A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Parent-Child Negotiations



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #501  
Old July 1st 04, 04:00 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


However, when government pushes children from different backgrounds
together in public schools, it destroys that positive right to be with

some
different group during school hours. In the process, it forces children
(and also teachers) to act in a way that is compatible with the rights

of
the people government told the children to be with. That creates

artificial
restrictions that would not exist if the children were gathered into a

group
based on mutual agreement.


Wow. I must say this brings back memories. I haven't read this kind of
segregationist thinking since my growing up years in Texas. I'm nearly 50

now.

You're misusing the term "segregationist." The thing that made racial
segregation so horrible and immoral was that it was forced onto people
against their will.

-----------------
Nonsense, it was totally voluntary and it was STILL toxic to the
society!


Black people were shut out of society's mainstream and
into a relatively small corner. They were segregated - set apart - whether
they liked it or not.

---------------------
Nope, whites moved elsewhere, and blacks did too, they knew when
they weren't wanted by some criminal personalities.


Voluntary separation so that people can pursue different desires without
interfering with each other's rights is an entirely different matter.

-----------------------
Again you're pretending that your kids would agree to any of your
**** if they had a choice!


It is
not a threat to freedom, but rather is an integral part of freedom.

--------------------
For adults in private, not in public space or for compelling State
interests.


It
occurs as a side effect of people's pursuing different goals or wanting to
be in different kinds of environments, not because people make separation
itself the goal.

--------------------
Sure you do.


As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no possible
threat to freedom.

----------------------
You really don't grasp how that invariably sets societies up for
racial or religious civil wars!
Steve
  #502  
Old July 1st 04, 04:10 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes. Personally,
while I'm not thrilled with the idea of segregation in public life,
I'm not so certain it's the evil you think it is either. My
recollection is that Malcolm X was a big proponent of segregation.

---------------
He was a racist too, however, his racism arose as a reaction to
racism against blacks by whites. He simply turned the tables.


There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists.

---------------
Again, that is as a remedy to the effects of racism, not in service
to racism.


It's
just that they give the concept a bad reputation. If, indeed,
everybody involved prefers to be segregated, I'm not so sure the
government is justified in preventing it.

----------------------------------
Sure it is, it causes inevitable strife over time, but we permit it
in private, and not in public hiring, accomodations, education, or
other public functions.


And while Mr. Barclay may desire to spread the word of his religion to
those willing to listen, I don't get the impression he is out to force
others to listen. I suspect he just thinks that parents who want
their child educated in an environment supportive of their religion
(i.e. start the day with a prayer, bible verses posted on the wall,
celebrate religious holidays, etc.) should not be forced to choose
between either not doing so or having to pay the price of foregoing
all tax-support for their child's education. At least, that's my
opinion.

---------------------
I'd love to argue with him about religion, I think he's terffied
of starting THAT up with me! He KNOWS deep inside what I'd say,
and that it would be all of his buried doubts and knowing that
he has no reason for the **** he believes.


My test case for thought experiments on the issue is an Amish
community that's near where I live. They, or more typically their
forebearers, settled together so that they could build a life for
themselves separate from the rest of the population, creating a
community dedicated to living in concert with their religious beliefs.
Why should their community be denied tax-support for their children's
education or forced to conform to the current policy of no religious
observances in the school?

------------------------
No authority-led religious observances.
To protect the public and our children from State sponsored religious
proselytizing of a captive audience and absconding with public funding
by way of doing so.


Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

----------------------------
Nope. Their hobby is living 200 years ago, not ours. The State still
has an obligation to educate their kids and NOT proselytize them!
And they have an obligation to pay their taxes, period!
Steve
  #503  
Old July 1st 04, 04:10 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

Banty wrote in message ...
In article , Nathan A. Barclay says...


I hope you write your book. You're quite the poster child for the
anti-democratic undercurrents and motivations of the movement for vouchers. The
desire to segregate in public life. The desire to convert the religion of
others.

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes. Personally,
while I'm not thrilled with the idea of segregation in public life,
I'm not so certain it's the evil you think it is either. My
recollection is that Malcolm X was a big proponent of segregation.

---------------
He was a racist too, however, his racism arose as a reaction to
racism against blacks by whites. He simply turned the tables.


There have also been some very successful schools set up specifically
for black male adolescents, so it's not just white supremacists.

---------------
Again, that is as a remedy to the effects of racism, not in service
to racism.


It's
just that they give the concept a bad reputation. If, indeed,
everybody involved prefers to be segregated, I'm not so sure the
government is justified in preventing it.

----------------------------------
Sure it is, it causes inevitable strife over time, but we permit it
in private, and not in public hiring, accomodations, education, or
other public functions.


And while Mr. Barclay may desire to spread the word of his religion to
those willing to listen, I don't get the impression he is out to force
others to listen. I suspect he just thinks that parents who want
their child educated in an environment supportive of their religion
(i.e. start the day with a prayer, bible verses posted on the wall,
celebrate religious holidays, etc.) should not be forced to choose
between either not doing so or having to pay the price of foregoing
all tax-support for their child's education. At least, that's my
opinion.

---------------------
I'd love to argue with him about religion, I think he's terffied
of starting THAT up with me! He KNOWS deep inside what I'd say,
and that it would be all of his buried doubts and knowing that
he has no reason for the **** he believes.


My test case for thought experiments on the issue is an Amish
community that's near where I live. They, or more typically their
forebearers, settled together so that they could build a life for
themselves separate from the rest of the population, creating a
community dedicated to living in concert with their religious beliefs.
Why should their community be denied tax-support for their children's
education or forced to conform to the current policy of no religious
observances in the school?

