Boots and Sabers - The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Girl Suspended for Bubble Talk | Home | Yeah Toast

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Give all students a choice

My column for the Daily News is online. It’s called, “Give all students a choice.” Here it is:

One of the items in Gov. Walker’s State of the State speech that caught my ear last week was this comment: “We continue to expand the number of choices for families in Wisconsin — be it a traditional, a charter, a voucher, a virtual or a home-school environment. Moving forward, we want to continue to dramatically improve existing schools and give parents the opportunity to choose legitimate alternatives to failing schools.”

This indicates a continued effort by Walker’s administration to improve education and provide more choices for Wisconsin’s families. In short, it signals the intent to expand school choice throughout the state. This should be a top priority of the new legislative session.

School choice was enacted by Gov. Tommy Thompson as a very simple, but theretofore radical, concept. Some public schools do not do a good job. Families with means have always had the choice to send their kids to private schools. Families of lesser means have not. School choice allowed families of lesser means to leverage some of the funds that the taxpayers were already spending to educate their children to send their kids to a school of their choosing.

The program was originally implemented only in Milwaukee. Recently, it was expanded into a couple of other districts and the income requirements and enrollment cap have been relaxed. I hope the Wisconsin Legislature and Gov. Walker will expand it statewide.

But let us back up a little. Since the beginning of our nation, we have had a strong ethos that it is our general responsibility to educate the children of America. Universal education is a bedrock of representative government because only educated citizens can reasonably choose quality people to lead our nation, state and communities. The mandate has since expanded to include the education needed to allow people to participate in the economy and enjoy the fruits of freedom.

This is why it is not only acceptable, but paramount that we use the public treasury to ensure that every American child receives a quality education. With this charge, our predecessors decided that we should use our government to provide not only the means to provide education, but the delivery organization as well. Thus explains the rise and dominance of the public school system.

School choice is simply a way of keeping the civic responsibility to provide the means for our kids’ educations while allowing a choice in delivery organizations. The public school system, in most communities, is excellent. They provide great teachers, great opportunities, great facilities, and any kid can attend with little extra out-of-pocket costs to the families. They are a great choice for many, if not most, families.

They are not, however, the best choice for every family. Some kids do not do well in traditional classrooms, but may thrive in a virtual school. Some kids need a more rigid structure provided by a military or parochial school. Some kids have a lifestyle that only home schooling can accommodate. But if our charge as citizens is to make sure our kids get a great education, why would we only provide funding if they choose one type of school? Are we not abandoning our responsibility if we tell kids who learn best in a virtual school that they must find a way to pay for it themselves or go to a public school that doesn’t serve them as well?

It is true that in the areas where school choice is already in use all of the schools are not up to snuff. Some of the choice schools have been wretched and shut down. Some of them are absolutely fantastic and have allowed kids to thrive who were falling into the abyss in the public schools. But the same can be said of public schools. Some of them are wretched and harm more kids than they help. The difference is that with school choice, parents can move their kids to a better school even if they don’t have the means to do so themselves.

Gov. Walker has cast down the gauntlet to carry on Gov. Thompson’s legacy throughout the state. The leaders of the Legislature should pick it up and run with it. It’s long past time that only a favored few districts are given choice.

(143) Comments

Posted by Owen at 0710 hrs

Politics + Politics - Wisconsin

I think you’ll find that “universal education” was not in effect at the country’s founding. It was invented much later—by Dewey, a Progressive.

Thus we find that the public-school delivery vehicle has at least one significant major flaw: it is philosophically unable to explain the reality of the nature of man (and nature as a whole) b/c it is philosophically atheist.

“School choice” should not be about ‘delivery systems.’ Rather, it should be about a proper understanding of man.

Posted by dad29 on January 22, 2013 at 0755 hrs
Dad29, you hit on some very good points. It all needs to be re-thought and re-done. I have the will, and you seem to too, but I’m afraid that most others don’t.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0758 hrs
“I think you’ll find that “universal education” was not in effect at the country’s founding. It was invented much later—by Dewey, a Progressive.”

*cough cough* Horace Mann *cough cough*

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 0911 hrs
Well done Owen.

Let’s hope Walker gets done what many thought Tommy would get done, full school choice voucher program statewide.

Wisconsin can be a beacon for education reform for the nation.

This would be Walker’s greatest government reform legacy.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1003 hrs
Do choice schools perform better than public schools?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1111 hrs
Scott,

MPS has a HS graduation rate of less than 50%...what do you think?

In Kewaskum, state testing, the 2 private schools outperform the public schools.

Kewaskum is considered to be a fairly good public school district.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1116 hrs
Surely we must have more generalizable data than that.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1121 hrs
Scott,

50%+ of kids do not graduate in Milwaukee and you need more data?

Maybe watching this 60 minutes report might move you: (Katie Couric is no friend to vouchers, children, or conservatives)

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6895336n

Here is eye opening documentary:

http://www.waitingforsuperman.com/action/

When parents are crying their kids are sentenced to NVC public schools because they missed opportunity for limited “voucher” funding…

anyone not moved by that lacks any heart at all.

Scott, if public schools are so good, why do parent cry when they cannot get funding to escape?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1203 hrs
You already have it in Milwaukee. I am wondering how it helps the rural areas where there are not any choices. Will all of these schools be able to handle special education students or will they be able to only take those that are up to their standards. I think the big push back is that this sets up the public schools to fail because they have to take whatever student shows up and they cannot turn them away. That is how you guarantee an education to all.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1234 hrs
Will all of these schools be able to handle special education students or will they be able to only take those that are up to their standards.

Not all private schools will be equipped to handle these students. With choice, parents have to evaluate whether the school, whether public or private, can meet any needs of the student whether “special”, or not.

In some cases, that may leave the public school as only choice for “special” need kids. As reform progresses that may evolve and change in the marketplace.

It would be dumb to “obligate” any school to take a student that does not have the ability, or “special” skill, to teach that student. (I know that is counterintuitive to liberalism since obligation, force, and slavery is morally acceptable.)

The term that drives me crazy is “dumping ground”. If school leaders think their public school is a “dumping ground”, that is an indictment of public school leadership. That school deserves to fail no matter what the challenges.

However, in a competitive marketplace, no public school will be able to take that attitude.

Choice is good for all…even those that remain in the public school.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1250 hrs
Do choice schools perform better than public schools?
Posted by scott on January 22, 2013 at 1111 hrs

Does it matter? Even if they perform worse, is it not in the interests of freedom of choice to allow parents to choose what they believe best for their children?

FWIW, my kids don’t go to public school. I’m willing and able to make the financial sacrifice to send them elsewhere, but I’d also like other folks to have that option, too. Our local schools are in the top 3% in the state, but that doesn’t mean they’re good enough or offer the best environment for our children to learn in. Not all children respond well to factory settings with massive classrooms and uniform standards of instruction.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1253 hrs
Does it matter? Even if they perform worse

How can it not matter? Of course it matters. Is it important that everyone have the freedom to fly in a poorly maintained airplane? Is it important that everyone has the freedom to live in homes that aren’t up to code? Yes, it matters.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1356 hrs
How can it not matter? Of course it matters. Is it important that everyone have the freedom to fly in a poorly maintained airplane? Is it important that everyone has the freedom to live in homes that aren’t up to code? Yes, it matters

If the ill-maintained government airline and ill maintained government housing was the only choice, then an ill maintained private airline and a private house with some code violations sounds pretty good by comparison to the socialist monopoly.

If a parent finds a private school with some minor challenges is an improvement over the government monopoly school, that is their choice.

The choice allows parents to take direct ownership of their kids education.

Lesson: even a poor quality private market choice is better than being forced to a one size fits all government monopoly. The problem for you Scott is: the marketplace rarely tolerates bad performance for long.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1414 hrs
Everything you just wrote, Kevin, presumes that choice schools are better schools. You’re begging the question, in other words. We haven’t yet established that they are in fact doing better.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1427 hrs
Scott,

If private school IS NOT doing better, parents will send their kids back to the better public school.

What is the problem? Choice all around. Choice to choose the better public school even.

That choice would not happen presently in Kewaskum. The 2 private schools far outperform the public school by state standardized testing.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1433 hrs
Yeah. I don’t know, guys. I think it’s a pretty basic question. If you can’t answer it, I don’t know what to tell you.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1502 hrs
Scott,

I’ve answered it for my community and Milwaukee.

Do you want me to go through every community one at a time?

It also depends on what you value as well. In my book, Christ centered schools outperform all public schools just on that issue alone, no question.

I value a Christ centered education above all else. that makes public school far inferior, just on that issue alone.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1509 hrs
Scott, studies confirm students in choice programs have demonstrably better graduation rates, and they do it for less cost. Other studies have shown that the satisfaction rate for parents is much higher than that of parents whose kids attend public schools.

By the way, it’s a pernicious myth that the private schools will only skim the best students from the public schools. It’s parents of lower achieving students that are seeking the alternatives.

There was an interesting article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from one study’s authors that’s worth reading on the subject. http://m.jsonline.com/more/editorials/perspectives/187369091.htm

Of course, I’ve written quite a bit on the subject, including the importance of public school choice options.

Posted by James Wigderson on January 22, 2013 at 1523 hrs
Kevin,

Whether private schools do better or not, taxpayer dollars should never be used for Christ-centered education. One option, however, that I think would be acceptable is for the taxpayer dollars to pay for whatever portion of the curriculum is secular, and then it’s up to the parent, or the school, to cover the cost of the Christ-centered aspects.

