) people of faith that causes knee jerk over reactions at any precieved slight against faith in any environment (particulalry schools and government).
On the other hand, it reaks of someone begging the question (framing the argument at the start) as only uneducated people follow religion and there for they resist anything considered progress. Worse it infers that athiest or agnostic educators are under seige protecting the minds of your youths from indoctrination in religion and the last defense against those who would turn our nation into a Christian state. They see themselves as Protecting the sanctity of the Constitution and the separation of church and state (Which includes our schools).
The faulty part is that both sides of the argument demonize the other. Why faulty? The question is provocative, but in an unhealthy way. It pits both sides against each other with no way to prove the argument. It can't be proven because neither side is clean or free from sin as it were. So, no matter what, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. Hitler had an interest in the occult, yes, but he considered himself Christian. So did Jim Jones from Jones down and David Koresh from Waco Texas.
Yet, for most of our history, most people have been religious not athiest. Much of modern medicine has it's roots in the hands of Chatholic priests, or Eastern Mystics (not eastern Agnostics). So there has been very much, if not more good purpetrated by religous men and women who, by the way, were also educated people.
So, the root of the question is meaningless.. Meaningless because it presumes a right and wrong answer, when the facts show that such a presumption is rediculous. Questions like these are aimed at raising prejudice ire by setting each side up with an emotional question playing on the passions of both sides.
If you doubt, look at what's happened twice now?
That's just an observation. Again I suggest a better question might come in the form of exploring spirituality in broader terms than religion. What that is, I'm not sure.
and a note on pointing out the bad christians... The number three perpetrator on the Bite list (dogs) is the Golden Retriever. Now I never met a golden I didn't like yet, they've bit more people than pitbulls and neopaletan mastiffs have. The reason isn't because their deranged fighting dogs, or that theire driven to PTSD fits and dangerous flash backs because of the sound of the hunters guns. It's simply because they they have been the between 1-3 on the most popular breed list for several years. There are more of them out there. So, it's about opportunity.
There are more religious people in our history, and even today (if we count Muslims in with christians) than there are athiests. There always has been by huge diferitials. It's kind of a no-brainer that there are more that have sinned than there are athiests. It's about statistics, not morality.
I love the dog analogy! It made me laugh out loud!
Michele wrote: "I love the dog analogy! It made me laugh out loud!"Thank you. I'm afraid my personal point of view on this topic would disappoint both sides.
But, it's nice to have a dog in the fight
...um...if you'll pardon the expression.
(P-{D>
I agree, Hugh, that the question is too broad. Studies have been done of course, and reported by the popular media (who only really report for controversy and totally lack insight into study design). The most compelling comes from studies showing a correlation between fundamentalism and educational level.
Even that's not realistic. Look at the Tea Party. More College educated, people of faith than not. That's rather fundemental and the opposite end of the education level than what people think. Nope, it's a provocative question, which, by design, only stirs up passions, without getting any answers that can be considered revalations.
And Though I don't see eye to eye with Bill Mayher, he's got a point when he calls communism religion. One or two points, not the whole ballgame.
Again, I've posted too many times on this thread. I think it would be a more interesting question to talk about the differendces between Spirituality and Religion.
Gun Control, separation of church and state, abortion and gay rights are completely "tool" topics. Apparently this question is too. Tools used to drive wedges between people and get their passions up for good television, or volitile frustrating discussion, but not particulalry able to deal with the nuts and bolts of running things.
They make good tools because there people who care about them, yet, they only come up when one side of the political spectrum doesn't like what the other side is doing/saying but realizes their side of the argument isn't going to be well recieved.
You know it's not a pleasant thread when the OP quits and somehow deletes all his posts:)These are all fun topics to discuss when people can maintain a level of civility, but with some issues it's hard to not take it personally. Religion is definitely one of them since it really doesn't get more personal than that. So, unless you have everyone agreeing on the basic premise (unlikely in a large group), eventually it will fall apart. On the other hand, people do need to think and about issues, including controversial ones, and not just leave it to "the professionals"- we all see how well THAT'S working out.
Religion was the only way to access education up to recent times. In England today, access to better education appears to be via wealth, which would propose the wealthier are the most intelligent.....hmmmm... People of any class, culture or creed can be "stupid", but they can also be amazing. It's attitude that counts, paticlarly in how we enteract with other people, whoever they are.
