A Christian republic (POLL)

[zoogs]

I guess this is more a commentary on school choice in general, but coverage from The New Yorker: Betsy Davos and the plan to break public schools

 

Earlier this year, the Detroit Free Press published the results of a yearlong investigation into the state’s two-decade-long charter-school initiative—one of the least regulated in the country. Almost two-thirds of the state’s charter schools are run by for-profit management companies, which are not required to make the financial disclosures that would be expected of not-for-profit or public entities. This lack of transparency has not translated into stellar academic results: student standardized-test scores at charter schools, the paper found, were no more than comparable with those at traditional public schools. And, despite the rhetoric of “choice,” lower-income students were effectively segregated into poorer-performing schools, while the parents of more privileged students were better equipped to navigate the system. Even Tom Watkins, the state’s former education superintendent, who favors charter schools, told the newspaper, “In a number of cases, people are making a boatload of money, and the kids aren’t getting educated.”

I think there are some exceptional charter schools and they have their place. However, this sort of criticism is also warranted and it goes directly at the questions of choice versus access walls, and public accountability that tend to be thrust center stage in this debate.

[Moiraine]

 

 

The federal government should get totally out of it and leave it to the states and local communities. What works in New York city or Washington DC is likely much different than what would work in rural Nebraska etc.

 

 

I disagree with this quite strongly. The federal government shouldn't get out of it - they need to build a working model for education based on 21st century thought and abandoning the industrialization/factory line producing style of education that started all of this ages ago.

 

Taking federal oversight out of it results in places like Texas, which not only does it's citizens, particularly those economically disadvantaged, a great and tragic disservice by offering awful education, but also retards the progress of the rest of the country.

Theoretically I wouldn't disagree with you but can you provide some examples of how the federal government has helped educational progress in this country. Seems all they ever come up with is cookie cutter ideas that may have a beneficial effect for a narrowly defined group but a detrimental effect for most. I guess this is a pretty good description of almost all federal programs IMO. They solve a problem for a small group while creating countless problems for the majority.

 

So you don't think the best decisions can be made by those closest to the people that are affected? That faceless bureaucrats are best suited for setting educational policy equally for say Columbus Nebraska and Detroit Michigan?

It needs to be a combination. There should be nationwide standards but more flexibility. But this shouldn't happen:

 

 

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-reasons-the-new-texas-social-studies-textbooks-are-nuts-7573825

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

The federal government should get totally out of it and leave it to the states and local communities. What works in New York city or Washington DC is likely much different than what would work in rural Nebraska etc.

 

I disagree with this quite strongly. The federal government shouldn't get out of it - they need to build a working model for education based on 21st century thought and abandoning the industrialization/factory line producing style of education that started all of this ages ago.

 

Taking federal oversight out of it results in places like Texas, which not only does it's citizens, particularly those economically disadvantaged, a great and tragic disservice by offering awful education, but also retards the progress of the rest of the country.

Theoretically I wouldn't disagree with you but can you provide some examples of how the federal government has helped educational progress in this country. Seems all they ever come up with is cookie cutter ideas that may have a beneficial effect for a narrowly defined group but a detrimental effect for most. I guess this is a pretty good description of almost all federal programs IMO. They solve a problem for a small group while creating countless problems for the majority.

So you don't think the best decisions can be made by those closest to the people that are affected? That faceless bureaucrats are best suited for setting educational policy equally for say Columbus Nebraska and Detroit Michigan?

It needs to be a combination. There should be nationwide standards but more flexibility. But this shouldn't happen:http://www.houstonpress.com/news/5-reasons-the-new-texas-social-studies-textbooks-are-nuts-7573825

Well, it is Texas after all....

[JJ Husker]

 

So you don't think the best decisions can be made by those closest to the people that are affected? That faceless bureaucrats are best suited for setting educational policy equally for say Columbus Nebraska and Detroit Michigan?

 

 

I do think that those decision can be made by those closest, but I think it's far too easy for other things to get in the way, and that those closest don't make the best decisions.

 

If we're going to get rid of federal oversight of education, then we need a hell of a lot of reform at the state level to disincentivize state politicians away from sacrificing our children's educations for things like political expediency, wealth building, pandering to corporate interests, etc.

Because political expediency, wealth building, pandering to corporate interests, etc. are not worse problems at the federal level than they are at the local level???

[chamrocck]

I didn't intend to read much of thus but ended up doing so because BRB and JJ are crushing it!

[zoogs]

Out of curiosity, I've added a poll to the OP to get a dial on where everybody stands.

[Landlord]

Jesus would oppose, so who cares about our opinions?

[zoogs]

That Jesus guy. What a killjoy

[BigRedBuster]

Of coarse I completely oppose turning America into a "christian republic".

[JJ Husker]

I'm not sure I understand the poll question. Basically the US is a Christian republic, if the determining factor is a majority of the citizens or the largest group of its kind. Now if you intend some official government position or policies to cement that fact, I guess I would have to have more details. Until that is answered, I will select "would not mind".

[BigRedBuster]

I'm not sure I understand the poll question. Basically the US is a Christian republic, if the determining factor is a majority of the citizens or the largest group of its kind. Now if you intend some official government position or policies to cement that fact, I guess I would have to have more details. Until that is answered, I will select "would not mind".

Well, from the opinion piece posted in the OP, I assumed he meant turning America into a country where Christian churches take over all forms of education and indoctrinate every child who comes through the doors in the Christian religion which basically would force everyone to be Christians over time.

 

If I'm wrong, someone can correct me.

[Enhance]

This is a land for all religions, therefore we should not base ourselves on any one doctrine or set of ideals.

 

We should be able to - as a culture - determine the appropriate and compassionate way to lead society without relying on the principles of any given faith system. I can only speak for myself, but even though I'm a Lutheran, I do not use my faith as a crutch for being a good person. Sometimes, I believe people try to use their faith as a reason why they should be a good person, which to me suggests they would have no reason to be decent without it.

[zoogs]

I'm not sure I understand the poll question. Basically the US is a Christian republic, if the determining factor is a majority of the citizens or the largest group of its kind. Now if you intend some official government position or policies to cement that fact, I guess I would have to have more details. Until that is answered, I will select "would not mind".

 

The U.S. is not a Christian republic. It is explicitly a republic that separates church and state.

 

A Christian republic enshrines Christianity as the official religion of the state, and I think as follows, a legitimate and endorsed basis of the state's laws and morality. It is *not* by definition a religiously exclusive system where only Christian churches are allowed to run schools.

 

England has an official state religion. Although while official, it seems to be archaic and fading? (I don't know too much about the UK, so I can't really comment. I literally learned this was still true of England a moment ago.)

[JJ Husker]

 

I'm not sure I understand the poll question. Basically the US is a Christian republic, if the determining factor is a majority of the citizens or the largest group of its kind. Now if you intend some official government position or policies to cement that fact, I guess I would have to have more details. Until that is answered, I will select "would not mind".

 

The U.S. is not a Christian republic. It is explicitly a republic that separates church and state.

 

A Christian republic enshrines Christianity as the official religion of the state, and I think as follows, a legitimate and endorsed basis of the state's laws and morality. It is *not* by definition a religiously exclusive system where only Christian churches are allowed to run schools.

 

England has an official state religion. Although while official, it seems to be archaic and fading? (I don't know too much about the UK, so I can't really comment. I literally learned this was still true of England a moment ago.)

Well, with that being the position from which you asked the question, I would be opposed to the US being a Christian republic. This country does not need an "official religion". That would make it pretty uncomfortable for people of other religions or no religion at all and that isn't what this country is about. But we also can't completely ignore the fact of what is the predominate religion in this country. Some of the sentiments from that religion and others are bound to seep into some policy and decisions. I dont see how that can be prevented without infringing on "by the people, for the people". However it should have nothing to do with the government officially.

[JJ Husker]

This is a land for all religions, therefore we should not base ourselves on any one doctrine or set of ideals.

 

We should be able to - as a culture - determine the appropriate and compassionate way to lead society without relying on the principles of any given faith system. I can only speak for myself, but even though I'm a Lutheran, I do not use my faith as a crutch for being a good person. Sometimes, I believe people try to use their faith as a reason why they should be a good person, which to me suggests they would have no reason to be decent without it.

Religion doesn't make a person good and lack of religion doesn't make a person bad. There are good and bad people of every race, color, religion, orientation etc. Why some still pretend this is not the case I'll never know.