BTW, this would/should apply to any religious education regardless of the religion, of course.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1618 hrs
I appreciate the response and still have some concerns on how a student gets accepted into these voucher schools. I did not call the public schools a dumping ground and am only concerned that the more expensive special education students will be left behind because the programs will not be available at the voucher schools. I read the link posted by Widgerson and I feel the article somewhat sidestepped this important issue.

I also want to point out that our small rural school has a 100% graduation rate. How they can pull off 100% is probably debatable. Under the comparison of the graduation rate for MPS then our little school out performs all the voucher schools.I am not saying they get a better education because funding rural schools does not allow for the massive programming of the large cities. We don’t stray to far from the basics. I am sure that there is a little room to work around the state mandates that the public schools need to follow to make these numbers look better to attract more and better students. The act of cherry picking does not have to be blatant, some schools will work to attract those that they want while not being as attractive to those they don’t want to serve.

Our public schools are mandated to not turn anyone away whether they need a one to one special education instructor or are a genius that wants to take college level courses while in high school which is to be paid by the school district. Making this issue a political one is the worst way to look at it, we all need to be sure that it is what is best for the children.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1623 hrs
One option, however, that I think would be acceptable is for the taxpayer dollars to pay for whatever portion of the curriculum is secular, and then it’s up to the parent, or the school, to cover the cost of the Christ-centered aspect

VA,

To force a Christian separate Christ out of one’s life, in any degree, is contrary to Christian faith.

Thus, why public schools present a fundamental education problem for many Christians.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1633 hrs
That’s not really a response to my option/the suggestion that I’ve heard presented. If school choice becomes more prevalent, and it’s funded with public dollars, those dollars absolutely should NOT go to fund the teaching of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc… religious values or lessons. I wasn’t suggesting that Christians be forced into a religious education without religion. I was suggesting that those who make the choice to go to a religious school not receive public money to pay for the exclusively religious portion of that education.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1654 hrs
VA,

True Christian faith is not something that can be cold heartedly detached from the school curriculum.

You are good at articulating the mainline religions you do not want funded.

What about the liberal religions in public school?

What about the Kwanzaa worship at Falk Elementary school?

Global warming worship and its faithful refrain “the earth is warming”?

Where is your outrage at these religions permeating the public school curriculum?

You think you know what “religion” is or how to define it? Read this Ann Althouse piece.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/yoga-in-public-schools-establishment.html

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-elvis-problem-defining-religion.html

and my favorite discussing whether what Falk elementary did was religion:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/shouldnt-freedom-from-religion.html

Are you just as outraged by Yoga’s current establishment clause problem IN public schools?

Why is liberal Yoga religion allowed in public schools and funded?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1712 hrs
First, thanks Wiggy, for posting something pretty interesting. I am given to wonder, however, if these research findings are as plain and incontrovertible as the author seems to think. Where’s Jay Bullock when you want his opinion on something?

taxpayer dollars should never be used for Christ-centered education.

I definitely feel this way also. We have an obligation to educate everyone through the 12th grade, if possible. I don’t think it’s right at all for that obligation to lead us to subsidize someone’s religious activities. Christians like Kevin are adamant that they don’t see a problem with this. But I think they’re just playing dumb. If they lived in a Muslim majority country, they’d be out on the street corner loudly wondering why everyone doesn’t immediately see the wisdom of keeping religious activities out of the public obligation to educate the young.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1715 hrs
Scott,

I don’t want funding of liberal public school religions either. (Read Althouse blog)

When will that be enforced?

I’m especially offended, and cringe, looking at the Falk Elementary Kwanzaa worship video.

Or is it Christians you only discriminate against?

Tolerance by granting choice is not a good option?

Or should only liberal religions be funded?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1726 hrs
Alright Kevin, you win. You’ve gone in to your intentionally dumb, obfuscating, blathering talking points mode, so there’s no reason to continue this conversation.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1729 hrs
VA,

I have “talking points”?

Thats outstanding.

So this means you will not call for defunding of other pubic school religions with me?

I’m a little disappointed you think the establishment clause is only for Christian suppression. I think there a whole lot more, liberal, religious suppression we can conduct in public schools!

If we offer school choice, no need for liberal religious leaders to worry about the coming suppression under the guise of the establishment clause. (Everyone can opt out of the liberal religions.)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1736 hrs
The two big issues I see with choice are that choice schools do not have to adhere to any statewide standards. Teachers do not need to be licensed or credentialed. Early on in the thread, a question was asked about choice schools in Milwaukee and their performances. The last stats I remember showed there was no measurable difference between choice and MPS.

Another issue I see is special education and the students choice schools can take or leave. Choice schools do not need to take any special education students. They do not have to provide IEP’s. They can expell a child without the same protections for the family because a child expelled from private school can still go to public school. Choice schools can choose their students, public schools cannot. Choice schools will be able to weed out lower performing students driving up their test scores.

Ultimatley this can and will lead to my public school getting less of my tax money to educate students with more needs.

If you want school choice—level the playing field. Make choice schools follow the Federal discrimination guideliness—they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. If a choice school is alllowed to discriminate, why should they get my tax money? Make them accredited by the state with the same criteria as a public school for curriculum. Require all teachers to be licensed. What would be wrong with that?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1801 hrs
The last several posts from Kevin are the kind that sometimes make me think that he is a fake poster.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 1944 hrs
...they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc…

Public schools cvannot discriminate based on religion????

Really?

Have you read the Family Research Council report?

http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF12H29.pdf

Let me know when public schools stop discriminating against Christians, and I may stop laughing at you comment.

And another thing, private schools would need to check with elementary and grade school kids on their sexual orientation?—-lol.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2003 hrs
Have you read the Family Research Council report?

I generally don’t get my information from hate groups.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2038 hrs
Scott, I find it interesting that you oppose any use of tax dollars for Christ-centered education. Should we bar any student receiving a federally-backed student loan or grant from attending Marquette University? Should we bar any research dollars, or any grants for the dental school, from going to Marquette?

Posted by James Wigderson on January 22, 2013 at 2039 hrs
Scott,

Family Research Council is a hate group?

Are you against families?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2041 hrs
Should we bar any student receiving a federally-backed student loan or grant from attending Marquette University?

Of course not. College and university study is different. It isn’t compulsory, for starters.

Family Research Council is a hate group?

It is according to the Southern Poverty Law Center. Undoubtedly this is because of their position on homosexuality. Not only do they falsely assert that homosexuality is closely linked to pedophilia, apparently they’d like to criminalize homosexual acts.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2049 hrs
Scott,

Conservatives wear it as a badge of honor to be labeled a “hate group” by Southern Poverty Law Center.

SPLC labels anyone opposed to its radical Marxist agenda as “hate”.

This means you must not read any anti-Marxist information as all.

That explains a lot.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2056 hrs
“The difference is that with school choice, parents can move their kids to a better school even if they don’t have the means to do so themselves.”

Parents can do this now with open enrollment.

When, and only when, choice schools (including and especially parochial schools) have to provide the exact same services as public schools (special education services, for one example) AND abide by the same laws as public schools can there be a true and valid comparison of the effectiveness of public vs. choice/parochial. Until then you are comparing apples to oranges.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2058 hrs
Not only do they falsely assert that homosexuality is closely linked to pedophilia, apparently they’d like to criminalize homosexual acts.

Hate ^

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2103 hrs
Scott,

Of course not. College and university study is different. It isn’t compulsory, for starters.

Let me get this straight.

Voluntary study, Christian education funding from government is OK?

My grade school kids are under “voluntary study” of their Christian education…there we are, all good!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2104 hrs
It is according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Getting your information from the SPLW is highly suspect. This is the same outfit that inspired the homosexual activist last August to shoot up the FRC, wounding a security guard. It also spends 89% of its money on fundraising and administrative costs, making it one of the most poorly run and lowest rated charities in the country. In reality, it’s little more than a self serving organization trumpeting its own version of “hate” discovery to raise money for itself.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2109 hrs
I don’t care if they eat Christian babies for breakfast. It doesn’t change the fact that Family Research Council is a hate group.

But whatever. Even hate groups have supporters. I guess they’re called haters.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2118 hrs
Scott,

I consider the leftist, Freedom from Religion Foundation a hate group as well.

FRC does an excellent job in their report exposing this radical, anti-American, leftist hate group.

135 pages of leftist hate detailed in FRC report is very, very compelling.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2118 hrs
How can it not matter? Of course it matters. Is it important that everyone have the freedom to fly in a poorly maintained airplane? Is it important that everyone has the freedom to live in homes that aren’t up to code? Yes, it matters.

How do YOU define success? Do you define it as creating someone who mindlessly parrots talking points of which you approve? Or do you define it as helping someone develop analytic skills that would be stifled in a normal classroom?

One of the reasons that home-schooled kids do so much better in general is that their own strengths are played to. They may not be as strong at the some of the facets that public schools view as important, such as an intimate knowledge of how to apply a condom to a banana, or the various Kwanza decorations, but in general they have a stronger knowledge of history, spelling, and geography than kids who are forced into deal with the public system. The public school system has been burdened by far too many diversions to properly perform its core tasks of educating students in basic knowledge and critical thinking. (Don’t get me started on how much students have declined in the last 30 years. I’ve seen it first hand and it is appalling.)

