How Children REALLY React To Control

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
You're missing the central difference: where the money comes from.
If you offered money out of your own pocket to educate my children
on the condition that I send them to a nonreligious school, that
would be your right because it's your money.

Thank you. Because it *is* MY money you are asking for--mine and that of
millions of other Americans who don't want their tax dollars to support your
religion. Tax revenue is the money of the citizenry. That money is to be
spent in accordance with the desires of the majority of the taxpayers. And
the majority don't want to pay for your to send your child to the either the
Academy of Our Lady of Peace or the Academy of Islamic Jihad. Get over it.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


"Banty" wrote in message
...

This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an explicity
religious
purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving the quality
of children's education in a manner that does not create unnecessary,
artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study English,
another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so forth. We don't do
that. So if we expect children to go to a separate place to study religion,
we are singling out the study of religion to be subject to an unnecessary,
artificial inconvenience compared with how other subjects are handled.




Oh - well it's like that! Oh, the schools have a big job, then - they gotta
incorporate all those TKD classes, ballet classes, popwarner football, little
league, computer camps - wow.

Or maybe it's because a small group is really interested in TKD, etc. etc.

Kinda like there many religons out there.

Banty

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...

And don't most wealthy white families already send their children to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children attend even
within the current public school system?




Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are failures.

This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy white
families, whether racist or not, send their children to different
(usually must better) schools than from where most of poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools.

abacus wrote:
Banty wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay
says...
And don't most wealthy white families already send their children
to
different schools from where most of the poor minority children
attend even
within the current public school system?

Donna can answer for her own specific case, but I assure you not
all white
families are racist, and not all city school districts are
failures.

This doesn't address the question posed. In fact, most wealthy
white families, whether racist or not, send their children to different
(usually must better) schools than from where most of poor minority
children attend even though when they are all attending public
schools

But this is primarily because they don't live in the same neighborhoods
where the poor minority children live and therefore don't share the same
neighborhood schools. I will add that there are wealthy minority families,
though there are proportionately fewer of them, and their kids don't tend to
go to school with the poor minority kids, either. Ditto the poor white kids,
who usually don't go to the same schools as either the rich white or rich
minority kids.

IOW, the segregation we have now is based more on means than on race (though
means and race are certainly tightly intertwined in our society). The
difference between the current system and the one Nathan is advocating is
that the means to achieve school segregation would be coming from the
government instead of from individuals.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Banty wrote:
In article HxCEc.9586$Qj6.1647@fed1read05, Circe says...
Look, government can't STOP you from exercising your right to free
association and to segregate yourself from anyone you don't want
to be around, but it's under NO obligation whatsoever to support
you in these pursuits, any more than it is obligated to give you a
printing press and blank newspapers or a soapbox and a bullhorn so
you can exercise your right to free speech.

Hey that was MY analogy - except MINE was BETTER and more CURRENT
because I invoked the government providing for free computers and
CD burners and distribution!

I musta missed that part of your post. Still, I think CD burners are
*waaaaay* old news in the media department. It's Internet domains that the
government has to give away g!
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes. Personally,
while I'm not thrilled with the idea of segregation in public life,
I'm not so certain it's the evil you think it is either. My
recollection is that Malcolm X was a big proponent of segregation.
There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists. It's
just that they give the concept a bad reputation. If, indeed,
everybody involved prefers to be segregated, I'm not so sure the
government is justified in preventing it.

And while Mr. Barclay may desire to spread the word of his religion to
those willing to listen, I don't get the impression he is out to force
others to listen. I suspect he just thinks that parents who want
their child educated in an environment supportive of their religion
(i.e. start the day with a prayer, bible verses posted on the wall,
celebrate religious holidays, etc.) should not be forced to choose
between either not doing so or having to pay the price of foregoing
all tax-support for their child's education. At least, that's my
opinion.

My test case for thought experiments on the issue is an Amish
community that's near where I live. They, or more typically their
forebearers, settled together so that they could build a life for
themselves separate from the rest of the population, creating a
community dedicated to living in concert with their religious beliefs.
Why should their community be denied tax-support for their children's
education or forced to conform to the current policy of no religious
observances in the school? Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...
This is about convenience and expedience for the sake of an
explicity religious purpose. On the public dime.

