Parent-Child Negotiations

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

Voluntary separation so that people can pursue different desires
without interfering with each other's rights is an entirely different
matter. It is not a threat to freedom, but rather is an integral part
of freedom. 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.

This is exactly the state of the segregationist rhetoric in the '60s that
I
recall. That everyone *wanted* to be segregated. "Separate but equal".
Perhaps you don't remember it.

The problem with segregationist rhetoric was that the reality very clearly
did not match the rhetoric. And even if the segregationists were right that
most black people wanted to remain "separate but equal," that would not have
justified forcing the ones who wanted to integrate to remain separate. The
separation the segregationists wanted to maintain was at best voluntary on
only one side, and often not even that because the segregationists wanted to
force segregation onto pro-integration white people as well as onto black
people.

As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no
possible threat to freedom. When a person wants to join a group
but the group doesn't want to accept the person, the situation gets
a bit trickier, but a fairly simple rule of thumb can help a lot in
distinguishing the difference. If the group wants to reject the person
because of who or what the person is, it's segregation. If the group
wants to reject the person because the person is not willing to accept
the group's standards of behavior while in the group, or because the
person's needs and desires are not the same as those of the group
and would distract the group from pursuing its purpose, it's not
segregation.

Yup - sounds familliar. "The ones who act like us are OK". Of course,
there's the little matter of one or other group often having more
resources.

The alternative is to give people a "right" to demand to be allowed into
other people's groups no matter how they behave. That violates the freedom
of the people who are forced to be around others who are behaving in ways
that bother them.

I'm sure you recognize the basic principle. Indeed, you apply it yourself
in demanding that children in government schools not exercise their religion
in ways that would be "disruptive." But you want to be allowed to pick and
choose for other people what kinds of behavior they should have to accept
and what kinds they are allowed to reject.

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.

The word "democracy" means "people-rule." The greatest rule by the people
possible comes when we rule over our own lives while interfering in each
other's lives only when truly necessary. Anything else results in having
some of the people rule over other of the people. What you call
"democratic" is more properly "majoritocratic" - rule by the majority over
the minority - and is only a good thing when leaving people free to rule
over their own lives is not a viable option.

What I want is not to "segregate public life" but rather to allow people to
choose for themselves how much of their lives to make "public" instead of
having people tell each other how much of their lives must be considered
"public." The only way you can use the words "segregate public life" is by
claiming public ownership of portions of other people's lives.

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...

"Circe" wrote in message
news:%uEEc.10321$Qj6.103@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...

Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school activities,
and do so for academic reasons rather than because the activities are
something the children enjoy, what you are doing is demanding that
families
who want their children to study religion accept a special, extra burden
above and beyond the burden that other families carry. You refuse to
offer
them the option of substituting a religion class for some other class that
they consider less valuable (an art class, for example). That constitutes
discrimination by government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.

Do a majority of families send their children to weekday religious education
classes? The common practice where I grew up was Church and Sunday school on
Sunday AM, Youth Fellowship (which was much more social than worship) for
middle and high school kids on Sunday night, Choir practice on Wednesday
night. This was mainline protestant churches.

The church (non-denominational protestant) I currently attend does groups
for kids Wednesday night (which, again, are more social than devotional) and
an Adult bible study, but otherwise is the same schedule.

It was common practice there, and is here as well, that no homework be given
or school events scheduled on Wednesday night, because that is "Church
Night".

I know a lot more parents who send their children to ballet class, soccer
practice, or piano lessons during the school week than who send their
children to weekday religion classes.

"Nathan A. Barclay" wrote in message
...

"Circe" wrote in message
news:%uEEc.10321$Qj6.103@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
"Banty" wrote in message
...

Unless MOST families send their children to such after-school activities,
and do so for academic reasons rather than because the activities are
something the children enjoy, what you are doing is demanding that
families
who want their children to study religion accept a special, extra burden
above and beyond the burden that other families carry. You refuse to
offer
them the option of substituting a religion class for some other class that
they consider less valuable (an art class, for example). That constitutes
discrimination by government against the choice to study religion as an
elective.