I was aghast when I saw my teenager’s American History text for 10th grade. There were 8 pages on the Revolutionary War containing a grand total of 9 paragraphs discussing the events leading up the Declaration of Independence through the writing of the Constitution. 9 paragraphs, but lots of pretty drawings! When I complained to the teacher, she beamed back a huge smile and said that the video supplement would fill in the gaps and that this was a big improvement over all that dry reading they had to do before. I was furious that a high school so highly ranked in the state could get away with such a text and claim to be providing a “good education.” Yes, if there had been choice at that point I would have pulled her out of that school, but we made do with some extra reading and an AP course later.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2124 hrs
I don’t care if they eat Christian babies for breakfast. It doesn’t change the fact that Family Research Council is a hate group.

So you hate based on the information from haters? The SPLC “hates” anyone who “hates” gays, so that makes your hate ok?

Interesting belief system you have there. Tried that thing called tolerance that liberals are supposed to be promoting? I know, you can tolerate anything except heterodoxy.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2129 hrs
Scott,

Is this what political debate is boiled down to: Whoever can label the other “haters”, thereby undermining any real discussion of the issues?

I’m hopeful we can set a better example then.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2130 hrs
nerdbert, you seem to have put some thought into the subject of education. Do you have a background in it?

Kevin, I’d like to help elevate the discussion. But if you think telling people that gays are child molesters and that their relationships should be prosecuted as crimes, well.. I’m not sure where to go from there. Suggestions?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2237 hrs
As a card carrying member of both the SPLC and FFRF, I can state with clarity that the above comments are incorrect and in some cases, made up out of thin air.

Kevin, your beloved Christian schools test better because they thin the herd.
Period

I gave MILWAUKEE charters schools a chance when Howard Fuller said we needed to try them . I’ve seen nothing to say they are better and many articles about scams .

You and Owen and all the other choice supporters need to Sack up like our parents
did, leave the seat vacant you pay for , and exercise your “choice” to send your kids to the school of your choice

That generation didn’t whine. This one does. It’s called conservatism .

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2343 hrs
I’m hopeful we can set a better example then.

THIS is the biggest, and most obvious, lie you’ve ever told.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 22, 2013 at 2345 hrs
THIS is the biggest, and most obvious, lie you’ve ever told.

I feel ya. But I’m always willing to give folks another chance. I guess it’s just my hope that they’ll give me one, too! If Kevin says he’d like to elevate the discussion, I’m a believer.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0032 hrs
nerdbert, you seem to have put some thought into the subject of education. Do you have a background in it?

You mean besides having a professor at a major midwestern university for a father, a mother who was the leader of a teachers union, a Ph.D., two masters, two BSs, and teaching for several decades as an adjunct simply because I like doing it? No, nothing much other than that.

Teaching doesn’t pay the bills like commercial work does, but it’s very rewarding and I absolutely love doing it. Adjunct pay is laughable and make McDonald’s pay look good the first time you teach a course, but even a tenured professor doesn’t make much. If it paid close to what I make now I’d teach, but I started my career at a salary higher than the average tenured engineering professor and I’ve left that pay level in the dust long ago.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0308 hrs
But if you think telling people that gays are child molesters and that their relationships should be prosecuted as crimes, well.. I’m not sure where to go from there. Suggestions?

I did not say this.

Do you agree with everything said by SPLC or Freedom from Religion Foundation?

If so, let’s have a debate about that.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0722 hrs
Mark

Kevin, your beloved Christian schools test better because they thin the herd.
Period

Kids do better because they have Christ as their number 1 priority. At home. At school. At Play. My nephew attends public school and my parents visit both for grandparents day.

They say its a night and day difference in kids attitude and the level of academics.

Taking Christ out of the equation (public school) puts kids behind, and at a disadvantage, spiritually. Rejecting Christ has severe consequences on numerous levels.

Given the fact that public schools can only encourage the spirit with empty liberal religions, like Kwanzaa, I can see why the spirits of many of the kids at public school are starving.

You can’t starve the “herd” spiritually, then complain those that break from the herd, that feed the spirit, properly, and then come back and complain the herd is starving.

Chrisitian parents want their kids to be fed beyond the mind.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0730 hrs
VA, Scott,

THIS is the biggest, and most obvious, lie you’ve ever told

I feel ya. But I’m always willing to give folks another chance. I guess it’s just my hope that they’ll give me one, too! If Kevin says he’d like to elevate the discussion, I’m a believer.

You mean my modest emulation of liberal political tactics, like those conducted by the liberal Freedom from Religion Foundation and SPLC is a bad thing?

I thought liberalism was about tolerance?

So copying liberal political tactics is something I should re-evaluate?

I appreciate the feedback

God Bless.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0733 hrs
Great discussion on who hates who better or worse. Why do we have to look to the experts that back up only our own claims? Mark Maley is the only one that looked at this from a completely practical and honest view. Whether they show it as policy or not, the choice schools will find a way to weed out the less than desirables or those unable to perform. I have not seen an argument to refute that.

When the conversation goes to name calling and finger pointing it loses it’s constructive tone. I have noticed that there are very few posts that Kevin does not call out somebody for something and I find that disconcerting. I am not saying that Kevin does not raise some good points but if you were having a discussion with someone that repeats endlessly the same thing, you would walk away.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0800 hrs
I have noticed that there are very few posts that Kevin does not call out somebody for something and I find that disconcerting.

Could you provide a couple examples?

Whether they show it as policy or not, the choice schools will find a way to weed out the less than desirables or those unable to perform. I have not seen an argument to refute that.

And what does that say about public school leadership if they view the kids they have as “undesirable”, a “dumping ground”, etc?

Will kids thrive or fail in that type of enviroment?

Those kids are in public school now.

Is this all about bringing down kids and parents that want better?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0807 hrs
What is the purpose of the public school? Why would success be defined by graduation rates?

I suggest that public school failures are a consequence of trying to prepare everyone for college, something discussed at length on this forum several years ago.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 0948 hrs
That’s not really a response to my option/the suggestion that I’ve heard presented. If school choice becomes more prevalent, and it’s funded with public dollars, those dollars absolutely should NOT go to fund the teaching of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc… religious values or lessons. I wasn’t suggesting that Christians be forced into a religious education without religion. I was suggesting that those who make the choice to go to a religious school not receive public money to pay for the exclusively religious portion of that education.

Why not? Strip away “Because that is the liberal way” for a moment and answer the question as Move forward accuses Mark Maley of doing from a practical and honest view. I can fully understand why you don’t want your kids in a religious school you don’t believe in. However, why are you against a different parent choosing to send their child to a Christian school? Why don’t they have that right? Why do they have to help pay for your kid and you absolutely should not have to help pay for their kid? What is the honest and practical liberal answer?

If you want school choice—level the playing field. Make choice schools follow the Federal discrimination guideliness—they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, etc. If a choice school is alllowed to discriminate, why should they get my tax money? Make them accredited by the state with the same criteria as a public school for curriculum. Require all teachers to be licensed. What would be wrong with that?

First part, done. All choice schools are required to follow federal discrimination guidelines. What if a large contingent of the population believe that a major part of the problem is all of the useless classes and indoctrination that the education training system puts in the way of teaching? And before you ask, Scott, I have a teaching degree and first hand experience. I would much rather have an evaluation of the teacher’s success be a measure of whether to retain them or give them a raise, over a money to the state license renewal, and new class requirement.

Mark’s honest and practical view included this:

Kevin, your beloved Christian schools test better because they thin the herd. Period

Where is the proof of this? Can you point me to some instances where a private school denied a child because of learning problems? Most anecdotal evidence of denials are because of reasons unrelated to learning problems. The few appropriate anecdotals I read were from the state denying the entry because the Government decided the school did not have the facilities. For instance, it was not enough that a teacher was willing to take a wheelchair up and down steps. Ramps or elevators were required everywhere steps were by Gov’t regs and the small school could not afford to make the changes. The Christian schools I have associated with would never have turned away a child because of their disabilities.

As I am quite positive none of you can provide any statistical proof of it(period), I will accept even anecdotal proof of a few christian schools turning away low achievers or even special needs children(not the Gov’t). I suspect you believe this line of BS because it is a liberal urban legend. Enough educators have said it, so it is true, because of one instance of a for profit charter school doing something fishy sometime in the past. There is some(small) evidence of charter schools doing some cherry picking, but you all don’t hate charters like you do religious schools, so please keep the evidence to religious schools.

Mark also said this:
You and Owen and all the other choice supporters need to Sack up like our parents
did, leave the seat vacant you pay for , and exercise your “choice” to send your kids to the school of your choice

That generation didn’t whine. This one does. It’s called conservatism .

Hardly honest or practical. Our parents went to schools that taught the basics, how to think, etc. Today kids get breakfast, fuzzy math, Kwanzaa month, black history month, women in history month, flavor of the day week, etc. 90% of inventions in the 19th and 20th centuries were by white males, but thanks to black history month, everybody knows who invented peanut butter.

So moveforward, before I provide evidence to refute whether private schools cherry pick, isn’t it your responsibility to first prove that they do? The closest I could find was Conn schools in Hartford, where charter(not religious) schools have half the number of spanish speakers than public schools. As far as I could tell, the 2 most likely reasons for this were: 1) Spanish speaking parents don’t even know about the choice and 2) Culturally, spanish speakers try to stick together. If they had their choice, the majority of spanish speakers would opt to send their kid to a wholly hispanic school. In Florida where vouchers are big, studies have shown that “...cherry picking is irrelevant”. What have you got?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1029 hrs
The idea that Christianity is somehow necessary for academic success is asinine. Most of Europe does better academically despite being mostly secular. Much of Asia does better academically despite being either secular, or non-Christian. It’s a stupid argument easily refuted just by looking at the world at large.

