• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida private school teaches Flinstone/Jesus curriculum, on taxpayer dime

iguanaman said:
Public taxes going to private religious schools makes it my business. And teaching kids fairy tales as truth should be everyone's business too. It is child abuse, plain and simple.

EMNofSeattle said:
No it doesn't.

I mean if that's true does a single mom collecting welfare make her parenting arraingements my business since there's the collection of public funds? Single parent households are a far greater problem to many more children then a handful of extremists taking their kids to an evangelical school.


The reality is, leftists believe people's personal decisions with public money are the public's business only when it involves people who aren't their supporters.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
No, EMNofSeattle, the single mom isn't making it your business; however, to the extent that your taxes directly fund whatever parenting arrangements she makes, you and every other tax payer have the right to remark upon the nature of the disbursement of your tax dollars. If you choose to exercise your right to remark, that's you making it your business, not her making it your business, unless, of course, she entreats for your commentary.

What remarks you have on the matter may or may not be sensible or equitable, but as they are your tax dollars she's receiving and spending, you are entitled remark on the matter. If you don't pay taxes and/or you aren't a direct or primary indirect recipient/beneficiary of tax dollars, then, no, it's not your business, and you don't have a right to remark on the matter, though the 1st Amendment allows you to do so whether you have "skin in the game" or don't.

The above philosophy is why I remarked as I did in post 35. I don't know whether federal dollars are going to the noted private school(s); thus the closest I come to having skin in the game is perhaps that my firm would have to interact with someone who graduated from the regimen of inculcation came to be interviewed and/or employed with us. That measure of "connectedness" doesn't rise to the level of "primary indirect," and it's obviously not a direct connection. Were I to know some of my federal tax monies were going to those schools, I'd have had a very different set of remarks.



What's a "primary indirect recipient/beneficiary?" Without being to "formal" in explaining it, it's the person or entity with whom a direct recipient of tax dollars spends (or instructs where to spend) tax dollars. In the "single mom" example you submitted, a babysitter or or a daycare facility would be primary indirect beneficiary, regardless of whether the cash in question flows from the government to the caregiver or from the government to the single mom and then to the caregiver.
 
It appears to me that Xelor got a fine private school education. Am I wrong? Is there something wrong with that?

IMO, there isn't.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well so are the majority of gays, and yet nobody has a problem with them.

I am a Catholic myself, and the idea that somewhere children are learning anti-catholicism at an evangelical school is of exactly zero concern to me.
Click to expand...

This is really not true. Hell, out of many more "traditional" Christian churches, Catholics tend to be the most accepting of gays, and I haven't seen evidence that the "majority of gays" have any issue with Catholics/Catholicism as a whole or even in general. I was raised by a Catholic mom, with a highly devoted Catholic grandmother, who both were saying even in the 80s and 90s that same sex marriage should be legal and gays should have the same right to marry as straight people have, someone they love, it should be their choice, regardless of sexes.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No it's not, if a voucher program is being offered for private education, then "separation of church and state" should also mean the state has to treat religious institutions equally to secular ones.
Click to expand...

It's easy then, vouchers should not be offered. People need to pay for private school on their own.
 
JANFU said:
This breeds ignorance, and from that hate, mistrust and other issues begins to grow.
Ignorance is the birthplace of hate.
Click to expand...

Well, it is Flori-Duh!
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Private school's curriculum downplays slavery, says humans and dinosaurs lived together

"Some private schools in Florida that rely on public funding teach students that dinosaurs and humans lived together, that God’s intervention prevented Catholics from dominating North America and that slaves who “knew Christ” were better off than free men who did not.
[...]
The books denounce evolution as untrue, for example, and one shows a cartoon of men and dinosaurs together, telling students the Biblical Noah likely brought baby dinosaurs onto his ark. The science books, they added, seem to discourage students from doing experiments or even asking questions."

---So, this is what your tax dollars are going toward. Way to go, Flori-DUH.

View attachment 67234078
Click to expand...

If it takes taxpayer money, it's a public school. No public school should be allowed to teach nonsense. it should be closed down.

