How do we create/maintain a reality-based education system?

[tyr_13]

If thirsty horses are kids and water is education, I don't think that the relevant parents feel that leading their kids away from evolution is leading them away from education. You and I may feel that way, but as long as it's legal for them to have a religious belief, we don't (or shouldn't) get to dictate what parents want their kids to learn.

In schools funded with money from the government, including state governments, we can and should.

People can have whatever religious belief they want, it's irrelevant to if it should be taught in schools. No goal-post shifting here. Plus legal religious belief is a red herring.

 

[xjx388]

In schools funded with money from the government, including state governments, we can and should.

The Constitution is pretty clear about not establishing a state religion or interfering with a person's right to practice their religion as they see fit. Until that changes, I have to continue to respectfully disagree.

People can have whatever religious belief they want, it's irrelevant to if it should be taught in schools. No goal-post shifting here. Plus legal religious belief is a red herring.

Not really. If someone wants their kids to learn that God created the earth 6457 years ago exactly as it is, then that's their Constitutional right. As the parent, they have a right to direct the child's education and upbringing. I see nothing here that would constitute a compelling need for the State to intervene.

You may say, "but it's a lie!" No. It's a constitutionally protected belief. And it is reality for the people who believe it. So when the OP asks "how do we create/maintain a reality-based education system?" I ask in return, how do we reach a consensus on what reality really is?

 

[thaiboxerken]

The parents have the right to teach their kids nonsense. However, those religious beliefs should hold no bearing on what is taught in public schools.

 

[tyr_13]

The Constitution is pretty clear about not establishing a state religion or interfering with a person's right to practice their religion as they see fit. Until that changes, I have to continue to respectfully disagree.

Not really. If someone wants their kids to learn that God created the earth 6457 years ago exactly as it is, then that's their Constitutional right. As the parent, they have a right to direct the child's education and upbringing. I see nothing here that would constitute a compelling need for the State to intervene.

You may say, "but it's a lie!" No. It's a constitutionally protected belief. And it is reality for the people who believe it. So when the OP asks "how do we create/maintain a reality-based education system?" I ask in return, how do we reach a consensus on what reality really is?

You have a basic misunderstanding of what the establishment clause does it seems. It does not matter that someone has a religious belief. In fact it being religiously based is more reason that it shouldn't be taught by publicly funded schools, not less.

What of people who want their children to be brought up with the religious idea that women and blacks are inferior and therefore wants the civil rights movement not taught in publicly funded schools? That other religions are evil?

It simply doesn't work the way you seem to think it does and unless you want to explain why you think the establishment clause supports this in some detail there really isn't much more to say.

 

[xjx388]

The parents have the right to teach their kids nonsense. However, those religious beliefs should hold no bearing on what is taught in public schools.

But public schools should not be forcing anti-religion down those kid's throats.

Luckily, parents do have another option and that is home-schooling. A large majority of people who decide to home-school do so because of the desire to reach a religious-based curriculum.

And there is evidence that home-schoolers seem to have a pretty high success rate in college so I don't think that there is an argument that teaching kids "anti-science" harms them in any significant way.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Science is not anti religion. Public schools should only teach a fact based curriculum. Creationism is not based in fact.

 

[xjx388]

You have a basic misunderstanding of what the establishment clause does it seems. It does not matter that someone has a religious belief. In fact it being religiously based is more reason that it shouldn't be taught by publicly funded schools, not less.

What of people who want their children to be brought up with the religious idea that women and blacks are inferior and therefore wants the civil rights movement not taught in publicly funded schools? That other religions are evil?

It simply doesn't work the way you seem to think it does and unless you want to explain why you think the establishment clause supports this in some detail there really isn't much more to say.

Well, the existence and legality of homeschooling and religious private schools is a good indicator that there is support for the idea that parents are the ultimate guides of religious and moral upbringing. If the establishment clause did not carve out those rights then what did? Without it, there would be no basis for opting out of the public school system at all.

The establishment clause also pretty clearly establishes that the State can't legislate against any particular religion either. And that's backed up by plenty of Supreme Court cases.