If you would like a good explanation as to “why you should have to pay for someone else’s kid’s education,” the simplest answer is that widespread education produces secondary benefits to society at large, and actions which produce positive externalities tend to be underprovided. Subsidies are sometimes justified in such cases.

You can always pay for private school if you don’t like the public system.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1041 hrs
Paul,

You can always pay for private school if you don’t like the public system.

But can private school parents opt not to pay for the public system?

If we don’t like the public system, why should we double pay? Vouchers eliminates that cruel liberal punishment for wanting better for our children.

The idea that Christianity is somehow necessary for academic success is asinine.

No one is saying that. However, if you feed the spirit (something the public school, in theory, cannot do outside empty liberal religions like Kwanzaa), children are more likely to thrive in other areas as well, including academics.

If a child is poor in spirit, it is more likely they will be poor in other areas.

How does a public school feed a child’s spirit without running afoul of the aggressive “separation of church and state” liberal religion?

Is yoga the answer in public schools?...no wait a minute, that runs afoul of oppressive, anti-religion, establishment folks.

Or are you saying that feeding a child’s spirit is unimportant?

(If so, that’s why people that value this in child raising, want to escape the bankrupt school system in relation to this important child raising issue.)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1123 hrs
In Wis. we have several components to education: A worthless DPI, Universities that are flush with too many people, K-12 Educrats, Unions, teachers and students. Who is last in line/
The only group that places students first is CHOICE.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1140 hrs
“Feeding the spirit” is empty rhetoric, and all of your statements assume a conclusion. In any case, you have plenty of time for religious instruction n your private life, on weekends, and on Sunday. The first amendment prohibits religious instruction of any kind. That you don’t understand what religion is is your problem.

No, you can’t opt out, just like you can’t opt out of funding the police because of some personal belief or because you own your own guns. (Double paying there too).

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1149 hrs
First amendment prohibits religious instruction? Education wasn’t even part of federal government when the first amendment was written…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1154 hrs
So? What’s your point? Why did you ask a question and then add an irrelevant sentence followed by an ellipsis?

The answer to your question is “Yes.”

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1201 hrs
God bless you, Paul.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1217 hrs
Yes. To liberals the intent of the Founders is irrelevant.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1255 hrs
One might plausibly argue that public education is unconstitutional, I suppose (though I wouldn’t, and it probably would not be for the states to do it in any case), but if the government is going to provide public education is is definitely prohibited from providing religious instruction in the schools it creates. That is exactly consistent with the intent of the founders and, more importantly, with the text they ratified.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1307 hrs
So with Obamacare, should all religion be removed from hospitals?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1309 hrs
Kevin, I was pointing out your attitude toward discussion in general. I do not have time to re-post them all. You are generally combative and when the facts lean toward the other side you dig in deeper. It is my opinion of how you are, I am not trying to change you.

I agree with Paul on the point that it is the parents responsibility to educate their children in religion. They should also set a good, loving example lest their children grow up to see that what they were taught and what they were shown are to different things.

I would think that parents who believe religion is an important part of education would not want the schools teaching that to their children. If we had to teach religion in our public schools then the local board will be responsible for the outcomes and not the parent. Is that what you want? I think I will continue to be the driving force in my child’s view of the world, not a stranger with a religious manuscript that they are forced to teach.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1319 hrs
Paul,

“Feeding the spirit” is empty rhetoric, and all of your statements assume a conclusion.

You have just offended those that embrace Christ.

The first amendment prohibits religious instruction of any kind. That you don’t understand what religion is is your problem.

Really? So the Kwanzaa worship at Madison Falk elementary schools is OK? Teaches say they are celebrating the African American “spirit” with the kids with their event.

This event has to be thrown out if we are feeding the spirit in any way, that, clearly smack of religion!

(Just when does propping up, motivating, encouraging, or feeding one’s spirit not end up being a religion?)

Read what Ann Althouse has to say on the defining “religion” problem:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/shouldnt-freedom-from-religion.html

How does one rectify freedom of speech…but then make an exception for religious speech?

Speech suppression is in 1st Amendment?

No, you can’t opt out

Just like aborted unborn babies.

So an essential element of child raising must be aborted at the schoolhouse door?

Socialism, “one size fits all”, at its absolute worst.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1347 hrs
You are generally combative and when the facts lean toward the other side you dig in deeper.

Every time I’m accused of this, I, gently, ask for examples from my liberal friends in hopes to improve how I say it. No one takes up the offer.

If I have attacked anyone outside of the substance of the issues, I will surely apologize.

Sometimes my passion for freedom from socialist tyranny gets the better of me.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1400 hrs
The first amendment prohibits religious instruction of any kind.

So Marquette students, on the government grant and loan dime, should be immediately de-funded?

I thought liberals supported expanded college education funding?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1410 hrs
Smeety, no. Hospitals are private organizations. Public schools are not.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1415 hrs
You have just offended those that embrace Christ.

Don’t care. Your statement was vapid. Cloaking it in religiosity doesn’t change that.

Really? So the Kwanzaa worship at Madison Falk elementary schools is OK? Teaches say they are celebrating the African American “spirit” with the kids with their event.

No, not really. Though I don’t really think it was worship. No point in using ridiculous rhetoric to make your point. Makes you look small. Kwanzaa is debatably secular, but I’d keep it out.

(Just when does propping up, motivating, encouraging, or feeding one’s spirit not end up being a religion?)

Read what Ann Althouse has to say on the defining “religion” problem:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2013/01/shouldnt-freedom-from-religion.html

How does one rectify freedom of speech…but then make an exception for religious speech?

That exam question is pretty terrible. The actions are clearly religious, but tying them to environmentalism, which is rooted in science, muddies the facts. I’m not a fan of law school exams which test you on tricky facts using rhetoric rather than application to the law. Personal preference, I would have marked her down in my evals for that. It’s really not that hard of a distinction to make in real life.

Speech suppression is in 1st Amendment?

No, the opposite actually. You should read it, it’s actually really clear.

No, you can’t opt out

Of public school? Pretty sure you can. You can go to private school, you can home school. Yeah, you have to pay taxes for something you don’t like. That’s why they’re taxes, and not voluntary contributions.

Just like aborted unborn babies.

So an essential element of child raising must be aborted at the schoolhouse door?

Socialism, “one size fits all”, at its absolute worst.

So this is a parody account, right? Because those sentences make no sense, and have nothing to do with what we were talking about. Either that or you’re bonkers.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1429 hrs
Hospitals are private organizations and therefore can take government money and host religion?

Thanks, Paul. Now apply that logic for private schools.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1442 hrs
Hospitals take government money?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1447 hrs
Are you serious? Forget Obamacare. Ever heard of Medicare?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1450 hrs
I’m sorry, I thought you were talking about Obamacare. Because you were talking about Obamacare.

In any case, the key point is that hospitals do not teach religious doctrine with the coercive power of the state backing them, unlike schools.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1458 hrs
I actually do think the funding mechanism matters too, and the percentage of total state money that makes its way to the entity. Those are more hypothetical factual concerns though.

The much more important issue about schools is that schools teach.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1502 hrs
Ever heard of Medicaid? You may not be aware, but its a huge part of Obamacare…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1517 hrs
Paul

It’s really not that hard of a distinction to make in real life.

What is “religion” is a much more difficult topic than liberals care to admit.

Is it a pure question of Faith? Spirituality? Worship? Concepts of consciousness? etc?

The dangerous part here is: the liberal Fereedom From Religion Foundation has made speech a complete “land mine”. Religion cannot even be talked about without the speech oppressors coming out these days.

As a veteran of free speech litigation, under the first amendment, speech just being “reviewed” by a government entity is a violation of free speech rights.

How does a public school weed religion out without reviewing the speech?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1547 hrs
Smeety didn’t read my last two comments yet, apparently.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1615 hrs
Easy. Students can talk about religion all they want. Teachers can’t advocate for (or against) a religion. They can discuss it’s influence in literature, historical context, etc. And there’s no place in science for religion, of course. (Maybe in History of Science though.)

The FFRF is just a private advocacy group. They have no power to censor any private citizen, so I don’t know why you’d bring them up.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1619 hrs
I’m also not necessarily against vouchers for kids to go to a Catholic-run school (for example). I am against a religious charter school. If that distinction helps at all. Depends on the facts.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1623 hrs
Students can talk about religion all they want.

Not true.

Truth v. Kent School District, 129 S. Ct. 2889 (2009)
A public school prevented students from forming a Bible club, stating that the club’s requirement that club members possess a true desire to grow in a relationship
with Jesus Christ would exclude non-Christians and violate the school’s nondiscrimination policy.

Ward v. Polite, 667 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2012)
Julea Ward was expelled from Eastern Michigan University’s graduate counseling program because she would not affirm homosexual conduct or heterosexual conduct outside of marriage. A federal district judge ruled against Ms. Ward, but the Sixth Circuit reversed. The case is ongoing.

Whitson v. Knox County Board of Education, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 5813 (Mar. 20, 2012) L.W., a fourth-grade student at Karns Elementary School in Tennessee, was stopped by school officials from holding Bible studies with his peers during recess. A jury found for the school, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Morgan v. Swanson, 659 F.3d 359 (5th Cir. 2011) (en banc)
Jonathan Morgan, a third-grader in Plano, Texas, was told that he could not include a religious message in the goodie bags that he was bringing to the “Winter Party” to share with his classmates. Other children at the school were prohibited from distributing pencils that stated “Jesus is the Reason for the Season” and “Jesus Loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so.” Another student was ordered by a school official to discontinue
distributing tickets to a Christian drama and to discard the remaining tickets. In a fractured en banc opinion, the Fifth Circuit stated that the students are protected by the
First Amendment but that their protection was not clearly enough established to award damages against the school officials involved.

