Unholy

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
Why should I be expected to pay for schools who teach things I disapprove of?
Me:
Well, Peter, unfortunately you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds. You get a chance to vote for your local school board. You get a chance to vote for your local state and federal representative. They get to make the laws and policies about such things.
Do you want to start a tax revolt over the matter? Go for it.
We have been through decades, literally decades of discussion about these matters. And you were acting as if it is 1948 and nothing has been said.
If you don’t like what’s being taught in the public schools, then Work to get it changed, or send your kids to private schools.  On your own dimes. You don’t get to take dimes and dollars away from the public education supportEd by the vast majority of our citizenry.

[Charles Austin]

P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.

[James_Gale]

Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.

Why would you favor a system that preserves private schools for the affluent but forces the poor--including many children from minority-majority communities--to attend what often are among our country's worst schools?  School-choice policies (vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc.) enjoy wide support among African Americans precisely because they provide opportunities otherwise not available to get a good education. 

[peter_speckhard]

Peter:
Why should I be expected to pay for schools who teach things I disapprove of?
Me:
Well, Peter, unfortunately you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds. You get a chance to vote for your local school board. You get a chance to vote for your local state and federal representative. They get to make the laws and policies about such things.
Do you want to start a tax revolt over the matter? Go for it.
We have been through decades, literally decades of discussion about these matters. And you were acting as if it is 1948 and nothing has been said.
If you don’t like what’s being taught in the public schools, then Work to get it changed, or send your kids to private schools.  On your own dimes. You don’t get to take dimes and dollars away from the public education supportEd by the vast majority of our citizenry.

That's my point. Precisely because I live in a country that offers free public education, paid for taxpayer funds, I must insist that it not discriminate for or against my religious views or anyone else's. In the state of Indiana we as the majority of voters have determined that the voucher system works best for students and parents and should include any and all schools without respect to creed. That should be the end of the matter. But your side insists on taking it to court on the grounds that you should never be forced to pay for children to learn what I might teach them, but I should be forced to pay for children to learn what you might teach them. 

[Voelker]

you live in a country that offers free public education, paid for with taxpayer funds.

Hmmmm.

[peter_speckhard]

Well, considering the most recent Scotus decision, I am among those, probably a minority, who contend that the government should not be giving any money to private schools whether they are religious or not.
If you want to run a private school for a certain kind of student, or offer certain special things for certain families, fine, you can do that. But don’t ask me to help you pay for it.
If you want to create a certain set of standards or type of curriculum or type of “social” education, you are free to do so. With your own money. My concern is for the population as a whole, for education for all. Free public education is practically a hallmark of our country. To undercut it by providing funds for private schools, again, no matter what their religious standing, it’s not a good idea.

Why would you favor a system that preserves private schools for the affluent but forces the poor--including many children from minority-majority communities--to attend what often are among our country's worst schools?  School-choice policies (vouchers, opportunity scholarships, etc.) enjoy wide support among African Americans precisely because they provide opportunities otherwise not available to get a good education.

We've seen a major increase in voucher students this year. I should note that many of the voucher students are also church members. The income threshold to qualify is quite high. But slightly less than half the students this fall will be in the voucher program. The main beneficiaries are students from Hammond, East Chicago, and Gary, all of which have truly failing school districts where ethnic minorities are in the majority. It is amazing that some people construe it such that a policy that gives poor people in failing school districts access to the same education as everyone else is somehow bad.

[James J Eivan]

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Deacon Hummel  ... you hit the nail on the head ... it's really Some Black Lives Matter  ... or Black Lives Matter ... when politically expedient.


Together with my Pastor,  I believe that ALL lives matter to Christ  ... and that is what REALLY counts.

[MaddogLutheran]

We've see a major increase in voucher students this year. I should note that many of the voucher students are also church members. The income threshold to qualify is quite high. But slightly less than half the students this fall will be in the voucher program. The main beneficiaries are students from Hammond, East Chicago, and Gary, all of which has truly failing school districts where ethnic minorities are in the majority. It is amazing that some people construe it such that a policy that gives poor people in failing school districts access to the same education as everyone else is somehow bad.

