I thought that a poll on this subject would be appropriate given our discussion on the other thread..  

Is funding them to the tune of $4000 less per student per year a subsidy or a tax?

Perhaps you should have been more specific with your question, rather than giving a complicated financial arrangement an overly simplistic label.

five billion a year goes to faith schools.
I vote no.

I vote no.

This is a textbook case of religious discrimination. Or it would be, if the government were ever foolish enough to try it.

So, I'm guessing that FD is the only one that voted "yes".

There is a funding imbalance in favour of private schools over public ones. It should be the other way around.

I am not sure about this but have heard .......

The accounting for public schools does not include maintenance, capital investment.
Making public schools seem to get a smaller portion of the pie than it cost the govt to run them overall.

For private schools, the maintenance, capital investment is funded by that school.
Which saves the govt a LOT of money.
Every kid in private education is cheaper overall for the govt than a kid in private education.

There is a funding imbalance in favour of private schools over public ones. It should be the other way around.

Private schools get about $6000 per student per year. Public schools get about $10000.

This is about religious schools, not private schools. There is another thread about that:

public vs private education

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1172911103

I don't see the difference between religious schools and private schools.  

Governments have a responsibility to pay for our children's education.  People who send their kids to religious schools pay tax as well.


Bill

I don't believe in segregating our children on the basis of religion, take a quick look around the world and see what it does.

Private/Religious schools should get zero tax payer dollars.

I voted that they shouldn't be subsidized.. However that is conditional, I would completely agree with you all if taxes were not as high as they are. The government shouldn't be taking so much money from people, if they didn't take so much then perhaps schools wouldn't need as much subsidizing and parents could pay the bigger fees.

I spoke to a gentleman today, him and his wife were earning about $110,000 a year together, they had a mortgage which costs $46,404 per year, because they have a kid and they both work to provide for their kid they send the kid to childcare which costs almost $12,000 a year, $20,100 going to taxes taken out by the government, about $8,400 a year towards groceries, $8,400 towards the regular family car's fuel, $1,100 towards the medicare levy, $1,650 for the medicare levy surcharge, $2,400 as a modest amount for entertainment and a kid, and other general costs (not including school costs) can total between $95-100,000 which is almost all of their income.

Our taxes are oppressive, there is no way that we can be a productive nation this way.

Lower taxes and then you can stop subsidizing things, it's not fair on family's.

The tax payer funds education. Any "faith based" education that is necessary should be paid for by the parent.

Currently it is a controversial idea to separate religion from education, but I doubt it will remain that way.

We owe a lot to religions actually helping to instigate universally accessible education, as historically it was only available to the elite, hence the strong historical bond.

As in all things, we are seeing changes, due to societies changing views away from a general acceptance of religion as a central tenet of their life, to a more incidental role, as this continues, we will see greater separation of religion from secular activities.

Thank god for that  ;)

Currently it is a controversial idea to separate religion from education

No it isn't. It's considered the norm.

None of you who completely oppose subsidies have explained how to deal with religious people who oppose paying taxes when the government discriminates against them in the spending of that money. Rather than giving people a free choice, the government would be effectively paying people to give up a way of life you oppose, while putting huge financial penalties on those who don't play along. It's all well and good to want all children to be raised the same way as yours, but you cannot justify that discrimination. Morally, it would be no different to the government deciding to only fund catholic schools out of the public purse and making everyone who doesn't like it buy private education.

If enough racists got together in a town to form a school which taught a "white supremacy" based curricula, should the taxpayer subsidise that school?

After all, it is a "belief" based education.

A strong argument could be made for complete separation of religious and formal education, could it not.

The indoctrination of children into the families own religious cult, is the responsibility (and the shame) of the family.

If enough racists got together in a town to form a school which taught a "white supremacy" based curricula, should the taxpayer subsidise that school?

No. Why?

A strong argument could be made for complete separation of religious and formal education, could it not.

Only in order to discriminate against people's religious beliefs. Other than attacking people's beliefs, there is no valid reason.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 2:33pm:

If enough racists got together in a town to form a school which taught a "white supremacy" based curricula, should the taxpayer subsidise that school? No. Why?

Well if  agroup of people, let's call them "Christians" for want of a better name, can demand we publicly subsidise the education of their kids in the fashion they want, due to their "belief" in "god", why can a group of white supremacists not demand that the public purse fund their school, which teaches in the way they want, due to their "belief"?


Quote:

A strong argument could be made for complete separation of religious and formal education, could it not. Only in order to discriminate against people's religious beliefs. Other than attacking people's beliefs, there is no valid reason.

Quite the opposite.

If no religious teaching was done in any school, then the teaching of the "beliefs" of the particular cults subscribed to by the parents of the kids, would not in any way interfere in everyone geting a fair and equal educational opportunity, would it?

