Educated vs "Non-Educated"

We are a nation of high school graduates.

 

Religious people have been waging war on public education for close to 60 years. It all began when the Supreme Court ruled that public schools can’t make students pray. Never mind that most public schools didn’t make students pray, but the fact that prayer, and religion were forbidden in public schools brought the radical religious types to action. They have repeatedly tried to force religion into schools. They used to use the atheism is a religion, so since no religion is a religion, then in the name of fair play, religion had to be allowed in schools. It took awhile for them to exhaust all the various courts around the country before they gave up that tact.

Then it shifted to homeschooling and charter schools. When Bill Bennett was Reagan’s Education Secretary, he did everything in his power to weaken the power of schools. He then spent his later years complaining about how bad the schools were. Even though when he had the power to do something, he tried to take away their resources.

The Bush era testing was designed to punish schools more than to better them. Oh no, those horrible public schools brainwashing children into being good little lib-er-aal robots. Send them to college and all vestiges of Jesus and all his glory will be erased from the minds of young naive students who have yet to cement their love of Jesus in their hearts.

How dare schools teach subjects outside the narrative.

 

What an achievement.

 

No, liberals support freedom, hence the word "liberal" which comes from the Latin word for free, "liber".

Progressives are in favour of forcing change ("progress") through big government programmes funded with tax money and tariffs. Progressives also believe that economic regulations are required to breed progress. Liberals believe in a free, unregulated market and a government small enough to fit in Trump's hand - "The freer the market, the freer the people" as a great liberal once said.

Furthermore, Progressives are typically Keynesians whereas Liberals are Hayekian/Austrian.

Fundamentally, Progressive and Liberal are direct opposites.

 

Surely as a liberal you must support a parent's right to choose their own child's education?

Surely as a liberal, you must support freedom of religion and thus a child's right to pray in school? Pray for their friend who is having a test, pray for the children who got shot in the school shooting last week etc...

From a liberal's point of view, there cannot possibly be any problems with allowing students to pray?

Or was it perhaps the Progressives who forced it out of school?

Surely as a liberal, you support the religious fighting for their right to their religion and don't side with the government courts who want to steal this right from them?

Surely as a liberal you must be in favour of homeschooling though, yes?

Surely as a liberal you must be against government deciding what schools are allowed to teach?

Oh, wait. That is right. You are not a liberal.

 

Perhaps. He raised a legitimate concern education vouchers won't large enough money for low-income families to find a decent school for their children. There's a long history of voucher schemes for no more than a few thousand dollars, designed as a subsidy for people already committed to private schools. A $3000 education voucher for a poor family is useless because they don't have the means to supplement it and thereby enroll their child in a private school.

This is an unpopular position with many voucher proponents whose real intent is getting a subsidy for what they were already doing.

Actually, even more generous vouchers like we see in Indiana

https://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/programs/indiana-choice-scholarship-program/​

don't result in widespread use.

The average voucher amount in Indiana suggests many of the few families using the vouchers are not rich people.

 

I couldn’t care less about religious components of education. It’s irrelevant to this discussion anyway. Government schools are failing academically.

Some atheists are hung up on narratives, it seems you may be. Some religious people are. But 99% of people I know who don’t send kids to government schools are doing it for academic reasons.

 

Shameless greed, straight up.

 

Some religious people given the vast majority of Americans in both political parties believe in God.

I was in Grade 4 in 1956-57 in California and my teacher read us a Bible story every day after lunch and then had us say a prayer. Did my parents object? No, my church librarian mother, daughter of a Methodist minister, thought the world of Miss Russell. Me? That was the year I decided none of it made sense.

Rightwing religious types use "issues" to recruit. As soon as they find this or that wedge issue works against them, they drop it.

 

I’ve heard Christians say that there will always be prayers in school as long as there are tests. I never prayed and I always did well on tests. Thus, from my point of view, Christians must be those who struggle academically.

Liberalism, practically by definition, has been the force that has been diminishing the prominence of religion in public life. After all liberalism is the political ideology that grew out of the scientific way of looking at the world. And here you are defending the religious point of view, the opposite of liberalism. Have you not read David Hume? Adam Smith’s friend.