Harper v. Poway Unified School District, 445 F.3d 1166 (9th Cir. 2006)
Poway High School had a special day to celebrate homosexuality. A Christian student
who wore a T-shirt that had an opposing view and that mentioned God was banned from
wearing the shirt. The district court ruled that the student’s speech was not protected
because it offended the “identity” of another person. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

C.H. v. Oliva, 226 F. 3d 198 (3rd. Cir. 2000)
Zachary Hood brought his Beginner’s Bible to school to share a story about Jacob and Esau
called “A Big Family” as part of class activities, but Zachary’s teacher refused to allow the
story to be read because it was religious. Zachary’s mother had to file a lawsuit to allow
Zachary to share his story, just as the other students were permitted to share theirs.

Would you like more of the liberal hostility in public school towards Christians and the speech you say Christian students are “allowed” to express?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1630 hrs
Paul,

The parent is given a voucher to educate their child/children. They decide where they want to apply those dollars. You state that you are against parents sending their voucher dollars to religious charter schools. Are you also against people designating their food voucher dollars to purchase kosher food or halal food? That is purely supporting their religious practice and beliefs - even more so than education. Are you against people that receive an earned income credit voucher using that money to tithe to their local church?

I think when the government gives people money or vouchers they cannot look at the content of where that money is spent. If it is designated for food or education and the government decides that based on the content of the education or the food they would be abridging the free exercise there of.

Tad

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1644 hrs
Yup, most of those are incorrectly decided. Morse v. Frederick really did a number of the 1st amendment rights of students. You remember that one, I’m sure. The outcome of Harper v. Poway hinged on it and was specifically stalled awaiting the ruling.

Funny you didn’t mention that case as it’s been the basis for so many bad rulings in schools. I wonder why…

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1657 hrs
The problem with Charter Schools specifically is that the government is often funding them in total.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1658 hrs
Paul,

I only scratched the surface. My apologies for not mentioning your favorite cases.

I can post more.

When you say students have the freedom to express their religion in public school, that is just patently false. Even when the case is correctly decided, parents are left holding the legal fee baggage from the violation by the public school.

Public schools have, and continue to destroy, and asault, the speech rights of students.

Why would you NOT want to give students and parents a choice to get away from that liberal hostility and speech oppression?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1705 hrs
Haha. You don’t even know! That’s different than anything you cited by virtue of the fact that it’s a Supreme Court case, it made one of the cases you cited possible, and the majority was the conservative block (of course).

And that’s why you didn’t cite it, because conservatives are just as guilty of everything you cite here when it’s speech they don’t like (or when a teacher wants to burn a cross into a student’s hand).

In any case, the fact that you can sue someone for pretty much anything is a problem with the judicial system, not the state of the First Amendment. The fact is that a private citizen can walk into a public school right now (well, once you get past security) get down on his/her knees and pray, and the government will not do anything about it. And if they do, you will win your lawsuit 99% of the time.

I also think I’ve made it pretty clear that I’m not a zealot on vouchers, and I’d actually make far more sweeping reforms to education if I had my crazy libertarian way.

Holding up conservatives as paragons of free speech, however, is simply insanity.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1713 hrs
Paul,

Freedom of religious speech is a libertarian value, not just a conservative value.

Lets start with reform by vouchers and move from there.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1720 hrs
Would you like more of the liberal hostility in public school towards Christians

I think the problem here is that you’re immersing yourself in this victimhood and obsessing about each and every problem a Christian student experiences at the hands of every thoughtless boob in America…while ignoring the fact that there are 300 million people here and the stone cold reality for a lot of them is that they live in Christland, both in and out of school. If the social climate has changed just enough in recent years to allow some of them to stand up and say it isn’t fair, that doesn’t mean you’re being oppressed. Your problem is that you’re getting your information from a hate group which cherry picks its evidence to convince you that you’re under attack, that you’re the victim here.

And what is so hard to understand about the value of a secular government? Ironically, only a completely secular government can protect your religious freedom.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1730 hrs
“Freedom of religious speech.”

Why not just freedom of speech? Seriously. C’mon.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1740 hrs
Scott,

I think the problem here is that you’re immersing yourself in this victimhood and obsessing about each and every problem a Christian student experiences…

So taking my cues from liberal “victimhood” strategy is not a good thing?

It works for free birth control, college education funding, etc.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1757 hrs
So Kevin, I have been away from the computer for a while. I am not surprised to see that you have again hijacked the discussion and ignored the questions.

Back in 28 I brought up a couple of simple assertions—choice schools do not need any accredidation—why should my tax dollars pay for unaccredidated schools? Public schools need accredidation to get tax dollars, why do we not hold choice schools to the same standards?

And, a choice school can refuse admission to anyone it wants. It does not have to provide special educaiton services. It can expell any student for any reason. It can discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation or any number of factors. Why should my tax dollars pay for this? (and I will give you a hint, the answer is not that the public schools discriminate based on religion or creed—they allopw any student into the classroom!)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1813 hrs
Av,

choice schools do not need any accredidation

If standardized test scores fall below that of local public school, I have no problem having such a requirment enforced.

It can expell any student for any reason. It can discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation or any number of factors. Why should my tax dollars pay for this?

Unlike the current public school monopoly, parents and student can take voucher to another school, if that school does not accept them.

Its’ essential to allow schools the freedom to expel students for violating the specific school rules. That is just good sense for other students.

If school is not equipped for special education its foolish to send your kid there if the child has special needs. that is great thing about choice. Go to a school that can meet those needs.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1820 hrs
Kevin,
I think you should read your posts to see how you sound. Maybe have one of your kids read them aloud for you. At the end they will ask you why you hate others so much and yet profess to be a Christian. Maybe it would cause you to reflect and go read the Bible instead of flogging everyone that posts on this blog. You have a reply for everything but seem to make little sense even when you have 40 links to back up your argument.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1847 hrs
MoveForward,

That is how Kevin operates. He never really says anything of substance and never answers questions. He answers questions with more questions of his own. Then he goes on the obvious Kevin talking points of abortion, Christian persecution, and liberal this and liberal that. He obviously has a mental condition that he himself cannot see. I pray for his wellbeing.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1852 hrs
Kevin, so you are saying that a choice school can refuse to accept a student for any reason because that student can just look for another chioice school that will accept them. So a choice Muslim school can take vouchers for 70 students and refuse to admit a student because they are a Christian and that school can still receive my tax dollars to educate the 70 Muslims while turning away a Christian?

I am not happy with the public schools and the way that they treat and educate my special needs student, but by law they have to take him. Your choice school can take my tax money and say to my special needs student, sorry, eventhough I get the same tax money as the public school, I do not have to provide services for you—so sorry.

Finally, your choice school could choose to expel a student for failing to follow specific school rules—for example, my Muslim child in your Christian school refused to say the Lord’s Prayer—and that is ok and your school should get my tax money.

You are incredibily selfish—give me my choice, by do not let me follow the same rules as the public schools. Is that what Christ would do?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1900 hrs
And, eventhough my public school needs to be accredited and licensed by the state and teachers need to meet licensing requirements set by the state, your choice school only needs to meet those requirements if test scores fall to a certain level. Your choice school can take tax money and yet not meet any licensing or accredidation standards?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1904 hrs
Your choice school can take tax money and yet not meet any licensing or accredidation standards?

If this was a true standard of accountability, we would not have failing public schools.

Kevin, so you are saying that a choice school can refuse to accept a student for any reason because that student can just look for another chioice school that will accept them.

Why would you want to make a school take a student they are not skilled to handle? It’s not good either for teacher or student.

MoveForward

At the end they will ask you why you hate others so much and yet profess to be a Christian.

So it was th “God Bless” you didn’t like? Seriously, please quote the “hate” you indicated I displayed and we can discuss it.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 1951 hrs
Kevin, interesting—you really do not read. My comment was: “Kevin, so you are saying that a choice school can refuse to accept a student for any reason because that student can just look for another chioice school that will accept them.”

Your response was: “Why would you want to make a school take a student they are not skilled to handle? It’s not good either for teacher or student.” Yet the example I cited for this was about a Muslim choice school refusing to accept a Christian student—what “does not skilled to handle” have to do with this intentional discrimination?

I never argued that accredidation or licensing was a standard of accountability. My only question which you refuse to answer because you are wrong is why should my tax money support a choice school that has to meet no standards for accredidation, teacher licensure or anything?

Since you cannot present a logical rebutal to logical arguments, you digress to your old, tired talking points.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2001 hrs
Just remember Kevin runs the Dairy Queen in Kewaskum. Take your business else where.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2004 hrs
AV,

I would think a Christian school might want to take a Muslim, in hopes of converting them to Christ.

And a Muslim school take a Christian, in hopes to convert them to Islam.

Public schools convert kids to the many times self-destructive secular humanist religion everyday.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2006 hrs
Ricky,

Just remember Kevin runs the Dairy Queen in Kewaskum. Take your business else where.

So you like having the same consumer choice I advocate with school vouchers?

Thanks for backing me up on the value of choice.

I appreciate it.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2014 hrs
Kevin, so I am going to open a choice school K-8.