Do a majority of families send their children to weekday religious education
classes? The common practice where I grew up was Church and Sunday school on
Sunday AM, Youth Fellowship (which was much more social than worship) for
middle and high school kids on Sunday night, Choir practice on Wednesday
night. This was mainline protestant churches.

The church (non-denominational protestant) I currently attend does groups
for kids Wednesday night (which, again, are more social than devotional) and
an Adult bible study, but otherwise is the same schedule.

It was common practice there, and is here as well, that no homework be given
or school events scheduled on Wednesday night, because that is "Church
Night".

I know a lot more parents who send their children to ballet class, soccer
practice, or piano lessons during the school week than who send their
children to weekday religion classes.

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

To be crystal clear about it, I strongly oppose deliberate racial separation
or segregation. However, I also recognize that there are religious, social,
cultural, and economic factors that correlate with race and that can quite
legitimately influence people's preferences. That may change over time (and
I very definitely hope it does with economic factors). But as long as there
are differences in what families need and want that correlate with race,
trying to demand a perfect racial balance while ignoring those differences
is tyrannical.

If this sounds a bit like arguments segregationists have used in the past,
all I can do is ask people to judge my words, not their stereotypes that
they associate with the words, and give me the benefit of the doubt in
believing that I am sincere. We will never reach Martin Luther King Jr.'s
dream of judging people by the content of their character instead of by the
color of their skin as long as we demand that people sublimate their
religious, social, cultural, and economic desires to an expectation that
every organization have the "right" racial balance.

And I might add that in principle, if small groups of black people or white
people or people of some other race (Native Americans, for example?) want to
go off and segregate themselves, I'm not convinced that there is a strong
enough public interest to justify interfering with that desire. The reason
segregation was so terrible was largely a matter of scale: it did not
involve a small group going off to "do its own thing" without really
interfering with others, but rather was on such a huge scale that it shut
black people out of society's mainstream. Racism, especially on a
subliminal level, is still too strong for us to let down our guard against
it. But I can dream of a day - probably not in my lifetime, unfortunately -
when the best way to deal with racism might be to let the handful of kooks
who want to practice it go off and do their own thing and stay out of
everyone else's way.

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.

Exactly.

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

To be crystal clear about it, I strongly oppose deliberate racial separation
or segregation. However, I also recognize that there are religious, social,
cultural, and economic factors that correlate with race and that can quite
legitimately influence people's preferences. That may change over time (and
I very definitely hope it does with economic factors). But as long as there
are differences in what families need and want that correlate with race,
trying to demand a perfect racial balance while ignoring those differences
is tyrannical.

If this sounds a bit like arguments segregationists have used in the past,
all I can do is ask people to judge my words, not their stereotypes that
they associate with the words, and give me the benefit of the doubt in
believing that I am sincere. We will never reach Martin Luther King Jr.'s
dream of judging people by the content of their character instead of by the
color of their skin as long as we demand that people sublimate their
religious, social, cultural, and economic desires to an expectation that
every organization have the "right" racial balance.

And I might add that in principle, if small groups of black people or white
people or people of some other race (Native Americans, for example?) want to
go off and segregate themselves, I'm not convinced that there is a strong
enough public interest to justify interfering with that desire. The reason
segregation was so terrible was largely a matter of scale: it did not
involve a small group going off to "do its own thing" without really
interfering with others, but rather was on such a huge scale that it shut
black people out of society's mainstream. Racism, especially on a
subliminal level, is still too strong for us to let down our guard against
it. But I can dream of a day - probably not in my lifetime, unfortunately -
when the best way to deal with racism might be to let the handful of kooks
who want to practice it go off and do their own thing and stay out of
everyone else's way.

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.

Exactly.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , abacus
says...

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes.

I'm judging him by his posts.