It woudl be a GOOD thing, if kids from all religions mixed freely in every school, and the brainwashing of religion was confined to the religious bases of the particular religions.

why can a group of white supremacists not demand that the public purse fund their school, which teaches in the way they want, due to their "belief"?

Because we don't tolerate racism.

If no religious teaching was done in any school, then the teaching of the "beliefs" of the particular cults subscribed to by the parents of the kids, would not in any way interfere in everyone geting a fair and equal educational opportunity, would it?

Likewise, if everyone was raised as a communist, we would all get along just fine. This is hardly a sound argument you are making. Your hostility to religion is clouding your judgement and preventing you from seeing how scary your 'utopia' really is.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 3:43pm:

why can a group of white supremacists not demand that the public purse fund their school, which teaches in the way they want, due to their "belief"? Because we don't tolerate racism.

We tollerate religious bigotry, why not racism?


Quote:

If no religious teaching was done in any school, then the teaching of the "beliefs" of the particular cults subscribed to by the parents of the kids, would not in any way interfere in everyone geting a fair and equal educational opportunity, would it? Likewise, if everyone was raised as a communist, we would all get along just fine. This is hardly a sound argument you are making. Your hostility to religion is clouding your judgement and preventing you from seeing how scary your 'utopia' really is.

No, you're totally wrong.

My way advocates no indoctrination.

Your implication (a polite way of saying "putting words in my mouth")   my way is in any way equitable with imposing a communist "belief" (there's that word again) system, is at best foolish, at worse, dishonest.

I do not wish to think you either foolish or dishonest, perhaps you could rethink your argument.

We tollerate religious bigotry, why not racism?

Do you support racism?

My way advocates no indoctrination.

There is no such thing as an absence of indoctrination in education. Even among the sciences, those with a philosophical understanding of their work recognise the role of indoctrination in furthering their field of study.

You just want to deny people a choice in how they can indoctrinate their children. You want them to be indoctrinated into your school of thought because you believe yours is somehow better and this justifies imposing your views on others.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 4:31pm:

We tollerate religious bigotry, why not racism? Do you support racism?

No why?


Quote:

My way advocates no indoctrination. There is no such thing as an absence of indoctrination in education.

Reductio ad absurdum.


Quote:

Even among the sciences, those with a philosophical understanding of their work recognise the role of indoctrination in furthering their field of study.

They also recognise reductio ad absurdum.


Quote:

You just want to deny people a choice in how they can indoctrinate their children.

So by saying it should not be taught in school, and that "faith" school should not be funded publically,  I am denying them the right to indoctrinate their kids?

You are an idiot after all. :)


Quote:

You want them to be indoctrinated into your school of thought because you believe yours is somehow better and this justifies imposing your views on others.

I want to indoctrinate them in what? I deny no one the right to teach whatever they want to their kids.

No why?

Then why do I need to explain to you why our society doesn't support it?

So by saying it should not be taught in school, and that "faith" school should not be funded publically,  I am denying them the right to indoctrinate their kids?

That is what you want to do isn't it? Not only do you want to deny them their right, you want to force their kids into being indoctrinated into your school of thought. You have come up with some arbitrary notion that school and religion must not be mixed, and now you want to force it on others.

Reducto ad absurdum is a valid counterargument, because your argument is based on absurdity. You insist your world view is somehow better. Even though you cannot rationally justify this, you still think you can use it to deny other people their rights. You also fail to recognise your alternative as merely another form of indoctrination. You have a quaint notion that your POV is based on an absence of indoctrination, or is grounded in logic or rationality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only difference between you and most religious people is that religious people acknowledge that they have no right to tell other people how to raise their children.

freediver wrote on Jul 30^th, 2008 at 4:55pm:

No why? Then why do I need to explain to you why our society doesn't support it?

Are you being deliberately obtuse now?

The point is not that one form of school segregation is wrong because society does not approve of it, but that ALL forms of school segregation due to whimsical belief are wrong and divisive.




Quote:

So by saying it should not be taught in school, and that "faith" school should not be funded publically,  I am denying them the right to indoctrinate their kids? That is what you want to do isn't it? Not only do you want to deny them their right, you want to force their kids into being indoctrinated into your school of thought.

Why do you need to lie to make your points? Oh hang about, you don't have a point here as you're making up fairy stories again.

I want NOTHING forced on kids, it is only the segregationists who want kids divided by religious belief into separate schools who want indoctrination in schools

Again I ask, what "point of view" do I have which I want to "indoctrinate" kids into?

I want schools to be places of education, and I do not deny those stupid or cruel enough to impose their religious views onto their kids. They can however do it in their own cult headquarter, Church, mosque or satanic circle, and not at the taxpayers expense.




Quote:

You have come up with some arbitrary notion that school and religion must not be mixed, and now you want to force it on others.

The idea is not arbitrary, why do you think it is? I do not want to impose it on anyone, I was asked if I agreed with taxpayers funding "faith" schools, I do not, I am giving my reasons why, and my alternatives. It's only those of a religious bent who go about forcing their cults onto others.


