6 ms·
> I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical. Here is a question for the
by catz 17y ago
> I didn't say that only indoctrination about the supernatural is distasteful. Indoctrination--religious or otherwise--is unethical.
Here is a question for the voucher program. Are parent's forced to send their children to schools that is founded on a religion? Or do the parents voluntary send their children to these schools?
As I understand it, parents are the legal guardians of their children. It is up to them to teach the children their value system and the religion (or no religion) of their choice.
What alternative do you propose? State enforced atheism?
> The only way to rid religious schools of the indoctrination--for which they were created and which is one of their main selling points-
Again – were the parents forced to send their children to these schools?
I don't think that it is up to you (or the state) to determine to which school a child should be sent.
Also, bear in mind that as far as private tuition goes – in the university system private universities vastly outperformed public universities in quality. Also check how many of the truly great universities were found as religious schools/backed by religious groups. Would it have been better if the state did not allow private universities? (The following universities had a religious affiliation when it was founded; Harvard, Yale, University of Pennsylvania, Princeton, Columbia, Brown University, Dartmouth college).
As for your comments about educational quality: In my country there exist a private religious schooling group. In all metrics they performed better than public schools. They did this even though they received no money form the state. A few metrics such as pass rate, teacher to pupil ratio, distinctions, drop out rate, etc... is all better than public schools (which are a mess). Children in those school actually got individual attention and academics was the focus point (they sucked in sport though).
One problem they faced was this: their school fees was a little higher than government schools (since they did not have government support). Some parents who had children with learning problems or behavioural problems sent that child to the private school but kept their other child in the public school. It got so bad that they enacted a new policy – a parent must put all his children or none of them in the school.
> --is to close them or transfer them from religious organizations to secular organizations (which is something I fully support).
I suspect that your sentiments in private schools have nothing to do with the quality of the education and everything to do with your bigotry towards religion and religious people. You would have children learn what you feel is acceptable rather than their guardian/parent.
- briansmith 17y agoYou bring up a core point and that is exactly why I am so against indoctrination. If a child is brainwashed into a religion, and then they grow up and send their kid to get brainwashed the same way, did they really choose to have their kid brainwashed? The whole point of brainwashing is to force people to act a certain way. Did the law force them? No. Did their religious leaders and upbringing force them? In many cases, yes. Keep in mind that I am not against religious people. But, I believe everybody should have their right to choose their own religion. Indoctrination fights free choice of religion and that is why I am against it. And, public dollars should never go to religious organizations or anti-religious organizations. Otherwise, people are effectively forced to support financially religions that they oppose on moral grounds. Again, I am not against religion but I am against someone imposing their religion on others--even their own children.
- grandalf 17y agoIf a parent can home school a kid and spend 2/3 of the day reading the bible, how can you even think that a voucher that may optionally be spent at an established parochial school even registers on the radar screen? If a parent can have a child's genitals mutilated just after birth (for religious or secular reasons), how can you say that allocating voucher money to a parochial school (a school which the parent is free to send the kid to w/o the voucher) even remotely registers on the radar screen for children's rights? I don't disagree with your points, but I think you are picking the wrong battle. The best antidote for religion is critical thinking, and an educational system with more choice will only help to engender such mental functioning on the part of students. Vouchers will also result in an influx of less faithful people to parochial schools and will create a wave of secularization, turning private schools less into religious orgs and making them more like regular businesses. Think about it this way, at present only the most faithful are willing to scrimp and save to send their kid to the parochial school, while with vouchers there would be a lot more secularists attending simply to get a better education.
- briansmith 17y agoI am completely against home schooling for exactly that reason. And, I am against circumcision when it isn't done for medical reasons. I agree with having choice in schools. I support vouchers and I support private schools. But, I don't support religious schools and I particular am against giving vouchers and other public money to religious schools. By the way, many (most) parochial schools already have their own financial aid systems. For example, my sister went to a Catholic high school for a year where she only paid $1,500 or so, whereas the wealthy students were paying many times that much in order to subsidize the less wealthy. Sometimes church funds go towards those scholarships too. That is why I am against public funding of religious schools; they effectively increase the church's general fund. Everybody should be free to contribute to their own church but nobody should be forced to pay even a penny to a church they oppose.