It's about government achieving its legitimate goal of improving
the quality of children's education in a manner that does not
create unnecessary, artificial inconveniences for religion.

Begs the question. Assumes that 1) the quality of children's education needs
improvement (this may or may not be true, depending on the school your child
attends, but poor or low quality public education is not an issue for all
Americans by any means) and 2) that public education, whether improved or
not, creates unnecessary or artificial inconveniences for religion.

And before you try to claim that it's not an unnecessary, artificial
inconvenience, explain why children don't go one place to study
English, another to study Math, a third to study Science, and so
forth. We don't do that. So if we expect children to go to a
separate place to study religion, we are singling out the study of
religion to be subject to an unnecessary, artificial inconvenience
compared with how other subjects are handled.

But you are not asking for a school that teaches adherence to a particular
religious creed as a separate aspect of the curriculum like English, Math,
Science, etc. People who send their children to religious schools because
they want a religious education don't want a class on their religious
beliefs in *addition* to English, Math, and Science; instead, they want
their religious beliefs to be woven *into* the teaching of English, Math,
and Science. If what you want is a course in religious education for your
kids, send 'em to Bible School at church as an extracurricular activity the
way I send my son to piano lessons (I don't demand that the school teach him
piano or integrate it into their curriculum) and my daughter to ballet
lessons.
--
Be well, Barbara
Mom to Sin (Vernon, 2), Misery (Aurora, 4), and the Rising Son (Julian, 6)

This week's suggested Bush/Cheney campaign bumper sticker:
"Dick Cheney: Putting the vice in the vice presidency"

All opinions expressed in this post are well-reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not those of my Internet Service Provider, its
other subscribers or lackeys. Anyone who says otherwise is itchin' for a
fight. -- with apologies to Michael Feldman

In article , abacus says...

Banty wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes.

I'm judging him by his posts.

Personally,
while I'm not thrilled with the idea of segregation in public life,
I'm not so certain it's the evil you think it is either. My
recollection is that Malcolm X was a big proponent of segregation.

Actually, you should read his famous autobiography. It was religion (eventually
Sunni Islam) that gave him the transformative experiences (like the Haj) that
led him away from some of his earlier convictions concering race. It's really a
damn shame he assassinated at the point in his life that he was.

There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists. It's
just that they give the concept a bad reputation. If, indeed,
everybody involved prefers to be segregated, I'm not so sure the
government is justified in preventing it.

Private schools. And I have no problem with that.


And while Mr. Barclay may desire to spread the word of his religion to
those willing to listen, I don't get the impression he is out to force
others to listen.

No, just to give them a hobson's choice between a purported failed public
school, and his prosyltizing school.

I suspect he just thinks that parents who want
their child educated in an environment supportive of their religion
(i.e. start the day with a prayer, bible verses posted on the wall,
celebrate religious holidays, etc.) should not be forced to choose
between either not doing so or having to pay the price of foregoing
all tax-support for their child's education. At least, that's my
opinion.

My test case for thought experiments on the issue is an Amish
community that's near where I live. They, or more typically their
forebearers, settled together so that they could build a life for
themselves separate from the rest of the population, creating a
community dedicated to living in concert with their religious beliefs.
Why should their community be denied tax-support for their children's
education or forced to conform to the current policy of no religious
observances in the school? Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

The Amish are so generally successful in that exactly because they are so
generally self-sufficient. And non-proseltyzing or intrusive. And so don't
grub at the public coffers. I have no problem with any of that either. I think
it's wonderful, in fact. Many do use the public schools (up to 8th grade, I
think). In your test case, more importantly in real life, are the Amish among
those pressing for vouchers? I have not heard that in either Wisconsin or Ohio,
where I have relatives living near Amish communities.

Banty

On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 18:07:03 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:


"toto" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004 09:06:09 -0500, "Donna Metler"
wrote:

I have a question:

Why do parents send their children to school?

My point of view is that the primary reason to send children to school is
to
give them an education. I want my child to learn materials appropriate to
his age and maturity in areas like Mathematics, English, Foreign
Language,
History and Government (US and International), Sciences, and Arts.