There was a charter school near here that was actually a Madrassa, teaching Islam. It was closed down, remains closed down.

Charter schools are all well and good, provide a needed school choice for parents, but they can't be allowed to teach that sort of thing.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
I disagree With that
Click to expand...

Okay. Some people do. Most of them are plenty able to afford to send their children to private school but feel they shouldn't have to pay for public schools through taxes. Oh well. Others without kids also pay for public schools.
 
roguenuke said:
Okay. Some people do. Most of them are plenty able to afford to send their children to private school but feel they shouldn't have to pay for public schools through taxes. Oh well. Others without kids also pay for public schools.
Click to expand...
If your child isn’t in public school then you’re not using the school system and are paying for education. someone without kids is still benefiting from an educated society. So they should have the option of donating to a private schools endowment or paying regular property tax. Private schools competing for these donations would have incentive to keep tuition for a student below prop tax, full competition and no freeloaders and no government monopoly of teachers teaching students socialism over the fundamentals, (or feeding them special cookies like Mark Bernt in Mira Monte) everyone wins. Except the monopoly.

Why is a monopoly for a luxury like cell phones bad and something essential like education good? It should be the other way around
 
EMNofSeattle said:
If your child isn’t in public school then you’re not using the school system and are paying for education. someone without kids is still benefiting from an educated society. So they should have the option of donating to a private schools endowment or paying regular property tax. Private schools competing for these donations would have incentive to keep tuition for a student below prop tax, full competition and no freeloaders and no government monopoly of teachers teaching students socialism over the fundamentals, (or feeding them special cookies like Mark Bernt in Mira Monte) everyone wins. Except the monopoly.

Why is a monopoly for a luxury like cell phones bad and something essential like education good? It should be the other way around
Click to expand...

Yes, because paying for public schools is about helping everyone, all children, receive an education. It is not about funding your own child's/children's education. Most people who pay for public schools do not currently have children in school. Some might in the future, others already put their kids through school, others use private or homeschooling, some never will have kids in public school. The point of public school funding is to fund public schools for those who could not otherwise afford it, which improves our country as a whole.

And I have no clue what you are talking about with the cell phone comparison. Just look at private and/or for profit colleges, and that is why we need to keep public funds for public schools out of the hands of private schools, voucher programs (there are some exceptions I could see making for extremely failing systems and/or special needs, both academically struggling or excelling past public school ability).
 
roguenuke said:
Yes, because paying for public schools is about helping everyone, all children, receive an education. It is not about funding your own child's/children's education. Most people who pay for public schools do not currently have children in school. Some might in the future, others already put their kids through school, others use private or homeschooling, some never will have kids in public school. The point of public school funding is to fund public schools for those who could not otherwise afford it, which improves our country as a whole.

And I have no clue what you are talking about with the cell phone comparison. Just look at private and/or for profit colleges, and that is why we need to keep public funds for public schools out of the hands of private schools, voucher programs (there are some exceptions I could see making for extremely failing systems and/or special needs, both academically struggling or excelling past public school ability).
Click to expand...

Then your access to education is based on factors outside your control, the socialists who will inevitably be in charge of determining what public schools are failing in your model will never admit a school run by socialists is failing and so will never approve it. That’s why I support vouchers, cut the leftists out of the decision making entirely
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Then your access to education is based on factors outside your control, the socialists who will inevitably be in charge of determining what public schools are failing in your model will never admit a school run by socialists is failing and so will never approve it. That’s why I support vouchers, cut the leftists out of the decision making entirely
Click to expand...

Most public schools are not failing at all and do comparatively well to private schools and even homeschooling in many instances. In fact, if you take out the top elite private schools (those that no voucher program could ever actually get your child into alone or even the vast majority of parents could afford just by offering a voucher to offset costs) then they are doing just as well if not better. There are some exceptions to this, but very few.