So if parents have the right to guide the upbringing of their children and the State can't legislate against a particular religious belief, what would be wrong with, say, providing a voucher to a parent so they can afford to send their kids to a school that will teach what they want taught?

 

[xjx388]

Science is not anti religion. Public schools should only teach a fact based curriculum. Creationism is not based in fact.

I'm not arguing that public schools should teach creationism. The OP doesn't mention that creationism would be taught at this alternative school. I'm simply suggesting that having alternatives for these parents wouldn't be such a bad thing. Why not allow them an alternative that is more friendly to their point of view? I can see a lot of benefits to it such as less conflict with school authorities and better outcomes for students who will thrive in a more friendly environment. We already see this in homeschooling, charter schools and private schools.

 

[tyr_13]

Well, the existence and legality of homeschooling and religious private schools is a good indicator that there is support for the idea that parents are the ultimate guides of religious and moral upbringing. If the establishment clause did not carve out those rights then what did? Without it, there would be no basis for opting out of the public school system at all.

The establishment clause also pretty clearly establishes that the State can't legislate against any particular religion either. And that's backed up by plenty of Supreme Court cases.

So if parents have the right to guide the upbringing of their children and the State can't legislate against a particular religious belief, what would be wrong with, say, providing a voucher to a parent so they can afford to send their kids to a school that will teach what they want taught?

But we aren't talking about home schooling, and I don't think the state should be subsidizing that either. A voucher for schools that teach blatant lies and misinformation would be government money subsidizing lies and misinformation. If those lies and misinformation are religious in nature, then it's government money going to subsidize religious instruction.

And that's wrong.

Also, stop with the straw man. I didn't object to 'idea that parents are the ultimate guides of religious and moral upbringing' and that's not what this is about. It's about using government money to do so. You keep arguing against a positions I never took.

 

[xjx388]

But we aren't talking about home schooling, and I don't think the state should be subsidizing that either. A voucher for schools that teach blatant lies and misinformation would be government money subsidizing lies and misinformation. If those lies and misinformation are religious in nature, then it's government money going to subsidize religious instruction.

Lies and misinformation in your opinion. Just because you think their beliefs are lies doesn't mean they aren't sincere in their beliefs.

Also, stop with the straw man. I didn't object to 'idea that parents are the ultimate guides of religious and moral upbringing' and that's not what this is about. It's about using government money to do so. You keep arguing against a positions I never took.

OK. The voucher system has passed constitutional muster according to SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS is ok with voucher systems, what's your objection?

 

[tyr_13]

Lies and misinformation in your opinion. Just because you think their beliefs are lies doesn't mean they aren't sincere in their beliefs.

No. Lies and misinformation based on our understanding of the best and most current information available. It is not opinion. It does not carry only the weight of opinion and their beliefs do not matter to if it is fact or not.

OK. The voucher system has passed constitutional muster according to SCOTUS. So if SCOTUS is ok with voucher systems, what's your objection?

This is a bad framing. 'Voucher systems' pass constitutional muster. It does not follow that all uses of a voucher system pass constitutional muster.

My objection is that the government should not be subsidizing untrue things people want to teach their children.

 

[newyorkguy]

Lies and misinformation in your opinion. Just because you think their beliefs are lies doesn't mean they aren't sincere in their beliefs...

In his opinion? You're arguing that what they're teaching isn't mere proselytizing, it's valid science?

[In] biology workbooks, they will read that the fossil record is “sketchy.” That evolution is “dogma” and an “unproved theory” with no experimental basis. They will be told that leading scientists dispute the mechanisms of evolution and the age of the Earth.

Evolution is dogma? Leading scientists dispute it? You accept that as a serious scientific hyposis?

 

[xjx388]

In his opinion? You're arguing that what they're teaching isn't mere proselytizing, it's valid science?

No. I'm arguing that parents have a right to teach their kids what they want when it comes to religious belief. If a parent's worldview is Young Earth Creationist and that's what they want their kids to believe then what gives the State the right to teach their kids otherwise?

