The "Private Option" for Schools

[Red Arrow]

Really?  How do you feel about your tax dollars going to religious-affiliated hospitals such as St. John and St. Francis hospitals that provide care to the elderly and the indigent?

I have been in both St Francis and St John as a patient.  I have never felt any religious pressure from the staff or anyone.  I can handle a few "pictures" of Jesus.  As much as I hate to agree with FOTD,  reimbursements for charity work don't bother me.

[Red Arrow]

Also, don't tell anyone, but Obama is following Bush's lead on faith-based initiatives, which, shhh, allows federal money to be sent to religious organizations:

I didn't like everything Bush did.

[FOTD]

I have been in both St Francis and St John as a patient.  I have never felt any religious pressure from the staff or anyone.  I can handle a few "pictures" of Jesus.  As much as I hate to agree with FOTD,  reimbursements for charity work don't bother me.

FOTD is such an outlaw here.

He's put up with those pics and crucifixes too....so what. Such cordial nuns. But those right to die issues you can forget. Not even a legal document can get you past those 2000 year old right to life owners....

[nathanm]

And reimbursements, what is the "big diff"? Bottom line is that tax dollars are going to  religious-affiliated institutions. But if the difference is the term "reimbursement", then just reimburse those with the children in private school. Does that make you feel better?

Those are two completely different topics. One is a hospital being reimbursed for medical services. The other is an educational institution whose curriculum likely includes classes specifically on the school's affiliated religion. Many people send their children to said church-affiliated schools precisely because they are affiliated with a particular religion and they want their children to be indoctrinated with that religion.

And having had several relatives treated in (and some die in) a hospital run by Catholics, I've never seen an instance of them proselytizing to a patient, excluding those who specifically asked for it. Just as the secular hospitals I've had occasion to know about have priests of several different denominations on staff, so did the Catholic hospital.

The only difference between the two is that one has nuns walking around and more art based on bible scenes.

In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.

[TURobY]

In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.

Ding, ding, ding!

[guido911]

Those are two completely different topics. One is a hospital being reimbursed for medical services. The other is an educational institution whose curriculum likely includes classes specifically on the school's affiliated religion. Many people send their children to said church-affiliated schools precisely because they are affiliated with a particular religion and they want their children to be indoctrinated with that religion.

And having had several relatives treated in (and some die in) a hospital run by Catholics, I've never seen an instance of them proselytizing to a patient, excluding those who specifically asked for it. Just as the secular hospitals I've had occasion to know about have priests of several different denominations on staff, so did the Catholic hospital.

The only difference between the two is that one has nuns walking around and more art based on bible scenes.

In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.

In short, one is designed to proselytize, the other is not.

Bullcrap. Did you attend Holland Hall? How about University School at TU? What about Riverfield Country Day? These schools are not about proselytizing. They are about academic excellence. You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.

[Townsend]

You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.

Pardon whilst I wipe the spit from my monitor.

[cannon_fodder]

Bullcrap. Did you attend Holland Hall? How about University School at TU? What about Riverfield Country Day? These schools are not about proselytizing. They are about academic excellence. You have once again proven yourself narrow-minded.

Nathan was speaking in general terms.  And generally, I agree with him.

But as you pointed out Guido, many "religious affiliated schools" are scholarly institutions.  The religion portion of TU is essentially none.  I assume it is more so at Holland Hall or Cascia, but probably to the extent I am familiar with.  And I assume other schools in the area are more geared towards religion.

I'm familiar with religious schools and am not against them.  My Catholic schools had at least one religious class per semester (from the history of the Bible to Community Service).  We had some sort of chapel on Wednesday.  We had morning prayer.  We had a quick prayer before athletic events (I think).   Our graduation ceremonies included Mass. 

But outside of those items, religion was anecdotal to education.  We never had a book called "American History for Christians" like Lincoln Christian.   We didn't have alternative history curriculum at all.  We learned science in science class and let the religious instructors teach us religion.  We were free to ask either about conflicts between the two and would either be told that it was a lesson, that the teacher believed X and scientific research indicated otherwise, and generally told if we wanted the official church position we were free to ask the school Priest. 

We had Jews, Muslims, non-religious persons, and every denomination of Christian in our school.  Many of the non-Catholics took our religious classes to get a varied perspective on their religions and frequently we visited or had guest speakers from those denominations share their faiths with us.  Other people choose to sit out the religion classes and could either study with a religious affiliate of their choice or use those hours for community service.  We were being educated in an environment in which religion could be present, not in an environment that had a purpose of inserting religion as education.

And that's the crux of this debate.  What portion of tax payer funds would be going to fund the religious aspect of these schools?  I hope you will admit that many of the private religious schools in the area ARE about proselytizing and indoctrinating kids in their parents chosen faith.   

Lincoln Christian School is a partnership between parents and the church – the only two institutions ordained by God to teach children. . . . Our goal is to raise the next generation of Christian leaders so that our heritage may be passed on to future generations.  - Lincoln Christian School

God is calling churches across America to build Christian schools. There is a price to pay, but the reward will be worth it. The next generation can be different if the people of God today will heed the voice of the Spirit.