I will hire 6 teachers. 3 of them are high school drop outs, 2 are convicted pedophiles and the last one is a transexual. Our science curriculum will be based on the pre-Galileo ideas that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. All students will be taught Roman numberals instead of Arabic numbers. In addition, this school will teach sex education by getting the boys hookers when they reach 8th grade. The girls will be encouraged to sleep with anyone they can find.

Since I do not need to meet any standards for accredidation or licensing, I can take choice vouchers to fund this school. I call the school St. Elsewhere’s and 60 families sign up knowing the curriculum and teacher qualifications. And in your eyes, this is acceptable since choice schools do not need accredidation or licensing for their teachers?

And the issue is not about a Christian school taking a Muslim or a Muslim school taking a Christian, the issue is about a school taking my tax dollars and refusing to take students based on creed? Would the Christian school you send you children to take a student who was a professed homosexual Wiccan in the hope of converting them? I suspect not.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2014 hrs
I will hire 6 teachers. 3 of them are high school drop outs, 2 are convicted pedophiles and the last one is a transexual. Our science curriculum will be based on the pre-Galileo ideas that the earth is flat and the center of the universe. All students will be taught Roman numberals instead of Arabic numbers. In addition, this school will teach sex education by getting the boys hookers when they reach 8th grade. The girls will be encouraged to sleep with anyone they can find

Do you really think that little of parents, that they would choose something so ridiculous?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2025 hrs
Cool, you refuse to answer my question about discrimination—meaning you sanction my tax money being used to discriminate.

I make no statement on parents—I make an argument that I could set up a school with the criteria I suggest and if someone chose send their children there using a choice voucher, you believe that is acceptable since choice schools do not need to meet any standards or licensing requirements to receive my tax money.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2031 hrs
Kevin, bottom line:

Based on your answers and attempts to avoid answering my questions:

1) Do you believe that a choice school can take a voucher—my tax money—and not need to meet any accredidation standards for the school or licensing requirements for the teachers?

2) Do you believe that a choice school cna take a voucher—my tax money—and refuse to admit a student based on religion, creed, sexual orientation or any Federally protected class?

PS—and asking me a questions and waiting until I answer before you answer is out of bounds. Just answer 2 simple questions with a yes or no.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2038 hrs
I make no statement on parents—

You are making a statement on parents. You are saying the parents would actually make such a ridiculous choice in the first place.

Cool, you refuse to answer my question about discrimination—meaning you sanction my tax money being used to discriminate.

No one is discriminating. You take the voucher to a school that you like. “Like” meaning you would adhere to that school’s code of conduct. Certainly a Christian school would have a Christian code of conduct. A Muslim school would have it own code of conduct.

If one does not agree with that, choose a different school. If you hate what the school stands for, why would anyone choose that schoo with their voucher? choose something else.

The point about choice is: you don’t have to force anyone to do somthing they don’t want to do.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2040 hrs
Wow lots of comments full of inaccurate information. Where to start?

Charter schools are ineffective? Since you can statistically prove that many MPS schools fail to achieve any of the standards (reading, math, etc..) that would mean they are not abject failures you can not logically use this as an arguement against charter schools. Parochial schools easily smash (on average) academic standards compared to their local schools.

Private schools reject students? I can only speak for the Catholic high schools but since the schools never see the student, only their application which does not ask for race, creed, religion, abilities or special educational requirements I would love to know how they could reject a student based upon those criteria. The Catholiuc High school I taught at last year had developmentally disabled, physically disabled, ESL/ELL, and disciplinarian troubled kids and yet 90+% of its graduates went on to college/universities. Again, not valid in this argument.

Tax dollars going to a religious institution? The parents choose where to use the voucher to obtain their child’s education. The Supreme Court has held this is not a 1st amendment violation. So unless one of you is a constitutional scholar with greater credentials than SCOTUS we can safely rule out this one as well.

The point is to educate the child. The parents are almost always the best decision makers in the process. Why would we rule them out as being capable of rendering a decision like this?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2042 hrs
Kevin, that is what I thought—I asked you to just answer 2 simple questions with a yes or no and you are unable to do that.

Good Night.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2059 hrs
AV,

If you asked me questions without false pre-suppositions in a choice scenario, maybe I could answer “yes” or “no”.

I answered in #108.

Just for your reference:

http://www.marquette.edu/osd/policies/doc/Student_Handbook.pdf

Do you opppose Marquette picking and choosing its students?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 23, 2013 at 2110 hrs
Yeah David Baylor, I said similar things in my last comment. The real use libs make of Kevin is that they only answer him, because he often gives bad answers. Now they get to sound smart. I answered your questions AV and so has David. But you all just keep arguing with Kevin about it, geniuses.

Paul:
The first amendment prohibits religious instruction of any kind. That you don’t understand what religion is is your problem.

One might plausibly argue that public education is unconstitutional, I suppose (though I wouldn’t, and it probably would not be for the states to do it in any case), but if the government is going to provide public education is is definitely prohibited from providing religious instruction in the schools it creates. That is exactly consistent with the intent of the founders and, more importantly, with the text they ratified.

In what way are vouchers in violation of the 1st amendment? The voucher represents money for education for a child not support of a religion. Considering your phrasing “.. the schools it creates.” I agree with you 100%. With a voucher, a parent gets to decide where to send his child, even to a school the Gov’t did not create. There is no conflict between a voucher system with religious school choices and the 1st amendment because the parent is spending money on her child’s education as she sees fit.

One thing that even libs and cons tend to agree on concerning education is that when the parent(s) is involved, the child tends to excel. It seems to me that choosing the school could be a significant tool to involving them, and the ability to change schools can be a significant tool as well.

Just for AV I will repeat: The over emphasis on bureaucratic accreditation is one of the chief problems with public schools. Requiring the stupid crap that the public school system is saddled with would simply harm the private school option. If we first have to make alternative schools like the public schools, the whole point of alternatives has been abrogated. Again, I speak as an accredited teacher.

I will directly answer your questions in 107:
1) Yes and as choice schools receive less money than the public school options per pupil, you should jump for joy for every rube that opts out from a total tax bill perspective.
2) Here I can’t answer for all choice schools, but from a religious school perspective (the main focus of complaint on this thread), there is no discrimination. My experience is the same as David Baylor’s above. I am pretty sure(please show me proof to correct my own ignorance if this is wrong) that charter schools must follow federal discrimination guidelines(at least in most states, charter guidelines vary widely state to state). I believe you are mixing charters and religious schools and I don’t think they have the same rules in most cases. To directly answer your question, I would not have a problem with denying a child for reasonable rules violations. If a school has a uniform code and a family says it goes against their religion to wear the uniform, don’t go to the school. If a school required belief/observance of the school religion for entrance, I think it should not be allowed to accept vouchers.

Privately, I don’t think that much of charter schools compared to established religious schools and treating the two types as the same thing is wrong, IMO.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 0944 hrs
In what way are vouchers in violation of the 1st amendment? The voucher represents money for education for a child not support of a religion. Considering your phrasing “.. the schools it creates.” I agree with you 100%. With a voucher, a parent gets to decide where to send his child, even to a school the Gov’t did not create. There is no conflict between a voucher system with religious school choices and the 1st amendment because the parent is spending money on her child’s education as she sees fit.

I’d even take it a step further and say that if vouchers are unrestricted by the govt, then there’s no way they are endorsing a religion since all religious schools would be getting voucher money. Quite a bit different than if vouchers were only allowed for only <insert your religion of choice here> based charter schools… which is what the 1st Amendment is protecting against, establishment of a religion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1005 hrs
Tuerqas,

The real use libs make of Kevin is that they only answer him, because he often gives bad answers.

I’ll bite. Which ones? Let me have it.

(I will stipulate to typos.)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1010 hrs
Virtually every time you are challenged you tie it to ‘socialist tyranny’ or the ‘liberal playbook’, or the religion of fill in the blank. Whether these pat answers have any validity whatsoever or not in any particular thread, you will braid them together to make one or more fit and stubbornly stand by it no matter the response. Like a clock always being right twice a day, sometimes they fit the thread, but you use them incessantly. If your feeling as you read this is that: “Well they always do apply.” Then I would ask that you comment less as we all already know you believe in those points and I am fairly sure none of us are interested in seeing exactly how you can find a way to fit the multisided pegs in the round holes on every single conversation. We all get it. That is how you feel.

Your initial comments were relevant and local. In comment 13 you begin the slide. Once you start the same tirade using the same phrasing as the last thread and the thread before that, no one takes you seriously and libs point out how your hexagon does not fit in that particular round hole. Keep to arguments that do not use these same tired rationales even if you feel they fit.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1116 hrs
Tuerqas,

So it’s not so much a specific comment, but the global position I articulate, public school has its own special proteted religions and I find tyranny in that, is the real issue?

Or am I missing your point?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1126 hrs
More or less. You think many non-religious beliefs to be actual (rather than metaphorical) religions like progressivism, liberalism, Democrats, Republicans, etc. You are welcome to define yur beliefs in those terms for yourself, but many people have shown ample proof that these beliefs are not by definition religions. Not one person has agreed with your literal interpretation that politically motivated beliefs are actually religions. This does not mean you have to abandon your beliefs, keep them. I like my religion too.