Shelley wrote: "Religion was the only way to access education up to recent times. In England today, access to better education appears to be via wealth, which would propose the wealthier are the most intelligent....."That is so true. In most places around the world education access is not universal. It's limited either by wealth or very early "tracking" where it's decided in early teens whether a person will get more education. Plus, even with that caveat, formal education does not equal intelligence or level of knowledge. Lots of people in this country come out of college with useless degrees and no knowledge of the basics on how the world works.
I've pretty much side stepped this thread, as I saw it self destruct once before and I've seen dozens of others like it descend into anger, recrimination and insults. It seems more wise not to upset folks... ;)A lot came to mind reading the most recent posts. I have a "friendly acquaintance" (I use that term as he's not really a friend, but we talk and get along) who recently expressed his opinion that our education system's failings could be improved by.... and he went into a description of tracking. The idea was to spot what kids are "suited for" at kindergarten age and send them off that way.
I'm not a big fan of our public indoctrination..err, I mean education system, but at least we haven't descended to that...yet. Take a 4 or 5 year old and decide all they'll ever do is janitorial work and take another and decide they'll be a doctor.
Yipes, as they say.
From the first time I saw the title of this thread I thought, "humm, a one word answer, no. Move on."
I'd like to suggest some books, but even that might upset some, so maybe not.
Masha, I think you hit "a" nail on the head also when you mentioned pointless degrees.
Okay, stepping back behind my curtain.
So i saw this thread and thought I should comment. My daughter has gone to gone religious & non preschools. She has also gone to both types of elementary schools. She went to a Salvation Army preschool and it was great. There was a lot of focus on being nice to each other and respecting their teacher. But both preschools were good. However the elementary school were a different story, one Catholic and other public. In the lower grade (3rd and under) were fine, but a little stark. But then the cliques and things learned by their parents (not the school but the school didn't stop it) really kick in. The seperation between income levels really becomes noticible. Education wise it had smaller classes and more parent involvement. Public school still had cliques but less of a divide and more accepting of differences. The public school has larger classes but more extra curricular activities.
This is kind of off-topic, but cliques come from the way kids are brought up and has nothing to do with it being a religious school (although it may be more visible with smaller classes). If you think there's no class division in public schools, you're either oblivious or exceptionally lucky to live where you do. Religious schools usually have fewer resources, both academically and extra-curricular, but again depends on the neighborhood and the parents as to what quality education the kids get. Fancy labs and gym equipment in public schools don't equal good education. And I'm speaking as a wife of college professor so I get to hear a lot about different school quality.
Religious are tution based school just like private school so you have a greater difference in class income, kids who parents can afford to pay and those on assistance. You don't have a middle ground like you do in public schools. The reigious school around here have academic resources alomost equal to the local public schools but lack in extra curricular. I know all schools have cliques, I'm raising a teenage daughter, but there was more of a seperation at the Catholic school and the school doesn't "practice what they preach". My daughter would have had access to better academic resource at the catholic school and they have a better graduation rate. But she's getting a better, well-rounded experience, and is exposed to different types of people at the public school.
Schools. Schools are such a totally different topic altogether. Schools - where we live - are horrible, horrible, horrible. It disgusts me to no end when I look at the county beside me. They pay 50% less in property taxes but their school system is light years better than ours.Our property taxes are ridiculously high and the school system infamously terrible. They put the money here in parks and recreation. :-( When we have children the only decent option may be for us to move or pray we can afford a Catholic private.
Ah I see what you're saying Sara. Still, depends on where you are. MrsJoseph, I feel your pain. When I see what the local schools spend money on, while barely teaching the basics, it makes me sick. And our schools are supposed to be "good."
Maybe we need a topic of "Is there a correlation between schools and education?" That may be more interesting, although would probably offend even more people than this thread.
