The North Carolina state constitution clearly says that public funding is for public schools, but the Governor and General Assembly passed voucher legislation so parents can use public funds to send their children to schools run by religious groups.
Now a high-powered law firm backed by the Koch brothers has entered the lawsuit to defend vouchers.
They want more children to learn Biblical science and history and to be well prepare for the jobs of the 17th century.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What else can one expect from the Koch brothers? It is interesting that the promote science on Nova yet do not respect the scientists they promote on this program. Go figure.
I was getting ready to mention that “Home” and I believe, “Earth from Space” that can be found on YouTube and seen on NOVA are Koch funded…Why do they do this? Are they playing both sided of the coin or what? This isn’t the first time Koch’s have behaved surprisingly.
What does it matter to them? They need to educate engineers and scientists to run their businesses for them and they need tax credits for donating to nonprofits. It’s a win-win for them!
I just find them to be hypocritical.
That goes without saying!
The wall between Church and State has always been a two-way wall.
If pseudo-libertarians want to tear down that wall, then I guess it’s time to start taxing church income and property.
The end of religious toleration in the United States.
I have thought the same thing.
So apparently being a libertarian is negotiable.
Those jobs will be with Wal-Mart; they’ll have to apply for federal food stamps and rely on health care through what’s popularly known as Obamacare unless they live in one of the GOP dominated states that’s refusing to cooperate and offer healthcare through the new national healthcare plan. Most Americans who don’t have healthcare of any kind—except the Emergency Room—live in those states.
In fact, Wal-Mart will open schools to get some of that voucher money and hire high school drop outs. Another law will be passed to labeled these drop outs as great teachers earning poverty wages without benefits. They will have to live in over priced 100 square foot rooms owned by the company and buy all their clothing and food from Wal-Mart or else.
With no union to represent them and fight for them when they are underpaid and mistreated, they will have no voice.
Meanwhile, the Walton family will double their wealth in ten years and they are already the world’s wealthiest family.
Lloyd, I retract. Scientifically speaking evolution is probably not a even a theory. It is a hypothesis. An interesting one, but difficult to test.
Janine,
Do you believe that what was written in the Bible is true?
“They want more children to learn Biblical science and history and to be well prepare for the jobs of the 17th century”
Interesting seeing this from someone who is a supporter of Catholic schools.
(1)Catholic schools do not teach “Biblical science and history” (2)Catholic schools are not public
There are two issues here: 1) the issue of using public funds to send students to private schools with a religious affiliation, and 2) the issue of whether religious schools are academically backwards (biblical “science”, jobs of the 17th century, etc.).
The quote, “They want more children to learn Biblical science and history and to be well prepare for the jobs of the 17th century.” is relevant to the second issue, but not the first. Presumably, even if those religiously-affiliated private schools gave the worlds greatest possible education to the most underprivileged kids around, one could still object to the voucher program on the church/state issue.
Ravitch’s point about bible science or whatever seems to indicate that she thinks that “schools run by religious groups” (she doesn’t specify further) provide a bad education, not that she just objects to the voucher program on the church/state issue. Yet, she is a big supporter of Catholic schools. If she thinks that some religious private schools provide a fantastic education, then why not just focus on the church/state issue?
I realize that this blog is mostly about ginning up enthusiastic support and awareness among like-minded people and not about a serious and balanced discussion of education issues (I wish there was a place online where such discussion did occur), but still the quote about bible science seemed misplaced to me.
I have friends who have been paying to have their children attend Catholic schools. They are actually thinking of saving the money and sending their children to public school. Because these Catholic schools accept vouchers they are building their curriculum around common core.
Perhaps the state is more savvy then we realize. Vouchers are a way to attack alternative education of all kinds. Whether it be home school, Catholic school or Charter school all will be consumed by common core.
So much for embracing diversity.
There’s no such think as Biblical science unless it is linked to archeology.
There is only one kind of Science and that it the one that follows the Scientific Process. That is why evolution has remained a theory and not a law.
When does science become a law?
The evidence of evolution is overwhelming compared to the few passages in the Bible used to indicate that the universe and all life came into existence in an instant 6,000 years ago.
And evolution as a science is never a closed book because new discoveries are being made all the time to explain gaps in the knowledge that exists. Unless civilization as we know it collapses, in time, the study of evolution will become clearer and better understood.
I don’t think there a set in stone “law” to evolution. Maybe chaos theory would explain evolution better.
If you examine what fuels the anti-evolution activists, it is a misunderstanding of the word and a mistrust of science, because it gets in the way of a simplistic world view.
The truth is, science examines our ever changing environment and contributes to medical, technological, aeronautical, physical, nutritional, etc understanding and discoveries. It doesn’t claim to be static, eternal, or absolute.
Within that context, applying faith-based, static, absolute conditions, I wonder why spiritual people want their beliefs to be included in science curricula.
“I wonder why spiritual people want their beliefs to be included in science curricula.”
Some want to subvert the scientific process and spread the word of God, as they interpret it, into the science to keep their thinking relevant. It’s an end run to hold on to beliefs that may not be relevant any longer.
The world is going through massive changes and this is a reaction from people who don’t want to admit their old beliefs may be wrong. Many of them will die believing they are still right and science is some sort of plot by the devil or anti-Christ.
As I have said elsewhere, just give the one lesson about the creation story and then say that now we will talk about science the rest of the year.
I like that.