Thank you for highlighting this.  I was hoping we might get to this in Pr. Morris' Areas of opportunity in racial conflict thread.  It's what I was getting out with how money is being wasted from doing things wrong.  Education is certainly one of them, and more money is not a panacea.

What I find frustrating is the prevailing initial assumption that we cannot improve the lives of some minorities unless we can improve it for all of them.  It's unrealistic to think we can improve all failing school systems any time soon.  Why do we not have more upward mobility among minorities?  Not enough get a decent education to make them employable in higher skilled jobs.  How about we "save" the ones we can, which will eventually create greater candidate pools in the job market.  Like I said in the other thread, in my engineering world we don't racially discriminate in hiring; we see effectively zero minimally qualified minority candidates.

But no, we can't have vouchers or charter schools.  The national teacher unions are against it, because it will "hurt" public education.  Actually, I think public education in certain places is doing a great deal of harm without any help from vouchers.

[Charles Austin]

Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.

[MaddogLutheran]

Are you sure you're responding to the correct thread?  The recent discussion on this one has only been about school vouchers and charter schools.  Is that troubling, unlike sexist comments that make you smile?  "Republicans pounce!"

It's good to know you are the one reasonable person here.  The rest of us are just crazed partisans obviously.  Your signal of virtue is hereby noted.

[Coach-Rev]

For heaven sake, again, Pastor Fienen! Is everything, and I mean everything in any discussion related to that damned wedding cake? Maybe you could find another example of how you think you and your people are so victimized and oppressed.

Well, it's not "me and my people who are so victimized and oppressed," but does 63 million dead children, a disproportionate number of whom are Black count?

Still waiting, patiently and respectfully for an answer...

<crickets...>

all the while the humble correspondent ignores accusations against him of sexism bias and posts on "all" black lives that matter...  I'm not surprised.  Neither am I amused.  I didn't even "smile" just a bit.

Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.

[peter_speckhard]

Apparently, in this thread and in that other thread, something has happened to throw chum in the waters. The sharks smelled it and the feeding frenzy is underway. The sharks want to feed and chew on the bloody flesh; they are not interested in discussion.
I think I’ll row my small dinghy to calmer waters hoping that fish more friendly will show up. Got no hooks, so we’ll talk rather than seeK one another’s demise.

What are you talking about? You posted something about not wanting any public funds used to send kids to schools like ours. I responded. Who is chumming the waters?

[Matt Hummel]

P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.

Is that the royal "we?" What gives you the right to pass judgement on homeschooling? What do you actually know about it? When I was a Lutheran and surrounded by clergy like you, who would also say they didn't know homeschooling families, I would smile and think of the families from our homeschool co-op who were in ther parishes, but knew to keep their mouth shut because they knew their pastor was as narrow minded and judgemental as you.

[peter_speckhard]

P. S. And we do allow homeschooling. I don’t think that’s a good idea, but we allow it. There you are.

Is that the royal "we?" What gives you the right to pass judgement on homeschooling? What do you actually know about it? When I was a Lutheran and surrounded by clergy like you, who would also say they didn't know homeschooling families, I would smile and think of the families from our homeschool co-op who were in ther parishes, but knew to keep their mouth shut because they knew their pastor was as narrow minded and judgemental as you.

What is breathtaking is how raising one's own children is now something one does by the benevolent leave of the government. Really? You'll let me educate my children as long as I pay for the school they aren't using? That's really big of you. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Hasn't the government said, "No one can discriminate against homosexuals?" They did not say, "It's OK for Christians to discriminate against homosexuals if they want to."

Yes, and Jack Phillips objected in his very narrow situation, where he was asked to use his artistic talents to endorse a message, that forcing him to endorse the message violated his civil rights. 

From what I've read, (a) a baker can object to what message is written on a cake, e.g., no profanity; (b) in this particular case, there had been no discussion of what would be written on the cake.