5 ms·

I'm for vouchers because I don't think I should have to pay with my taxes for religious indoctrination masquerading as public education.

LexiMax 3y ago
Please elaborate on your equivocation. On first glance, you're comparing apples and oranges, and it doesn't make much sense.
- pierat 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    Oh, so in a voucher system I would've had to choose between receiving a worthwhile education and being queer. Got it.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Places with public school vouchers as law allow said vouchers to be used at 100% religious schools This isn't a requirement for vouchers. You can simply state that religious schools aren't eligible.
    - LexiMax 3y ago
      What is the realistic likelyhood of this being mandated, given how many religious private schools there are and how much money they have to lobby with?
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What is the realistic likelyhood of this being mandated Just under a third of Californian's aren't religious [1]. Nobody is proposing to ban religious schools. If you can't swing it, make the choice local. Each county or whatever can vote on whether to permit religious vouchers. The Bay Area will ban it. The Central Coast won't. This remains better than the status quo. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/california/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
    - rfw300 3y ago
      This is incorrect as of last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin There is a powerful political and legal movement behind the idea that state-funded religious indoctrination is not only permitted, but required.
mcny 3y ago
> I'm for vouchers because I don't think I should have to pay with my taxes for religious indoctrination masquerading as public education. are you missing a NOT in there? as in `I'm NOT for vouchers because I don't think I should have to pay with my taxes for religious indoctrination masquerading as public education. `? because as it stands, your comment makes as much sense as saying > if you are not paying for the product you are the product Just because you are paying does not mean you are NOT the product, to spell it out. Similarly, just because people have the option to pay for their Islamic Madrasah or whatever Jewish or Christian equivalents are with vouchers, does not mean they will not try to shove their ideologies down everyone in public education in the next election cycle.
- jdminhbg 3y ago
  > are you missing a NOT in there? No, I'm not. A vision of equity advanced by kneecapping math education in public schools is no less faith-based than creationism taught in private schools. If anything, I'd guess creationism is less damaging to students.
dboreham 3y ago
I'm sure it's different in other places, but around here the only alternative school in town is run by an organized religion. Come to think of it, that's also true of the next town. Are the voucher people envisaging some eduVC funding source that allows me to spin up a school to complete with the legacy one?
- lostapathy 3y ago
  Almost all voucher proponents want them for religious schools - your observation is a feature for them, not a bug.
- brightball 3y ago
  That’s exactly what I envision. I want thousands of school startups.
lostapathy 3y ago
100% this. I even went to catholic school 7-12th grade. It was in no way a superior product like they want you to believe anyway. It was obvious in college that I had inferior math and science education, and I was considered a high performer in my high school! They even turned me off religion completely, so fail on all counts.
- barry-cotter 3y ago
  You misread the post you’re replying to. It is in support of vouchers and is implying that public schools are pushing a viewpoint that is as faith based as any religion and as open to falsification. There are people upthread singing the praises of state schools as tools of assimilation. The point of the comment you’re responding to is to point out that many people have no desire to be assimilated to the new dispensation and as such the political system will accommodate them or not. Not is left as an exercise.

LexiMax 3y ago

Please elaborate on your equivocation. On first glance, you're comparing apples and oranges, and it doesn't make much sense.

pierat 3y ago
[flagged]
- LexiMax 3y ago
  Oh, so in a voucher system I would've had to choose between receiving a worthwhile education and being queer. Got it.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Places with public school vouchers as law allow said vouchers to be used at 100% religious schools This isn't a requirement for vouchers. You can simply state that religious schools aren't eligible.
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    What is the realistic likelyhood of this being mandated, given how many religious private schools there are and how much money they have to lobby with?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > What is the realistic likelyhood of this being mandated Just under a third of Californian's aren't religious [1]. Nobody is proposing to ban religious schools. If you can't swing it, make the choice local. Each county or whatever can vote on whether to permit religious vouchers. The Bay Area will ban it. The Central Coast won't. This remains better than the status quo. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/state/california/ https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-stu...
  - rfw300 3y ago
    This is incorrect as of last year: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._Makin There is a powerful political and legal movement behind the idea that state-funded religious indoctrination is not only permitted, but required.

mcny 3y ago

> I'm for vouchers because I don't think I should have to pay with my taxes for religious indoctrination masquerading as public education. are you missing a NOT in there? as in `I'm NOT for vouchers because I don't think I should have to pay with my taxes for religious indoctrination masquerading as public education. `? because as it stands, your comment makes as much sense as saying > if you are not paying for the product you are the product Just because you are paying does not mean you are NOT the product, to spell it out. Similarly, just because people have the option to pay for their Islamic Madrasah or whatever Jewish or Christian equivalents are with vouchers, does not mean they will not try to shove their ideologies down everyone in public education in the next election cycle.

jdminhbg 3y ago
> are you missing a NOT in there? No, I'm not. A vision of equity advanced by kneecapping math education in public schools is no less faith-based than creationism taught in private schools. If anything, I'd guess creationism is less damaging to students.

dboreham 3y ago

I'm sure it's different in other places, but around here the only alternative school in town is run by an organized religion. Come to think of it, that's also true of the next town. Are the voucher people envisaging some eduVC funding source that allows me to spin up a school to complete with the legacy one?

lostapathy 3y ago
Almost all voucher proponents want them for religious schools - your observation is a feature for them, not a bug.
brightball 3y ago
That’s exactly what I envision. I want thousands of school startups.

lostapathy 3y ago

100% this. I even went to catholic school 7-12th grade. It was in no way a superior product like they want you to believe anyway. It was obvious in college that I had inferior math and science education, and I was considered a high performer in my high school! They even turned me off religion completely, so fail on all counts.

barry-cotter 3y ago
You misread the post you’re replying to. It is in support of vouchers and is implying that public schools are pushing a viewpoint that is as faith based as any religion and as open to falsification. There are people upthread singing the praises of state schools as tools of assimilation. The point of the comment you’re responding to is to point out that many people have no desire to be assimilated to the new dispensation and as such the political system will accommodate them or not. Not is left as an exercise.