The vision of Victory Christian School is to provide a place to train, prepare, and equip young people to take the ministry of Jesus to the ends of the earth, whether it be as a preacher, pastor, evangelist, prophet, apostle, teacher, or as a nurse, technician, educator, or business person. - Victory Christian Center

With the Bible as its foundation and standard of truth, the MCA faculty familiarizes students with widely acknowledged ideas within the arts and sciences, thus providing an understanding of world views with a clear Christian perspective. - Metro Christian Academy

Holland Hall provides a challenging, comprehensive educational experience grounded in a rigorous liberal arts, college preparatory curriculum that promotes critical thinking and life-long learning. A PreK-12 Episcopal school, we seek to foster in each student a strong moral foundation and a deep sense of social responsibility.

See the difference between the former and the latter in their mission statements?  Not all religiously affiliated schools are the same.  It's important for everyone to realize that.  Holland Hall, I'm sure, would be able to separate their "educational experience" from their religious affiliation while it would be difficult to train kids to spread the message of Jesus in a similar manner.

[FOTD]

Agreed. Except at HO HA the new headmaster requires all kids to attend services....

[guido911]

Pardon whilst I wipe the spit from my monitor.

When it comes to ideology, you are correct I am very narrow minded. But, if you have read this thread, you cannot honestly suggest that I am an on fire right winger when it comes to the health and education of our children. Heck, in reading the posts in this thread, it's almost as if leaving children in failing schools with disastrous drop out rates is more important than finding a solution that could include, OMG, vouchers or tax credits so they could attend private schools. D.C.'s voucher program was a success story, but we just can't have that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040302987.html

[USRufnex]

The problem is that Gweed is talking about vouchers for kids in Washington DC.... everyone else is talking about Tulsa.  And all politics is local.

I am a grad of Tulsa Hale.  And the people with Gweed's "failing schools with disastrous drop out rates" mentality consistently belittled my high school experience back then, just like the people who want the total destruction of our public schools try to play those games today.  They told me what an awful school Hale was, etc, etc, etc.  It was at Hale where I took Honors English, was on the yearbook staff, played in the school orchestra....

Back a couple of decades ago, okay, more than a couple of decades ago... for the most part, I liked my teachers at Hale better than the teachers I had at Owasso or Victory..... but none of the students at Owasso or Victory ever bloodied my nose by throwing a sucker punch... can't say the same thing about Hale.  I didn't see many handicapped or special needs kids at Owasso or Victory.... but I saw many of them at Nathan Hale.  And I consider myself a better man for the experience.  Trade-offs?   Yes.

I am sympathetic to financially struggling parents who truly want their kids to go to a private school because of their religious convictions... or because they fear for their kids safety... or because of the unique and personal options a small private school could offer over diploma factories like BA, Jenks, and Union. 

But I am also sympathetic to the kids who come from a single parent home, the kids whose parents are irresponsible or don't care.  It is NOT the kid's fault, so why undermine their experience by turning their public high school into a magnet school for "Culinary, Lodging and Health Management" while the kids who live in the Booker T district get to study Chinese?

I am unsympathetic to the parents who move to the rural suburbs to shield their kids from families who have a different skin color and elder parents who barely speak English..... and then unwittingly send their children to a school with a preponderance of rednecks who will probably teach their kids how to cook meth in the basement-- or the kitchen of a double-wide....

I mean, after high school, your kids can do just about anything and get federally subsidized Pell Grants and Guaranteed Student Loans whether they go to TU, OU, OSU... or choose ORU, Liberty, or Bob Jones Univ.... there's no distinction when it comes to post-secondary education. 

But for kids up through high school age, your school is determined by where you live.
And your level of healthcare is determined by your employer.

/rant

[Red Arrow]

Heck, in reading the posts in this thread, it's almost as if leaving children in failing schools with disastrous drop out rates is more important than finding a solution that could include, OMG, vouchers or tax credits so they could attend private schools

What is wrong with the concept of fixing public schools rather than running away from them?

[guido911]

What is wrong with the concept of fixing public schools rather than running away from them?

Well, well, where have you been? The idea that a public option is what is on the table, rather than "fixing [private payer]", is what was intended with this thread instead of "running away from "[it]". So let's hear some suggestions, since the creation of competition and reduction of costs in education through a private option (which is the entire idea of the "public option" in health care reform) has been dismissed.

[Red Arrow]

Well, well, where have you been? The idea that a public option is what is on the table, rather than "fixing [private payer]", is what was intended with this thread instead of "running away from "[it]". So let's hear some suggestions, since the creation of competition and reduction of costs in education through a private option (which is the entire idea of the "public option" in health care reform) has been dismissed.

If you hadn't been so obsessed with my statement about public money going to private schools, you might have remembered what I said in my first paragraph on 31 Aug 2009, 08:14:11 PM.

[USRufnex]

Newsflash..... this thread was created by Gweed in order to advance the argument that if you're a Democrat who is in favor of a "public option" in healthcare... then you MUST be for private school vouchers.  Any other position makes you a hypocrite.  Conversely, if you are a Democrat and you do not like the idea of vouchers, then you MUST be against a public option in healthcare.  Any other position makes you a hypocrite.

Of course, I could make the counter-argument that any Republican who strongly supports public education MUST endorse a strong public option in healthcare..... or if you're against a "public option" in the current healthcare debate, then you MUST be against the concept of public schools. 

Sorry RA, but your posts in this thread reflect the views of Republicans who don't tow the evangelically-correct party line on private school vouchers, which makes you a RINO... smile, you've been caught in the crossfire of a partisan tit-for-tat pi$$ing match.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled program....



http://www.hulu.com/watch/2306/saturday-night-live-point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-and-michelle-triola