3 ms·

Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? I don't want to have to support religion and I don't think the federal government should mandate that I

by plandis 10y ago

Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? I don't want to have to support religion and I don't think the federal government should mandate that I have to pay tax to do that.

zeveb 10y ago
> Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? They already do: your public school taxes fund schools which advocate a particular way of life & looking at the world — i.e., a religion. Far better, I think, to let all parents determine which religion they wish their children to be brought up in, than to only allow that privilege to those wealthy enough to afford it. Coincidentally, school choice & vouchers are likely to lead to improved educational outcomes, because parents will be able to choose schools that (they believe) are better. One negative outcome would be that schools would be forced to advertise & market themselves, which means that a school which is academically better but markets less will be perceived to be worse than it is. I don't know how to solve that problem, but I think it's less of a problem that the current set of problems.
edblarney 10y ago
"Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools?" Why should religious people have to pay for your kid's secularist education, which may include elements that are totally inconsistent with their moral worldview? Public schools are important, but so is choice. Vouchers are a reasonable idea, and they just might be one of the key ways to help developing communities improve - as many of the best schools in hard-up areas are 'Charter Schools' which could use the funding and students to do a lot of good.
- FireBeyond 10y ago
  Because if you take the word 'secular' away, you have a base which is remarkably the same: "secular education" versus "education". When you do the opposite, in direct contradiction with some of the founding principles of the country, you get "religious education". What's the difference, you ask? Religious education oftentimes teaches things we _know_ to be _factually incorrect_, many of those around creationism being the most obvious, but not the only.
cmdrfred 10y ago
I'm a lifelong atheist and it doesn't bother me. The public education I received was rather subpar in my opinion and I probably would have fared better in an environment like a catholic school. If a voucher program was implemented I might even consider sending my future children to one. The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die. Both have very little effect on actual day to day living.
- edblarney 10y ago
  "The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die." No, totally not. Do you know who conceived of the 'Big Bang'? It was Father David LeMaitre - a Catholic Priest - and Physicist. The Catholic Church is 100% behind the 'big bang' and 'evolution'. There's little dissonance between the church and science. The 'difference' between atheists and religious types - should be better described as the difference between 'materialists' and 'spiritualists'. 'Materialists' (atheists are usually de-facto this) - believe that the material world is all there is, and that's that. 'Spiritualists' believe that life is an expression of something greater. 'Science' is actually rooted in Metaphysics, which is the trunk of the tree below 'Physics' (see Descartes). The problem with most scientists/rationalist/atheists today is that they have forgotten their metaphysical underpinnings ... "Both have very little effect on actual day to day living." I see what you're saying - but maybe not. If you believe in something greater than you, you might be more inclined to think much more long term, make sacrifices for the greater good, for the community, for future generations. If one believes that 'this is all there is', then one might be inclined to simply pursue highly selfish and hedonists endeavours, because after all 'sympathy' and 'empathy' are just 'emotions' - and in a purely material world there is no 'right and wrong' etc. It'd be nice if all schools at least taught metaphysics in high school, i.e. the underpinning of how we think about the universe. As it stands, most public schools teach a very materialist viewpoint by default. And yes, there are tons of atheists in 'Catholic Schools' because they tend to be very good. You should wonder why all those crazy religious catholics basically invented common education as we understand it, and established most of the best universities (100% of the Ivy League, Cambridge, Oxford etc. etc. :) :) (mostly not Catholic, but religious nonetheless) Anyhow - it'd be nice for people to have a little more choice in education, without having to entirely deconstruct public education, which is important. P.S. I'm not Catholic :)

by plandis 10y ago

Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? I don't want to have to support religion and I don't think the federal government should mandate that I have to pay tax to do that.

zeveb 10y ago

> Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools? They already do: your public school taxes fund schools which advocate a particular way of life & looking at the world — i.e., a religion. Far better, I think, to let all parents determine which religion they wish their children to be brought up in, than to only allow that privilege to those wealthy enough to afford it. Coincidentally, school choice & vouchers are likely to lead to improved educational outcomes, because parents will be able to choose schools that (they believe) are better. One negative outcome would be that schools would be forced to advertise & market themselves, which means that a school which is academically better but markets less will be perceived to be worse than it is. I don't know how to solve that problem, but I think it's less of a problem that the current set of problems.

edblarney 10y ago

"Why should my tax dollars get to fund religious schools?" Why should religious people have to pay for your kid's secularist education, which may include elements that are totally inconsistent with their moral worldview? Public schools are important, but so is choice. Vouchers are a reasonable idea, and they just might be one of the key ways to help developing communities improve - as many of the best schools in hard-up areas are 'Charter Schools' which could use the funding and students to do a lot of good.

FireBeyond 10y ago
Because if you take the word 'secular' away, you have a base which is remarkably the same: "secular education" versus "education". When you do the opposite, in direct contradiction with some of the founding principles of the country, you get "religious education". What's the difference, you ask? Religious education oftentimes teaches things we _know_ to be _factually incorrect_, many of those around creationism being the most obvious, but not the only.

cmdrfred 10y ago

I'm a lifelong atheist and it doesn't bother me. The public education I received was rather subpar in my opinion and I probably would have fared better in an environment like a catholic school. If a voucher program was implemented I might even consider sending my future children to one. The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die. Both have very little effect on actual day to day living.

edblarney 10y ago
"The primary points of contention between the atheist and the religious person are how the universe was created and what happens after you die." No, totally not. Do you know who conceived of the 'Big Bang'? It was Father David LeMaitre - a Catholic Priest - and Physicist. The Catholic Church is 100% behind the 'big bang' and 'evolution'. There's little dissonance between the church and science. The 'difference' between atheists and religious types - should be better described as the difference between 'materialists' and 'spiritualists'. 'Materialists' (atheists are usually de-facto this) - believe that the material world is all there is, and that's that. 'Spiritualists' believe that life is an expression of something greater. 'Science' is actually rooted in Metaphysics, which is the trunk of the tree below 'Physics' (see Descartes). The problem with most scientists/rationalist/atheists today is that they have forgotten their metaphysical underpinnings ... "Both have very little effect on actual day to day living." I see what you're saying - but maybe not. If you believe in something greater than you, you might be more inclined to think much more long term, make sacrifices for the greater good, for the community, for future generations. If one believes that 'this is all there is', then one might be inclined to simply pursue highly selfish and hedonists endeavours, because after all 'sympathy' and 'empathy' are just 'emotions' - and in a purely material world there is no 'right and wrong' etc. It'd be nice if all schools at least taught metaphysics in high school, i.e. the underpinning of how we think about the universe. As it stands, most public schools teach a very materialist viewpoint by default. And yes, there are tons of atheists in 'Catholic Schools' because they tend to be very good. You should wonder why all those crazy religious catholics basically invented common education as we understand it, and established most of the best universities (100% of the Ivy League, Cambridge, Oxford etc. etc. :) :) (mostly not Catholic, but religious nonetheless) Anyhow - it'd be nice for people to have a little more choice in education, without having to entirely deconstruct public education, which is important. P.S. I'm not Catholic :)