ObameconomyFollow

Upthread shenanigans.

Yup. Now you're getting it! This is why we should do this to the absolute minimum degree necessary. The problem is that it seems as though many people don't understand this, or don't belief it, so they see no "harm" to continually expanding the government into more and more aspects of our lives.

Where we draw that line is subject to debate of course, but I'm mainly trying to get people to see that there *should* be a line somewhere...


And to add one more bit. Allegory's statement is absolutely correct, but only reflects half of the problem. Or at least it didn't clearly make the other half apparent.

All religious schools are "private", meaning that they suffer as a result of taxpayer funded public schools existing. We could argue that this isn't a direct "attack" on religion, but for the second half of the issue. We also have this restriction from funding religious instruction (all religious institutions technically), based on current interpretation of part of the First Amendment.

A public school can provide instruction on anything a private secular school will. The impetus for paying for private secular education is primarily about quality of education, not *what* is being taught. But if someone desires to have their child receive religious instruction as part of his education, that person cannot receive that in a public school.

So while we could say that secular and religious private schools are impacted similarly by the existence of taxpayer funded public education, religious instruction is specifically affected to a degree that no other type of instruction is. It is the only category of instruction which is broadly prohibited from being provided via public education. Thus, the combination of taxpayer funded public education *and* the prohibition against taxpayer funds going to provide religious instruction results in a direct "attack" against religious instruction itself.


We can't say that study catagories like "history" or "art" or "science" are affected to any degree. But we can absolutely say that religion as a subject of study, and only religion is. Hence, it's correct that these things represent an unfair infringement on religious freedom. Those who wish to provide religious instruction for their children are specifically prevented from doing so (or at least it's made harder for them). The opportunity cost of public education on private education rests most firmly on the subject of religious instruction.


And as I've stated before, this is just one area in which government intrusion in terms of taxpayer funded services has this effect. When you start adding up all the different areas this is going on in, it amounts to a pretty significant total effect on the ability for parents to pass on their religion to their children. I would suspect that this is at least somewhat deliberate, but that would just be the tin-foil hat speaking...

That's "degree" is entirely a personal judgment call though, isn't it? I mean, you're pretty much admitting that some restriction of liberty is okay. Some "attacks" on things are fine so long as you agree with the end result. You wouldn't agree with my argument that we should have never entered Iraq because of the "attack" on monkey farmers but that attack was every bit as real as the one you're saying happens against religious schools.

Once we've opened it to interpretation of how much is okay, it becomes a matter for the people. Which is handled through our democratic system of elected officials. So everything seems to be working just ducky.

No, you can learn about religion in public schools. I'd wager that a fair number of people had some sort of "World religions" style class, either by itself or as part of a larger array of social science studies. Hell, I took a "The Bible as Literature" course at my state funded college where we read and discussed the majority of the book over the course of the semester. What you can't do is attempt to promote a faith (such as by teaching as fact that Jesus is Lord and the students need to follow him). And that's entirely keeping with any sane interpretation of the First Amendment.

Edited, Dec 11th 2009 9:38pm by Jophiel