Oh man, schools are a tough subject. I went to a Christian school all through pre and kindergarten, and switched to public school til I graduated, and being so young, I didn't see any difference except in the science class. Whereas my first grade science class in public school started teaching us about, well, y'know, science, and nature, when I was in kindergarten, our little science book was all about how God created the earth, and the animals and the trees and the rain and all. Once I got older though and kids were going off into cliques there was class differences for sure. The richer kids were the popular kids, and they hung out with some middle kids too, no one was like super rich driving a beemer and wearing Prada to school that I noticed, more like upper middle class, the kids whose parents bought em cars and they had fancy phones and nice houses and shopped at the mall three times a week. But the poor kids, the trailer park and apartment building (our town only had 2 of 'em) kids, they were the ones who were always the trouble makers, the bad kids, the misfits. That was me :) So there was and most assuredly still is class distinction. Can't speak for religious schools though since I left that so early.But being a parent now myself, though my kid's still too young for school, I notice the crap our school wastes money on so bad. They've got 1 librarian for all 3, middle, high and elementary, so libraries in the schools are only open for a tiny bit each day. There's 3 administrators though, each with their own office full of secretaries and other assorted employees, and they each make over $100k a year just for being administrator. There's 3 principals, a couple of deans of students, more secretaries, an athletic director and at least15 different coaches (b/t middle and high) and assistant coaches and team advisors. But band money is cut until it's pay-to-participate, costing parents around $600 for a season in band, and that's not counting if they travel to any special performances (like when I was in band, we marched at DisneyWorld, and in various competitions around our part of the state). Busing has been cut, but if anyone mentions making all the various sports pay-to-participate, people go nuts, flood the newspapers with letters, put up nasty signs. Just sad that actual learning has been sort of pushed aside, especially opportunities for students to take arts and languages classes, and sports is the big focus. I don't have anything against sports, there all fine and dandy, but you gotta make sure the kids are learning and being well-educated first.
So, I was thinking about sending my son once he's a little older, to a Catholic preschool, though we're not Catholic, but just b/c they have a good reputation. I'd like him to learn the basic values of being nice and learning respect for people and animals, which we teach him here at home, but I think it'd be good if it were reinforced at school, and I think a religious preschool will do better with that.
Wow, long rant, I'm sorry. I'll hush now :)
I am Catholic - and typically I would not send my children to Catholic schools because there usually is a big emphasis on religion. I would prefer my child get religious education IN church or via ME - not in school.BUT.
Here, Catholic schools are sometimes the very best option a kid has to get an education. Especially in the district we live IN and will be moving TO. I hate the district we are moving to but we don't have a huge option. Traffic here is so bad that if we moved to our preferred district my husband would have at least a 2 hour commute each way. :-(
The district we are moving to is...disgusting as far as politics go. The entire group of them are crooks and thieves - and before anyone says that all politicans are like that (cause they are) these crooks and thieves have the audacity to not even try to hide the fact that they are thieves and they put money in their undies:
"Just after 10:12 a.m. Friday, Leslie Johnson frantically phoned her husband, Jack B. Johnson, the Prince George's county executive.
Two FBI agents were at the front door of their two-story brick colonial in Mitchellville.
"Don't answer it," the county executive said, unaware that more agents were listening in.
According to an FBI affidavit, Johnson ordered his wife to find and destroy a $100,000 check from a real estate developer that was hidden in a box of liquor.
"Do you want me to put it down the toilet?" Leslie Johnson asked.
"Yes, flush that," the county executive said.
But what about the cash, she asked — $79,600.
Put it in your underwear, the county executive told his wife.
She replied, "I have it in my bra" — which is where agents discovered the money after she answered the door."
Hmmm, sounds like I should stop complaining about living in Jersey. All we had was a sex scandal- but who doesn't? (OK, maybe picking up men at rest stops was a bit much, but still).
Masha wrote: "Hmmm, sounds like I should stop complaining about living in Jersey. All we had was a sex scandal- but who doesn't? (OK, maybe picking up men at rest stops was a bit much, but still)."lol! Isn't is just beyond the pale?
And to add insult to injury, with the exception of the couple I referenced about (who were both "public servants" and both stayed in office for a few months after the above incident) - EVERYONE in the county was re-elected. *face palm*
It's so interesting (in a despairing way!) to discover that parents in the USA and UK share the worry about the quality of their child's education. In England we have state schools with appx 35 children in each class; this goes for Secondary schools too.Far too many to control, particularly as discipline of any kind has been frowned upon for years. Teachers here are afraid to break up fights for fear of being reported for assaulting one or both of the culprits! Public schools in the UK are actually fee paying schools, not for the " unwashed masses"!