------------------------
No authority-led religious observances.
To protect the public and our children from State sponsored religious
proselytizing of a captive audience and absconding with public funding
by way of doing so.


Taking their tax money and then forcing
them to make that choice sure seems like the government is restricting
their religious freedom to me.

----------------------------
Nope. Their hobby is living 200 years ago, not ours. The State still
has an obligation to educate their kids and NOT proselytize them!
And they have an obligation to pay their taxes, period!
Steve
  #504  
Old July 1st 04, 04:18 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

The problem, at least as I see it and continuing with your analogy
here, would be like a sizeable (but minority) group of people
complaining that the bus doesn't provide transportation to where they
want to go. They then wish to either have the public transportation
system - which they help fund through their tax dollars - either
accomodate their needs by adding their destination to the route or
providing vouchers to help defray the costs of their going where they
need to go.

----------------
The State bus system is as large as the Democracy is willing to pay
for at any given time, and it goes where the Majority has approved.
You don't have the right to expect the State to give you cab fare
just because the bus doesn't go where you wanted it to go. And
you STILL have to pay your taxes.
Steve
  #505  
Old July 1st 04, 04:18 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

The problem, at least as I see it and continuing with your analogy
here, would be like a sizeable (but minority) group of people
complaining that the bus doesn't provide transportation to where they
want to go. They then wish to either have the public transportation
system - which they help fund through their tax dollars - either
accomodate their needs by adding their destination to the route or
providing vouchers to help defray the costs of their going where they
need to go.

----------------
The State bus system is as large as the Democracy is willing to pay
for at any given time, and it goes where the Majority has approved.
You don't have the right to expect the State to give you cab fare
just because the bus doesn't go where you wanted it to go. And
you STILL have to pay your taxes.
Steve
  #506  
Old July 1st 04, 04:21 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

Circe wrote:

It isn't analogous at all, though. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the
government from putting a bus stop closer to your house; it *does* prohibit
the government from providing religious instruction.

----------------
Nobody said his house, how about to his church up a two mile private
road on his property!? This is how far they want us to go out of our
way to pay them back their taxes. Asinine.
Steve
  #507  
Old July 1st 04, 04:21 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

Circe wrote:

It isn't analogous at all, though. The Constitution doesn't prohibit the
government from putting a bus stop closer to your house; it *does* prohibit
the government from providing religious instruction.

----------------
Nobody said his house, how about to his church up a two mile private
road on his property!? This is how far they want us to go out of our
way to pay them back their taxes. Asinine.
Steve
  #508  
Old July 1st 04, 06:03 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

My point is only that which right (freedom of association or freedom
from discrimination) should trump the other in what situations has
changed considerably over the past 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, etc.
I expect it will continue to do so. So I contemplate where *I* think
it should be.

-----------------------
Not in public function/accomodation, and that's what this is.
Steve
  #509  
Old July 1st 04, 06:03 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

abacus wrote:

My point is only that which right (freedom of association or freedom
from discrimination) should trump the other in what situations has
changed considerably over the past 20 years, 50 years, 100 years, etc.
I expect it will continue to do so. So I contemplate where *I* think
it should be.

-----------------------
Not in public function/accomodation, and that's what this is.
Steve
  #510  
Old July 1st 04, 06:06 AM
R. Steve Walz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default School Choice (was How Children REALLY React To Control)

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
...
I have a question:

Why do parents send their children to school?

My point of view is that the primary reason to send children to school is

to
give them an education. I want my child to learn materials appropriate to
his age and maturity in areas like Mathematics, English, Foreign Language,
History and Government (US and International), Sciences, and Arts.

I don't see that religion is relevant to much of this. In areas where it

is
(such as world history, art, and music) it would be imperative that the
basic concepts and beliefs of any religon related to the subject at hand
be studied-but not practiced.

Is the curriculum really so much different in a religious school?


In the religious school I went to, there were four main differences.

1) Religion was viewed as an important academic subject on par with the
others.

2) We had a "chapel" service every day with a brief devotional followed
sometimes by a longer religious talk and sometimes by some kind of
entertainment.

3) Religion was part of the "background noise" - public prayer before lunch
and sometimes at the beginning of the day, religious content in some of the
wall decorations, occasional inclusion of religious perspectives in
connection with other subjects, and so forth - and also played a central
role in discussion of moral issues.

4) The students were mostly people from the same religious background, which
meant that peer pressure to act in ways contrary to my beliefs and values
was relatively limited.

So while the academics were very similar to what they would have been in a
public school (aside from the fact that Bible classes displaced time that
could have been used for a "study hall" or for taking some other class as
an elective), the background environment was far more different. The Bible
classes could, at least in theory, have been replaced some other way if I'd
attended a public school, albeit not as effectively and efficiently. The
background environment could not possibly have been replaced.

Nathan

------------
Not for the purposes of brainwashing, but then I'll bet you
can't possibly defend your twisted little religion logically,
what do you bet, hmmm?
Steve
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Chemically beating children: Pinellas Poisoners Heilman and Talley Todd Gastaldo Pregnancy 0 July 4th 04 11:26 PM
misc.kids FAQ on Breastfeeding Past the First Year [email protected] Info and FAQ's 0 January 16th 04 10:15 AM
| | Kids should work... Kane Spanking 12 December 10th 03 03:30 AM
| Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking Kane Spanking 105 November 30th 03 06:48 AM
So much for the claims about Sweden Kane Spanking 10 November 5th 03 07:31 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.