However, when you start a tangent with what everyone else on the blog considers to be a badly flawed argument, others can prove to everyone else you are wrong just by going back to the initial flaw. No one else that I have read on this blog believes that progressivism is a religion. Therefore, (whether or not it is as clear as day in your own mind) when you start arguing using that line of thought, it doesn’t matter what your point was. You can’t possibly prove a point to anyone who doesn’t first accept the lens through which you prove it. As no one accepts that progressivism is a religion, any point using that line reasoning is already faulty in everyone else’s mind.

Once in a while you argue your points without the faulty crutches. Many of those times I have agreed with you. I have never agreed with you when part of your argument first presumes that a non-religion is a religion. And Scott, AV, MF, GCM, Mark Maley, are generally right in every reader’s mind when they dispute you because they can attack that portion of your argument.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1539 hrs
Tuerqas,

In a nutshell, I should check with you before I call something a “religion”?

How much dancing, druming, clapping, and singing about “spirit” is enough at a public school to legitimately check in with you for the “Tuerqas test of religion”?

I appreciate you helping me out.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 24, 2013 at 1830 hrs
As I said, keep your beliefs. All I am saying is that your contributions will be marginalized by all when you make those particular comparisons. No need for snark. I am certainly not being snarky to you. I quote:

I’ll bite. Which ones? Let me have it.

Any time you call any belief system(or holiday) a religion when it is not considered an actual religion by anyone else, no one will take you seriously even if a portion of your argument has validity. I am trying to help because you asked. Just tell me to shut up anytime.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1137 hrs
Tuerqas,

In all seriousness, when is a “celebration” of a “belief system”, especially a system that encourages the “spirit”, NOT a religion?

Any time you call any belief system(or holiday) a religion when it is not considered an actual religion by anyone else, no one will take you seriously even if a portion of your argument has validity.

“Anyone else” does not include Stephanie Findley? Aren’t you worried you are being recist discounting her view of Kwanzaa as a reliogion?

“Anyone else” does not include Ann Coulter?

So I have to ignore both liberals and conservatives on the issue?

Its a fairly constricting view of religion you promulgate, don’t you think?

I think religion needs to be defined more broadly than you define it, to enjoy more “free exercise” protection under the first amendment.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1150 hrs
Do you really think that little of parents, that they would choose something so ridiculous?

No kevin I don’t. But I do think they would select a school that advocates the world was formed on a day in October, 4004 B.C. wich is right up there close to[ av’s comment.

Kevin you are interested in quoting legal authority. Here are a couple. The reason you have to “double pay” for public schools is contained in the state constitution.
Art. X Sec 3 provides:The legislature shall provide by law for the establishment of district schools, which shall be as nearly uniform as practicable; and such schools shall be free and without charge for tuition to all children between the ages of 4 and 20 years; and no sectarian instruction shall be allowed therein; but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours.

That’s pretty clear despite the protestation for your family research council or other Tea Party groups.

The federal government has no constitutional authority over education. However they get what they want by offering money to schools that do something and denying it to those that don’t. There is also the legal weight of federal discrimination law and court precedent to encourage educational opportunity for all students.

The Supreme Court has also weighed in the place of religion in the public schools over the years starting with:

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
Court finds that a New Jersey law which included students of Catholic schools in reimbursements to parents who sent their children to school on buses operated by the public transportation system does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state’s attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment’s separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
State’s moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether “pure” moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of “creation science” in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

You may not like it but so far (keep my fingers crossed with this court) your views are not the law!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1356 hrs

Dave,

Many parents view many of those liberal court rulings as wrecking education.

Those rulings back the idea and need for school choice.

As you aptly point out, public schools, to the letter of the law, are only allowed to be a souless, godless, spiritless, institution.

Not the best learning environment for kids.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 1407 hrs

How about schools that accept students of ANY religion and NOT try to convert them to another religion .

We’d call them “public schools ”

I grew up with 12 years of catholic school education . My dad said that the public schools were nice and even pretty , but there was no
GOD there .
I think of my Dad sometimes when I read Kevin’s stuff.

I thought my Dad was well meaning and a good man in his own right but totally full of crap when it came to one group of believers being better than another.

Leave the prayer book at home and be a Great example of proper living to your kids .

The End.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2352 hrs

The many parents you refer to probably listen to Focus on the Family and do view these as “liberal” court rulings. However, it ends up that the majority of the current court were appointed by Republicans. Albeit they may have non-doctrinaire tea party Republicans that could pass the current litmus test. That does not mean they are liberals. In the last 40 years only four justices have been nominated by a Democrat. They currently serve so a majority of the current court has been nominated by Republicans.

As I aptly point out, the wording of the state constitution speaks against your point of view. To say that it supports the concept of school choice is a conclusion worthy of Dr. Goebbels.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 25, 2013 at 2357 hrs

How about schools that accept students of ANY religion and NOT try to convert them to another religion .

We’d call them “public schools ”

What explains public schools taking pride in converting Christian students to secular humanism?

You mean public schools don’t convert students to the religion of evolution, environmentalism, and global warming?

I find that hard to believe.

My dad said that the public schools were nice and even pretty , but there was no
GOD there .
I think of my Dad sometimes when I read Kevin’s stuff.

I thought my Dad was well meaning and a good man in his own right but totally full of crap when it came to one group of believers being better than another.

Leave the prayer book at home and be a Great example of proper living to your kids

Your Dad was correct about God being thrown out of the public schools in the divine vs. man made sense.

Leaving the prayer book at home sets a bad example for your kids. Part of Christianity is to set an example and educate your children in Christ in preparation for eternity.

If one rejects that duty to their children’s education, you reject Christ.

I’m sorry you lost your way. I’ll include you in my prayers.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0936 hrs

Oh Dave,

...but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours.

So a school choice program cannot allow student to be released the whole school day to be educated completely?

Especially if religion is intergrated into the whole curriculum at the choice school?

Sorry to blow your whole in the theory that kids MUST be subjected to a spiritless school.

(Which would not be too different from all the religion in today’s public school curriculum.)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0944 hrs

Corrected from my cutting and pasting challenges in post above.

Oh Dave,

...but the legislature by law may, for the purpose of religious instruction outside the district schools, authorize the release of students during regular school hours.

So a school choice program cannot allow student to be released the whole school day to be educated completely?

Especially if religion is intergrated into the whole curriculum at the choice school?

(Which would not be too different from all the religion in today’s public school curriculum.)

Sorry to blow a hole in the theory that kids MUST be subjected to a spiritless school.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 26, 2013 at 0959 hrs

120.Tuerqas,

In all seriousness, when is a “celebration” of a “belief system”, especially a system that encourages the “spirit”, NOT a religion?

The 4th of July for one. Celebration of a Democratic Republic and the spirit of liberty and freedom for all.

Earth Day. Celebrates the healing of the planet through tens of thousands of clean up efforts every year. Definitely celebrates a spirit of volunteerism to clean our local environment.

Labor Day. You’d probably stay open here anyway, but it is a holiday to celebrate the improvement of working conditions in the richest country on the planet.

I really could add dozens more based on what I said rather than your purposeful misrepresentation of what I said, but these fit even your twistings of my words.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 1606 hrs

The 4th of July for one. Celebration of a Democratic Republic and the spirit of liberty and freedom for all.

The “spirit” of freedom and liberty is not a religion we mostly all share?

Thanks, praise, and celebration of freedom can be a religion. Many Christians say thanks and pray on 4th for the values of freedom and liberty.

If we go by the Freedom from Religion Doundation standard, this has to be banned from public schools, because it could smack of religion, easily.

Anything dealing with the “spirit” will risk a ban by the new oppressive liberal establishment clause standard

Earth Day. Celebrates the healing of the planet through tens of thousands of clean up efforts every year. Definitely celebrates a spirit of volunteerism to clean our local environment.

This is the worship of things created, Mother Earth, etc. Environmentalism is so wrought with religion, its like arguing Christianity is not a religion.

I might give you Labor Day, but the “spirit” of improving working conditions is a belief system and a religion for many unions. I would not deny unions that belief.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 28, 2013 at 1835 hrs

Exactly, you may keep your beliefs, but they are pretty much just yours. Neither Ann Althouse nor Stephanie Findley would agree with you that any of the above are religions. If anyone with half a brain had tried to argue that the spirits of freedom and liberty were religions during the making of the constitution, they would have been declared a halfwit and been removed from the building. And just think what would have happened if they would have been convincing. No constitution as we know it, because the Gov’t could not offer freedom, liberty, the spirit of justice, etc., because it would all be against the establishment clause. Your belief invalidates the constitution. That makes you a totalitarian or a marxist. Which is it?

You can insist that all ideals/beliefs are religions on a blog where everyone thinks you are stupid because of it, or you can not use that argument and your rep just might improve over time. You asked before if you need to ask me before calling something a religion, but I offer this: If a standard dictionary or even a Wikipedia reference mentions that a word, ideal, etc. is a religion, consider it a religion for any argument. If it does not say it is a religion, don’t insist that it is one in your written word. Easy-peasy.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2013 at 0825 hrs

Tuerqas,

So something that you hold precious, like the spirit of freedom and liberty, is not a religion to you?

I guess its a matter of degree. however, you cannot dictate what degree someone holds those values dear. Many libertarians hold those values in a religious regard. Liberals, usually, disregard those values/religion because they don’t have faith in choice and freedom.

Some may consider it a religion. some not.

Point is: it’s not up to you to dictate whether someone believes in something with religious passion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2013 at 0835 hrs

“Point is: it’s not up to you to dictate whether someone believes in something with religious passion.”

My hypocrisy meter just exploded.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 29, 2013 at 2151 hrs

Major,

Is that because you onlly like liberal religions?