No, you're judging me by more than just my posts. You're judging me by
similarities you perceive between what I write and things you've heard from
segregationists. You've admitted as much yourself. That is, in fact,
stereotyping.

One of the more lasting legacies of destruction left by segregationists is a
poisoning of the envornment that causes some people, apparently including
yourself, to automatically assume that people who use certain types of
arguments are really segregationists in disguise. That seriously undermines
our ability as a society to have rational, intelligent, discussions
regarding racial matters.

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.

No, just to give them a hobson's choice between a purported failed public
school, and his prosyltizing school.

Not just those two. As many options as people are willing to make
available, with families free to choose. (And I want a voucher amount that
is high enough to help promote a relatively wide range of options.) Of
course you're also forgetting that you would be just as free to donate to
kinds of schools you like as I would to kinds I like.

And I'm certainly not inclined to write off the public schools as not worth
trying to improve. I'm all for the public schools' making the level of
quality private schools have to reach to draw students away from them as
high as they can make it.

"Banty" wrote in message
...
In article , abacus
says...

I really think your wrong about his motivations and judging him
according to your memories and your own stereotypes.

I'm judging him by his posts.

No, you're judging me by more than just my posts. You're judging me by
similarities you perceive between what I write and things you've heard from
segregationists. You've admitted as much yourself. That is, in fact,
stereotyping.

One of the more lasting legacies of destruction left by segregationists is a
poisoning of the envornment that causes some people, apparently including
yourself, to automatically assume that people who use certain types of
arguments are really segregationists in disguise. That seriously undermines
our ability as a society to have rational, intelligent, discussions
regarding racial matters.

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.

No, just to give them a hobson's choice between a purported failed public
school, and his prosyltizing school.

Not just those two. As many options as people are willing to make
available, with families free to choose. (And I want a voucher amount that
is high enough to help promote a relatively wide range of options.) Of
course you're also forgetting that you would be just as free to donate to
kinds of schools you like as I would to kinds I like.

And I'm certainly not inclined to write off the public schools as not worth
trying to improve. I'm all for the public schools' making the level of
quality private schools have to reach to draw students away from them as
high as they can make it.

"Circe" wrote in message
news:HxCEc.9586$Qj6.1647@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no
possible threat to freedom.

How can my separation from you be voluntary on my side if *you* are the
one choosing it? How can the government provide fiscal support your
separation from me because *you* want it while I don't without that
separation being, by definition, involuntary on my part?

Are you honestly concerned that you'll want to send your children to
religious schools where they won't be allowed to attend, or is your desire
really to force other people to send their children to the type of school
you favor so their childen and yours will be together on YOUR terms?

"Circe" wrote in message
news:HxCEc.9586$Qj6.1647@fed1read05...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:
As long as the separation is voluntary on both sides, there is no
possible threat to freedom.

How can my separation from you be voluntary on my side if *you* are the
one choosing it? How can the government provide fiscal support your
separation from me because *you* want it while I don't without that
separation being, by definition, involuntary on my part?

Are you honestly concerned that you'll want to send your children to
religious schools where they won't be allowed to attend, or is your desire
really to force other people to send their children to the type of school
you favor so their childen and yours will be together on YOUR terms?

"Banty" wrote in message
...

And, very significantly, when it comes to something resource-intensive
like
education, it often seems the one that's not so voluntary seems to be the
one with much greater resources.

If the voucher amount is 80% of what government schools receive for
educating the same students (and my 80% figure is actually higher than what
most voucher advocates aim for), private donations would have to make up the
other 20% before the private schools could have even equal resources much
less greater resources.

Also note that with the same pattern donations, the same basic phenomenon
would exist if government were not involved at all. In fact, it would very
likely be stronger because voluntary donations would be the only money
available to help the poor instead of just being a relatively small
supplement to tax dollars. Thus, it is not a case of me wanting to use
government power to create an advantage, but rather a case of you wanting to
use government power to eliminate an opportunity.