Have you not read Edmond Burke? I’m sure his views aline more with yours than does Thomas Jefferson’s.

 

I home schooled my son because the schools couldn’t keep up. By age 16, he was creating and selling on line, video game add on packages. He went to college for about a year and a half, until a couple of the professors paid him to tutor them in the software that he knew better than them.

Whenever I talked to other parents who home schooled, most did so for ideological reasons. An ideology that is Christian based. It was quite obvious at the stores who catered to home schooling.

 

So he was a coder for DLC's?

 

No one is denied being able to pray at schools they just can't make everyone do it like they used to do when I was in school.

 

Jesus tells how to pray in the Bible and it isn't in the pubic.

 

Do you mean pubic?

 

I am no fundementalist and have no prefrence for either group. Neither do I regard one as more superior than the other. I am a liberal and thus not a collectivist.

Liberalism is not anti-religion per se.

No idea about Jefferson or what he stood for other than him being one of the Founding Fathers. I am not American, remember.

 

This is hypocricy at its finest.

Didnt you spend several posts praising the public school system? Didn't you spend several posts calling those who homeschool mostly fundamentalists? Yet, you homeschooled your own son who turned out to draw enormous benefits from not having to be stuck in a public school with 500 other students and in classrooms of 30 students and one teacher. Public schools where bullying is rampent and where results are in steady decline. Public schools where school shootings take place way too often...

You are full of it.

 

More or less. He does a lot of graphics, which is a large part of a DLC’s, added maps, characters, and objects. He hit the scene just as realistic 3D graphics were becoming possible.

I had taught him 3D modeling, as I used it in my engineering work. Turns out that CAD/CAM/CAE systems use the same 3D modeling engines as video games.

 

Yes they are and my youngest son is into doing it also.

 

Define Public Health Service. Are we talking about ensuring vaccination for infectious diseases or providing therapy ponies for everyone? That’s why I asked the question about what an individual can reasonably be expected to provide for themselves.

I’ve mentioned a few already. Another good option a lot of people I know would like is a straight up catastrophic insurance policy. As in actual insurance between me and an insurance company. With a deductible set by me and the insurance company coming to an agreement without a third party involved. Combine this with HSAs and it would fit more people.

Cost sharing is growing almost exponentially. Obviously there are people who like this option. I’m not aware of anything stopping non religious groups from forming their own to suit their desires.

Direct primary care is also a growing option that works for many. Again, back it up with real catastrophic insurance and you have the best of both worlds.

These are all workable solutions.

All the above are possible. They just aren’t pushed because they aren’t authoritarian.

Especially if moved in that direction by government policy.

I would like to see some evidence homeschooling is a flop.

 

So homeschooling seemed to work out fine for your family. I’m glad. I think it would benefit a lot of kids. Kids are too individualistic to all live up to their potential in one size fits all (none) government schools.

I bet the percentage of homeschooling based on religion varies based on the makeup of the local government school curriculum, etc. For example, in areas where government schools are antagonistic to religious kids/parents the number of families homeschooling for religious reasons will be higher.

 

Apologies if I’ve assumed too much. When you get tag teamed by a bunch who think the ACA is the cat’s meow it gets confusing.

It may be better for some. It’s worse for some.

If what another member said is true, even adding drug deaths, the death rate should have fallen. Especially between the 2010 and 2014 period. It’s just math.

And I’m not motivated to dig too much deeper, but medical errors are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer. I’m not convinced access to more “care” wouldn’t increase death rates by itself, depending on who is seeking care and what kind of care.

Fair enough. It’s growing fast, so I’m thinking it’s going to be more than a niche. From a logical standpoint, if most popular solutions are involuntary cost sharing, there is no valid reason to assume voluntary can’t work.

Again, if you don’t support mandatory cost sharing, “you” wasn’t appropriate.

 

I am opposed to ignorance. Before public education most people were illiterate. Nowadays only the mentally challenged are illiterate.

 

It seems to be a thriving profession.

 

I have no clue what means. Why would I ask taxpayers 'in town' (whatever the heck that means) how much it costs them to send their kid to public school? It's the same across the nation. It's about $180 per year.