(and I dislike them….)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 0723 hrs

No, Kevin, it’s because you’ve just tried to shut down Tuerqas’ argument with the exact same line of reasoning that has been repeatedly used against you on this very topic.

This is either a conversion on the level of Saul on the Road to Damascus, or you’re just trying to talk your way out of a corner.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1013 hrs

Major,

Tuerqas is the one trying to narrow the definition of religion.

He is saying Kwanzaa IS NOT a religion for example. I am saying some people do consider it a religion,including those that observe it. It’s not up to Tuerqas to discount their belief it is a religion.

The reason you find my argument so objectionable is because you know what it means if religion is more broadly defined…it means liberal speech oppression.

This, chilling, anti-religious speech, environment is the fault of liberals.

This is why “religion” being expanded in definition has got you guys in a twist, it means the speech can be reviewed, and oppressed, thanks to what the liberals have done to religious speech in the public square!

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1103 hrs

“The reason you find my argument so objectionable is…”

We’ve been over this already, Kevin. People have (again) explained their issues with your position, and you’ve (again) proceeded to tell us what we really think. This can mean one of three things:

1. We are all lying to you about our beliefs and positions.

2. You have an incredible gift for knowing the minds and hearts of people better then they themselves do, and somehow missed your true calling as a psychologist.

3. You’re projecting.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1505 hrs

So something that you hold precious, like the spirit of freedom and liberty, is not a religion to you?

Yes that is exactly what I am saying.

I guess its a matter of degree. however, you cannot dictate what degree someone holds those values dear. Many libertarians hold those values in a religious regard.

Wrong, it is a matter of definition. Freedom is not a turtle because you say it is a turtle, to any degree. No libertarian I have ever met worships freedom as an answer to the purpose of the universe or as a deity or supernatural force. As an inalienable right, it is about as natural as it gets.

Some may consider it a religion. some not.

No, only people who don’t know what religion is might consider freedom(or turtles) a religion. Virtually everyone who can read a dictionary does not consider it a religion. Definitions of religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.
4. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Freedom contains no moral code save perhaps what you may do to others. You might try to weasel it in under the second definition, but first and foremost, 2, 3, and 4 are identifiers, not labels. Since there is not a group of people who identify themselves as the freedom religion or the progressive religion, there is no freedom religion or progressive religion. End of story. You, Kevin, do not get to make up a religion and tell people they are part of it.

Far from narrowing the definition of religion, I am defining it as broadly as the rest of the US, excepting you. I asked you to come up with a link of anyone else specifically calling Kwanzaa a religion. Or, name one Kwanzite(or person that observes Kwanzaa, and considers it a religion). Or, point to a website that has the tenets of the Kwanzaa religion. All standard definitions and descriptions say it is a holiday. Is your belief that it is a religion rather than a just religious holiday based solely on Stephanie Findley?

Dictionary definition of Kwanzaa:

a harvest festival celebrated from Dec. 26th until Jan. 1st in some African-American communities.

You would think if it was a religion that would be in the definition, no?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1609 hrs

Tuerqas,

If religious speech was not chiiled in the public square, what difference does it make if I think (or others think same thing) Kwanzaa is a religion or not?

If there is no religious speech suppression in public square, does it matter if something has the “religion” label on it?

How can you risk not calling something a religion if even only a few people view, and celebrate, it as a religion?

You would be discounting their religion in that case.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1714 hrs

Tuerqas,

I’ve heard many liberals describe Libertarians as:

“worshipping business”

“a constitutionalist cult”

“the Rand cultish religion”

Are all these liberals wrong? One cannot embrace the religion of the individual being in control of one’s life?

Liberals, naturally, open themselves up to the criticism of their support for the onipotent, god-like, state running every aspect of their life.

I don’t discount the common, expansive, liberal view of religion.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1726 hrs

One of dictionary definitions of Easter—-

—-the period between Good Friday and Easter Monday.

On that definition we are going to discount Easter as part of a religion as well?

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 30, 2013 at 1734 hrs

Like we have all said, you sound plain stupid with every argument since 107 when you asked specifically why your answers are bad. You can label progressivism a religion, but despite a few similiarities, that does not make it so. I can label you a turtle. You have a defensive shell around which you protect whether it makes sense to or not. You are certainly slow on the uptake, for instance you can seem to recognize that Easter is a religious holiday and part of a religion, but that it is not a separate religion in itself, but you can’t do the same for Kwanzaa when they are clearly both defined as holidays. So there are two points likening you to a turtle. Are you a turtle Kevin? According to your own arguments you are. If it shares one trait, it then fits the entire definition.

Great, I have been talking to a turtle…

(I know, KS won’t get the correlation. That last line was for myself and anyone dogged enough to read this.)

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 0837 hrs

Tuerqas,

If someone called me a “turtle”, what skin is it off my nose? I possibly chuckle, a little, and move on.

If the person continues to go on believing I’m a turtle, even though I believe I’m not, is it a problem for him to maintain that belief? (I’m certain some lefties think I’m a “troll”, even though that is untrue…I say to that “so what?”)

There is little to no consequence to someone saying “Hey, that Kevin is a turtle.”

There is severe consequence to attaching the “religion” label to something. That is the social problem. Religion is oppressed, sifted, and reviewed in violation of first amendment. That is why you DON"T chuckle a little and just move on when it comes to the religion label….because their is oppressive consequences, thanks to liberals, saying something is a religion.

That is why the religion label does not produce a “who cares?” chuckle, like calling me a turtle.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on January 31, 2013 at 0901 hrs

Funny, but when someone calls me a christian, a religion chaser, someone who believes in religion, or God, etc. It usually prompts me to think of the place in my head and heart where I talk to God and it makes me smile just fine. I am perfectly comfortable with people labeling me religious, even if they mean it contemptuously.

If someone labels me a Libertarian worshipper, the first thing that enters my head is that that person is not religious because first and foremost, it would be sacrilegious. Each person generally cleaves to only one religion because, frankly, most religious doctrine is jealous. To say I equate my libertarian beliefs to my God is offensive to my belief in God. Now if an atheist says it, hey they don’t believe there is a God to offend. But if someone who professes to believe in God says that to me, as you do again and again, they are really saying they equate beliefs in worldly things and ideas to their belief in God. You are saying your belief in God is no more profound than your belief in the Republican party…that a liberal’s beliefs in Greenpeace or other causes of progressivism are equal to your belief in God. If God were a profound part of your life, you would be one of the people trying to preserve the definition of religion, not change it to include secular ideas.

That is why you DON"T chuckle a little and just move on when it comes to the religion label….because their is oppressive consequences, thanks to liberals, saying something is a religion.

Many liberals are trying to undermine religion. However, they have been attempting to astigmatize it, not change the definition to be inclusive. Liberals don’t call non-religious things religious, that is all you.

Admit it, you are a Sunday church goer, not a true believer. It is the only conclusion consistent with your arguments.

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 01, 2013 at 0832 hrs

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Give all students a choice

Show all recent comments

Posts: 21074
Comments: 148132

June 2013
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat

1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30

Culture

Economy

Firearms

Foreign Affairs

Law

Military

Off-Duty

Fun With Maps

Humor

Photography

YouTube

Our Favorites

Books

Movies

Music

Politics

Politics - General

Politics - Texas

Politics - Wisconsin

Technology

The Blog

Ace of Spades HQ

The American Mind

Appletonian

Asian Badger

Bad Example

Badger Blog Alliance

Badger Blogger

Ban the Ban Wisconsin

Berry Laker

Big Tent Circus

The Bitch Girls

Blackfive

Brazen Maverick

CAAF Log

Christian Schneider

Cognitive Dissidence

The Confidentials

The Corner

The D Spot

Dad29

Dailey Takes

Daily Scoff

The Dave Casper Experience

Deke Rivers

Diary of a Wanna-Be Supermom

Dummocrats

Electric Commentary

Fairly Conservative

Firearms and Freedom

Folkbum

Fox Politics

Free Whitewater

Freedom Eden

From Where I Sit

Fuzz Martin

GOP Folk

GOP3

Grandpa John

Happy Circumstance

Hasenpfeffer Incorporated

The Hispanic Conservative

Instapundit

Jiblog

Josh Schroeder

Lacrosse Watchdog

Lakeshore Laments

Letters in Bottles

Little Miss Attila

Little Miss Sunshine

The Mayor's Page

Modern Commentaries

MU Warrior

Murdoc Online

MW Guide

National Conversation

Neo-contastic

North Shore Exponent

No Runny Eggs

Open Records

Osler's Razor

Other Side of My Mouth

Overlawyered

Patterico's Pontifications

Pete Republic

Pheistyblog

Pirate With a Permission Slip

Playground Politics

Political Capital

Powerline

Protein Wisdom

Rachel Lucas

Radio Free Wisconsin

Random 10

Real Debate Wisconsin

Reform Dem

Right From The Right

The Right View Wisconsin

Samizdata

Say Uncle

Shark and Shepherd

Sheboygan Shenanigans

The Smallest Minority

Space 4 Commerce

Spring City Chronicle

Stepping Right Up

Still Unreal

Sub 2 Change

Thoughtful Conservative

Tim Blair

Tom McMahon

Traipseround

TrogloPundit

Vodka Pundit

The Volokh Conspiracy

Washburn's World

Wide White

Wigderson Library & Pub

Wild Wisconsin

Wissup

Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 42
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 06/19/2013 02:38 am
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm

Syndication: RSS 2.0 | Atom

Terms of Service

Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).