I don't see that religion is relevant to much of this. In areas where it
is
(such as world history, art, and music) it would be imperative that the
basic concepts and beliefs of any religon related to the subject at hand
be
studied-but not practiced.

Is the curriculum really so much different in a religious school?


The curriculum may or may not be different. In most fundamentalist
Christian schools, evolution is either not taught and Creationism is.
In most religious schools, there is a separate class for religion
where the religion is taught. In the Catholic schools that is
Catechism until 8th grade when you make your Confirmation.
In Jewish schools, Hebrew is taught and the Torah is read and
studied as well as other subjects, but the curriculum in other
subjects is probably similar to the public school curriculum.

If it's only one class, couldn't this be accommodated by release
time or via an after school program?

It already is accomodated by such. That's the point of release time.

Evolution is only one small part of biology, and isn't taught until
about 10th grade or so-and there are opt-out clauses for
just about any part of the curriculum if a parent chooses to use them.

Frankly, the problem is that teaching Creationism as science is
a crock and will close off entrance into biology as the cutting edge
of that science is more and more involved with evolution.


--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits

On 29 Jun 2004 10:19:52 -0700, Banty wrote:

In article , Doan says...

On 29 Jun 2004, Banty wrote:

In article , Doan says...

On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Byron Canfield wrote:

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...

"Byron Canfield" wrote in message
news:%HCDc.117923$eu.79744@attbi_s02...
"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...

Freedom OF religion is freedom FROM religion.

Only for atheists, and only to the extent that they can obtain
their freedom from religion without interfering in the religious
lives of others.

That's a common fallacy put forth by those with a religious agenda.
Freedom OF religion, hence freedom FROM religion, means just
that a particular religion may not be imposed on anyone. Whether
or not atheist is irrelevant.

For religious people, freedom of religion has two dimensions: the freedom
to
practice their own religion as they see fit, and freedom from having other
people's religions imposed on them against their will. Thus, for
religious
people, freedom of religion and freedom from religion are not equivalent.
On the contrary, an attempt to force freedom from religion onto a
religious
person against his will is itself a major encroachment on religious
freedom.

The best solution to freedom of religion is found in how we handle church
on
Sundays (and other types of religious services and activities at whatever
times they occur). People go different places and do different things
without interfering with each other's choices, and without imposing
anything
onto anyone against their will. A voucher system would apply that same
kind
of freedom with regard to religious aspects of children's lives during
school hours, allowing religious people to have freedom of religion ((both
in exercising their own religion and in not having others' religions
imposed
on them) and atheists to have freedom from religion at the same time.

Nathan


But the voucher system imposes a use of general taxpayer funds, from those
of all walks of religion (and non-) for specific religious purposes. That
constitutes government involvement in establishment of religion, which is
directly against the wording, intent, and spirit of the Constitution of the
United States. Federal funds for education must be restricted to general
secular education in order to fall within the limits of the Constitution.

So why is it ok for college students to use government grants to attend
institutions like Notre Dame or BYU?

Becaue they are universities which offer curricula which are extensive and
educate without disregard or disruption of a diverse student populace. You
don't have to be Mormon or have to be at Mormon religious services to attend
BYU. Likewise for being Catholic at Notre Dame.

And you don't have to be a Catholic to send your kids to Catholic schools.

Sure. Although in practice maybe not. Catholic schools (rightly) give priority
to Catholic kids, and even kids of the parish the school is associated with.
But in principle, usually non-Catholic kids can attend. HOWEVER, that
non-Catholic child and parents need to be uniquely prepared to deal with their
child being in a religious environment not of their normal choosing.

To be fair, there are some urban Catholic schools that serve many
non-Catholics. In fact, many Catholic schools in those environments
are currently attempting to figure out how they define their
Catholicism. But this is not the majority of Catholic schools.
Most of those who choose such schools do so because they
want their children to learn Catholic values and religion.

I can go to religious services of most religions of my own choosing. It
doesn't therefore mean that they can dominate a town public holiday display
because I live in the town.

Bnaty

--
Dorothy

There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..

The Outer Limits