You are obviously partisan and basing your entire premise on that based on this statement "cut the leftists out of the decision making entirely". Pretty much says that you are against a certain group having any say simply because of partisan views of your own.
 
roguenuke said:
Most public schools are not failing at all and do comparatively well to private schools and even homeschooling in many instances. In fact, if you take out the top elite private schools (those that no voucher program could ever actually get your child into alone or even the vast majority of parents could afford just by offering a voucher to offset costs) then they are doing just as well if not better. There are some exceptions to this, but very few.

You are obviously partisan and basing your entire premise on that based on this statement "cut the leftists out of the decision making entirely". Pretty much says that you are against a certain group having any say simply because of partisan views of your own.
Click to expand...
My partisan political views are about shrinking the power of the government. I make no denial of this fact. Government schools are a threat to that since their long term interests rests on increasing government power. They’ve gone as far as to ban patriotic youth from displaying the American flag, other schools have censured students for wearing apparel with the logo of the NRA. They started this. So I respond by wanting the monopoly broken to permit parents who wish their children to go to schools where they are permitted to learn to do so.
 
Risky Thicket said:
If it is public funds it is my business. Public funds should not support religious based education.
Click to expand...

I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious. Twenty years ago I said the same thing. All my kids are grown and out of school now, but if I had kids of school age today I think they would be much better off in a religious school. I can't imagine sending my kids to public schools today. They are simply horrible and have become nothing more than Marxist indoctrination camps.

.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
My partisan political views are about shrinking the power of the government. I make no denial of this fact. Government schools are a threat to that since their long term interests rests on increasing government power. They’ve gone as far as to ban patriotic youth from displaying the American flag, other schools have censured students for wearing apparel with the logo of the NRA. They started this. So I respond by wanting the monopoly broken to permit parents who wish their children to go to schools where they are permitted to learn to do so.
Click to expand...

Long term interest of public schools is to educate all children, all future generations to the best of our collective ability. Vouchers do not remove government from public schools or schooling of children at all. It doesn't even really give parents more choices, since most of the crappy schools are either going to be public schools (due to massive loss of funding towards vouchers) or for profits that are not interested in actually teaching as much as getting that voucher from the government. Quality of education is going to drop dramatically if vouchers like you describe become a national thing. Parents won't be able to send their children to the best schools, and most low income families cannot afford to homeschool. Your entire premise is based on a flawed hope that private education would be better for most students, and that there would be no change to quality of that education. Public schools give parents a lot more investment and choice in what their kids are taught than private schools, particularly for profit types or religious schools, like the one in this thread.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious. Twenty years ago I said the same thing. All my kids are grown and out of school now, but if I had kids of school age today I think they would be much better off in a religious school. I can't imagine sending my kids to public schools today. They are simply horrible and have become nothing more than Marxist indoctrination camps.

.
Click to expand...

LOL, wow. What partisan bull****. Religious schools are far worse than public schools, in almost every aspect.
 
If parents are to be given vouchers to pay private school tuition, then those private schools need to adhere to the same rules that govern the public schools, including, but not limited to, not teaching young Earth creationist nonsense to kids.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious. Twenty years ago I said the same thing. All my kids are grown and out of school now, but if I had kids of school age today I think they would be much better off in a religious school. I can't imagine sending my kids to public schools today. They are simply horrible and have become nothing more than Marxist indoctrination camps.

.
Click to expand...

That works. It would present no problem whatsoever for me as long as you'd pay for that education out of your pocket, not mine. Public money should not be used to fund religious schools.
 
Grim17 said:
I'm not a Christian, nor am I religious. Twenty years ago I said the same thing. All my kids are grown and out of school now, but if I had kids of school age today I think they would be much better off in a religious school. I can't imagine sending my kids to public schools today. They are simply horrible and have become nothing more than Marxist indoctrination camps.

.
Click to expand...

Really? Kids "would be much better off in a religious school"? Care to tell the readers just which "religious schools" would provide a better education? I'm sure you would include Muslim, Hindu or Native American schools in that category, amirite? :roll:

Sadly, it seems to me, that too many Americans today only see Christian religious schools as being acceptable for the receiving of public funds. In fact, I would venture to say that 90% or more of those advocating for public funding of religious schools would freak out if non-Christian schools received equal funding.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom