I suppose one would have to pretend the modern, secular, naturalist worldview isn't religious to make your case. One would have to pretend there is such a thing as neutral education—that arithmetic or biology, for example, were not grounded in religious worldview. Indeed, no education exists that is not underpinned by some "religious" worldview. Even the positivists are making a moral claim when they claim one cannot be made objectively. Therefore, to be honest and admit this is the case, one would then have to acknowledge public education today is already religious, just a different religion, one that much of modern society has become comfortable with—naturalism.
Abraham Kuyper's work in education is a model worthy study in our present "school choice" debates. As a statesman, clergyman, and even Prime Minister of the Netherlands, he worked to effectually remove education from politics by getting legislation passed that allowed State educational funds to be "redirected" (no new money) toward establishing religious private schools whenever a district had enough practitioners to justify its establishment. Since, in a pluralistic culture, all affirm with conviction their worldview is closest to reality and want to education the population according to their conviction, and since there is no temporal, autonomous authority to determine which is actually true with the certainty each demands, public funds should be dispersed equally. Better still, perhaps public education as it currently exists should be dismantled at the federal level entirely, at the state level with some limited claim on its citizens' education, and left to counties and townships to levy taxes, locally, and oversee "public" education, locally. Additionally, you quoted Katherine Stewart's tweet—"America’s Christian right is taking direct aim at secular public education, but let’s not forget that it is also after the money." The money the "religious right" is after is their own money. Why should one people group be forced to pay for someone else's education then have to turn around and foot the bill for their own children's education. If secularists are so bent out of shape about it, let's just abolish the whole thing, let everyone keep their money and use it to educate their children their own way? For what it's worth, having said all that, I am highly opposed to microgrants—new money being levied to fund private religious education. I'm not a socialist for crying out loud; I just want parents to retain their agency in their own child's education without being robbed by the state first to pay for an education they don't affirm.
Peter - Arnie Anneson suggested we talk but I can't find a direct email for you. Can you help me? I'd like to chat about education and charter schools in NH.
I suppose one would have to pretend the modern, secular, naturalist worldview isn't religious to make your case. One would have to pretend there is such a thing as neutral education—that arithmetic or biology, for example, were not grounded in religious worldview. Indeed, no education exists that is not underpinned by some "religious" worldview. Even the positivists are making a moral claim when they claim one cannot be made objectively. Therefore, to be honest and admit this is the case, one would then have to acknowledge public education today is already religious, just a different religion, one that much of modern society has become comfortable with—naturalism.
Abraham Kuyper's work in education is a model worthy study in our present "school choice" debates. As a statesman, clergyman, and even Prime Minister of the Netherlands, he worked to effectually remove education from politics by getting legislation passed that allowed State educational funds to be "redirected" (no new money) toward establishing religious private schools whenever a district had enough practitioners to justify its establishment. Since, in a pluralistic culture, all affirm with conviction their worldview is closest to reality and want to education the population according to their conviction, and since there is no temporal, autonomous authority to determine which is actually true with the certainty each demands, public funds should be dispersed equally. Better still, perhaps public education as it currently exists should be dismantled at the federal level entirely, at the state level with some limited claim on its citizens' education, and left to counties and townships to levy taxes, locally, and oversee "public" education, locally. Additionally, you quoted Katherine Stewart's tweet—"America’s Christian right is taking direct aim at secular public education, but let’s not forget that it is also after the money." The money the "religious right" is after is their own money. Why should one people group be forced to pay for someone else's education then have to turn around and foot the bill for their own children's education. If secularists are so bent out of shape about it, let's just abolish the whole thing, let everyone keep their money and use it to educate their children their own way? For what it's worth, having said all that, I am highly opposed to microgrants—new money being levied to fund private religious education. I'm not a socialist for crying out loud; I just want parents to retain their agency in their own child's education without being robbed by the state first to pay for an education they don't affirm.
Peter - Arnie Anneson suggested we talk but I can't find a direct email for you. Can you help me? I'd like to chat about education and charter schools in NH.