And from that, I'm arguing that alternative schools that meet these particular needs are not such a bad and harmful idea for a variety of reasons. Under a voucher system we could have that and it wouldn't even be unconstitutional.

Evolution is dogma? Leading scientists dispute it? You accept that as a serious scientific hyposis?

No. That's not the point of my objection. It isn't my place to judge other people's beliefs, only to ensure that they have a meaningful freedom to believe it and practice it.

 

[xjx388]

No. Lies and misinformation based on our understanding of the best and most current information available.

Where is the law that 1)Defines the source of the best and most current information available and 2)Requires every American to accept it?

It is not opinion.

It is certainly your opinion that certain sources of information are the best things to teach kids. And you seem to think that your opinion should dictate what everyone learns.

This is a bad framing. 'Voucher systems' pass constitutional muster. It does not follow that all uses of a voucher system pass constitutional muster.

I think my meaning was obvious. Any voucher system is not unconstitutional if it passes the Private Choice Test.

My objection is that the government should not be subsidizing untrue things people want to teach their children.

Yet SCOTUS disagrees with you because they allowed parents in Cleveland to choose to use vouchers for schools that did just that.

 

[newyorkguy]

...It isn't my place to judge other people's beliefs, only to ensure that they have a meaningful freedom to believe it and practice it.

Good for you. So if they want to teach their kids the world is flat, fine. Two and two equals five? Sure! Up is down, left is right, fire is cold, ice is hot. Yeah!

Who are we to judge?

 

[xjx388]

Good for you. So if they want to teach their kids the world is flat, fine. Two and two equals five? Sure! Up is down, left is right, fire is cold, ice is hot. Yeah!

Who are we to judge?

Now you are getting it! Although I don't think you will find many who advocate most of those "teachings." At least not enough to start their own school. But they always have homeschooling. Yes, I know you are being sarcastic.

I guess the main point is: so what if people teach their kids weird ideas? How does it affect you?

 

[Corsair 115]

No. I'm arguing that parents have a right to teach their kids what they want when it comes to religious belief.

Evolution isn't a religious belief, it's a factual one. If some parents get evolution conflated with religious beliefs that's their problem. There are plenty of religious folks who do not make that conflation.

If a parent's worldview is Young Earth Creationist and that's what they want their kids to believe then what gives the State the right to teach their kids otherwise?

The parents can 'correct' the teaching when the child gets home. Meanwhile, if that youngster ever wants to pursue a career in biology or astronomy, at least they'd have been exposed to proper information at school.

It isn't my place to judge other people's beliefs, only to ensure that they have a meaningful freedom to believe it and practice it.

How far down that path do you wish to go? Should the child of a neo-Nazi get to skip the part of history class where the Holocaust is covered?

I guess the main point is: so what if people teach their kids weird ideas? How does it affect you?

Stupid affects everyone sooner or later. At the worst speculative end, see C.M. Kornbluth's short story The Marching Morons.

 

[tyr_13]

Where is the law that 1)Defines the source of the best and most current information available and 2)Requires every American to accept it?

Why?

It is certainly your opinion that certain sources of information are the best things to teach kids. And you seem to think that your opinion should dictate what everyone learns.

No. You can't make this aspect an opinion question. It's the finding of fact supported by observation and experimental evidence and confirmed by every reputable scientific institution that has examined the evidence for it. It's not in any way only my opinion dictating.

I think my meaning was obvious. Any voucher system is not unconstitutional if it passes the Private Choice Test.

That isn't what the SCOTUS found.

Yet SCOTUS disagrees with you because they allowed parents in Cleveland to choose to use vouchers for schools that did just that.

And? The government shouldn't be subsidizing religious instruction.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I guess the main point is: so what if people teach their kids weird ideas? How does it affect you?

There were plenty of children that taught their kids that Jewish people were evil.... no harm came of that, right?

 

[xjx388]

There were plenty of children that taught their kids that Jewish people were evil.... no harm came of that, right?

Well, considering that the Nazi's were a blip on history's radar and they were pretty much wiped our for their hate, I'd say it didn't work out too well for them.

And way to Godwin the thread...