Parents in the UK prefer religious schools because the level of education is said to be higher, possibly because the class sizes are smaller and more easily managed?
Parents in the UK will move house or even lie on school application forms to ensure their children get into the better schools. Successive governments in the UK have messed around with our education system until no one appears too sure of what is happening! all empty promises, as usual.
Shelley wrote: "It's so interesting (in a despairing way!) to discover that parents in the USA and UK share the worry about the quality of their child's education. In England we have state schools with appx 35 chi..."That happens a lot here, too. We've had news stories of several different women being arrested or placed in jailed or fined for "stealing educational services."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09...
Yeah well this wouldn't be such a problem if they allowed more charter schools. At least I can understand objection to vouchers because some people don't want them going to religious schools, but the objection to charter schools is basically on the basis of saving unionized teachers' jobs and nothing else.
I'd object to that characterization of charter schools, but that's not really the point of the thread. So I'll let the issue be.
Here in DC the issue with Charter schools it that is has become a lottery - the waiting lists are L O N G and most kids don't get a chance to attend.What I would like to see happen here in the US is a re-structure of the educational system to be more like the Netherlands:
"The Netherlands differs from most other developed countries, including the United
States, in its long history of letting parents choose schools for their children and providing full
public funding for all schools, including religious schools.3 This system was an accommodation
to the central fact of Dutch life until the middle of the 20th century, namely that society was
separated, or “pillarized,” into three groups, Protestants, Roman Catholics and secularists, each
of which had its own schools, newspapers, hospitals and other social institutions. After a
century-long political struggle over school funding, a 1917 change in the constitution called for
the central government to fund Catholic and Protestant schools on a par with the publicly
operated public schools, with parents free to choose among the different types of schools. Since
then money has followed students to the schools they choose, with no differentiation by type of
school.
Moreover, the Netherlands is strongly committed to the concept of “freedom of
education.” For parents this concept has been interpreted as a constitutionally protected right to
enroll their child in a publicly funded school that matches their family’s values, even if that means joining with other parents to start a new school. For schools, it translates into significant
operating autonomy. As a result of these policies only 30 percent of the students now attend what
in the U.S. we would call traditional public schools. The other 70 percent attend schools operated
privately with an orientation toward a specific religion or based on an educational philosophy
such as Dalton or Montessori. In return for their public funding, these privately operated schools
are subject to the same accountability procedures as the regular public schools. Accountability in
the Dutch context is based on a school inspectorate system, the procedures of which we explain
further below."
Further:
"It is within this policy context of funding debates and greater attention to individual
schools as the unit of accountability and managerial autonomy that U.S. policy makers and
educators are showing increasing interest in the concept of “weighted student funding “ (WSF).
As this term is generally understood in the U.S.,WSF has three main elements: Money follows
students on a per student basis to the schools they attend, the amount of the funding differs with
the educational needs of the student, and schools are empowered to use the money as they deem
appropriate. Several major cities have adopted variations of this policy, including Seattle, San
Francisco and Houston.1 Moreover, in 2006 a conservative think tank released a proposal to
implement WSF on a broad scale with a long list of signatories, including three former U.S.
Secretaries of Education (Fordham Institute, 2006). Such an approach appeals both to
conservatives in the U.S. who see it as a way to promote parental choice and school autonomy
and to progressives who are attracted by the call for differentially more money for challenging to-
educate students. Significantly, the WSF approach says nothing about whether the average
level of funding is adequate for a typical student."
Fantasy Aficionados
Books mentioned in this topic
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)
Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)
Neil deGrasse Tyson (other topics)
"And the followers of a central European dictator who took a particular dislike to people of Jewish descent.
I didn't mention Hitler at all.
..."
If you are not referring to Hitler than who are you talking about? Hitler was christian as i mentioned eralier he said this in 1933,
"The National Government regards the two Christian confessions (i.e. Catholicism and Protestantism) as factors essential to the soul of the German people. ... We hold the spiritual forces of Christianity to be indispensable elements in the moral uplift of most of the German people."