Quote:

Reducto ad absurdum is a valid counterargument, because your argument is based on absurdity. You insist your world view is somehow better.

Not it isn't by it's very description reducing something to meaningless small components leaves us without meaning.


Quote:

Even though you cannot rationally justify this, you still think you can use it to deny other people their rights.

I have justified it. And again you lie about me wanting to deny someone their rights, why?

It is not a "right" to have exclusive schools, if I form a religion or belief tomorrow, should I have the right to an exclusive school for anyone's kids who subscribe to that belief? Should there be exclusive Scientology schools for kids of that "belief"?


Quote:

You also fail to recognise your alternative as merely another form of indoctrination.

How is it indoctrinating?


Quote:

in·doc·tri·nate     1.      to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view. 2.      to teach or inculcate. 3.      to imbue with learning. —Synonyms 1. brainwash, propagandize.

Can you show me how I want to instruct anyone in a doctrine, principle, ideology, or  to imbue anyone with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view?

Of course you cannot.


Quote:

You have a quaint notion that your POV is based on an absence of indoctrination, or is grounded in logic or rationality. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only difference between you and most religious people is that religious people acknowledge that they have no right to tell other people how to raise their children.

Laughable, I have told no one how to raise their kids. People are entitled to indoctrinate their kids, and imbue them with the beliefs of whatever cult they subscribe to. I just don't see why my tax money should go to fund that indoctrination within schools.

Taking religion out of schools and making schools equal, and not segregated or exclusive, would be a good thing.

You haven't given us a single reason why the taxpayers shouold fund faith schools.

You will not tell us what level of support a "belief" requires before staring dipping into the taxpayers money.

Oh and; Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour." Making up things I believe and putting words in my mouth is lying, you'll go to hell.

The point is not that one form of school segregation is wrong because society does not approve of it, but that ALL forms of school segregation due to whimsical belief are wrong and divisive.

Your mistake is focussing on segregation alone. If that was the only important issue, we would all be communists. But we aren't. We also value things like freedom of choice. Racist schools are not wrong because they are a form of segregation. They are wrong because they are racist. Likewise, religious schools are not legal because segregation is in general allowed. Rather, they are legal because we value freedom of choice and because we do not tolerate discrimination on the basis of religion. If it were only about segregation, then you would be right, but that is not the only thing that is important to us. It is absurdly myopic to pretend that it is all about segregation.

I want NOTHING forced on kids

Yes you do, you just fail to recognise that that is what you are doing. You see the denial of religious education as taking something away. But in reality, it is also imposing something. Not that merely taking the right away would be acceptable either. I'm just pointing out another flaw in your logic.

Again I ask, what "point of view" do I have which I want to "indoctrinate" kids into?

Sectarianism is probably the best way to describe it. It hasn't been around long a political movement and we seem to lack the vocabulary.

I want schools to be places of education

There's another point of view you want to impose on others - that religion has no place in education.

They can however do it in their own cult headquarter, Church, mosque or satanic circle, and not at the taxpayers expense.

There's another one - that it is just to place arbitrary limitations on the practice of religion. This is an attack on fundamental human rights. But you are so high up on your horse and have such a low view of those who disagree that you can't acknowledge this.

Should there be exclusive Scientology schools for kids of that "belief"?

They should be allowed to do that. You are confusing the issue. It's like freedom of speech. There is a difference between asking whether someone should make a certain statement, and asking whether they should be allowed to. You can have a POV that they should not set up a scientology school, but also believe that they should be allowed to. That's what freedom is all about.

Can you show me how I want to instruct anyone in a doctrine, principle, ideology, or  to imbue anyone with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view?

Education is indoctrination. You have a delusion that only a religious education involves indoctrination, but all education involves indoctrination. You do not propose an education absent of indoctrination, you propose an education whose indoctrination you approve of in all respects.

I just don't see why my tax money should go to fund that indoctrination within schools.

I have pointed this out before. Denying schools funbding on the basis of religion is discrimination. Religious people pay tax too and it is unjust to withhold from them communal resources on the basis of how they practice their religion.

Taking religion out of schools and making schools equal, and not segregated or exclusive, would be a good thing.

To you it would, but you have no right to impose this view on others.

You haven't given us a single reason why the taxpayers shouold fund faith schools.

Yes I have, many times. You jsut keep failing to respond to it.

You will not tell us what level of support a "belief" requires before staring dipping into the taxpayers money.

The level of support for a belief is irrelevant. Private schools should be treated equally under the law, regardless of how much support there is for the belief. So, an atheist private school should be treated no different to a religious one. Funding has nothing to do with religion. It's about providing a basic education to all children. Funding private schools does not even fund religious education as you make out. Private schools spend far more than the government funding on those aspect of education that are universal and sectarian. If you wanted to you could pass a law saying that the maney may not be spent on religious education, but apart from a bit of paperwork it would make zero difference to how the money is actually spent.