The “history” of “science” reveals the design and implementation of a very specific process meant to explain the natural world. The designers of the process were, unarguably, men of faith trying to better understand God through His creation.
I understand the process can be utilized by scientists who reject the idea of a creator, but still you are left with the process. That being said evolution is actually an hypothesis on the origin of species. A hypothesis that, as yet, can not be truly tested.
“That being said evolution is actually an hypothesis on the origin of species. A hypothesis that, as yet, can not be truly tested.”
We may not have a complete picture of the evolution of the human species but we do know that we share 98.8% of the Chimpanzee’s DNA. That is more than a hypotheses or theory. It’s a proven, scientific fact. And with Bonobos, we share 98.6% of their DNA.
It has also been discovered that some humans, but not all, carry Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA.
As for the evolution of humans, we need look no further than the aboriginal Australian population that was isolated from the rest of humanity for tens of thousands of years leading to genetic isolation and regional differentiation.
The mitochondrial genome data indicate that Australia was colonized between 40 and 70 thousand years ago, either by a single migration from a heterogeneous source population or by multiple movements of smaller groups occurring over a period of time.
Mitochondrial DNA has proven to be a useful tool in studying the evolutionary history of human populations through key characteristics such as high copy number, lack of recombination (Olivio et al. 1983; Ingman et al. 2000), high substitution rate (Brown et al. 1979), and maternal mode of inheritance (Giles et al.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC403733/
If Neanderthal man was a different species we would not expect to see interbreeding. On the rare occasion when two separate species mate the offspring are generally sterile. The 1-4% nuclear DNA match between Neanderthal and modern man indicates a very large amount of interbreeding. They were not a transition to us they are us. The human genome project results were actually a surprise to evolutionists.
You’re saying we evolved from other species that are now gone. Interesting.
We share 99% of the genes of the lab mouse. That is what makes them such great test subjects for human medications and treatments.
We also share 25% of our genes with bananas. Just more proof that humans are part of the evolutionary process of the ecosystem of the planet earth. We are all related through our genes because we are part of that ecosystem that has spent billions of years evolving.
http://www.glenn-apiaries.com/principles.html
We even share some DNA with bees:
“Despite diverging from human ancestors more than 600 million years ago, the bee shares a number of genes with its vertebrate cousins that its insect brethren lack, such as those involving RNA interference, aging, DNA methylation and circadian rhythms. “It appears that there were two genes for [circadian rhythm] in the common ancestor,” explains genome biologist Kim Worley of Baylor College of Medicine.”
Diane is a supporter of Catholic Schools????
Yes, Diane is a supporter of Catholic Schools particularly of the Jesuit type, but she is staunchly opposed to evangelical Christian schools. Not sure how she feels about other religions.
But I don’t think she approves of tax money going to any of them.
I think a better way to describe it is that she finds evangelical Christian schools to be distasteful, but Catholic and Jesuit school less so. It could be an interesting philosophical discussion as to what makes a school appealing to some and not to others.
She expressed in a post one time that she doesn’t think any religious schools should receive tax dollars following children—not even a Hebrew one, which is closely aligned to her cultural background.
Perhaps we should not speak for her.
I don’t think we are speaking for her. Her own words spoke for her. As to public dollars going to Catholic Schools that has been happening for decades. The top Catholic colleges I believe are approx 70% federally funded.
Joanna,
“. . . but Catholic and Jesuit school less so. . . ”
Jesuit Schools are Catholic schools.
Lloyd, and the rest won’t die?
My husband went to a Catholic school and they were taught about evolution, etc. No fear of science.
CTee,
Catholic schools (at least all of them that I am aware of, and I am, through my colleagues, very familiar with many in the Atlanta area) do not teach “biblical science”, which I understand to be a euphemism for creationism, ID, young earth type stuff. They all have excellent biology programs and cover evolution in-depth and detail.
I taught in both Catholic and public schools and encountered far less censorship in the former. However, this was my personal experience and is entirely anecdotal.
For a great account of censorship of textbooks in the United States, see Diane Ravitch’s The Language Police.
Love your last sentence: “They want more children to learn Biblical science and history and to be well prepare for the jobs of the 17th century.”
LOL!
Where you are today has much to do with the history that preceded you. The Christian movement was the impetus for the liberation of millions of people. It was the impetus for the settlement of this nation. It certainly does not compliment our intellect to mock this history.
This current post modern movement of common core is the antithesis of the Christian movement. It seeks to limit choice. It negates the individual and sells, instead, the best interest of the collective.
This post modern view followed the enlightenment when men no longer relied on a faith in God and instead relied on faith in his own intellect.
A trend away from self reliance and independence followed and led to this current socialist state. While I would agree that no man is an island I would also state that our founders quite clearly warned us about this extension of federal government.
We can’t have it both ways: Impose on individual rights when we don’t support them and demand them when we do. That is how our “democratic” process got us where we are today.
Janine,
Do you have a husband named Steve?
I find it less than productive to mock the faith system of certain groups of people. There are much better arguments against the voucher system.
It certainly does not build a strong case to do so. It plays on the old cliche of a redneck south (and even if there is truth to the cliche, I don’t understand, either, why a Roman Catholic north was doing any better as far as loyalty to unproven theories and practices). Traditions and faith are what distinguish religions, no matter where or how. The question is: what traditions should be exalted in our public schools or with public dollars?
The identity crisis of our nation is now.
Harmony, in the literal sense of the word, is the best one I could come up with. I guess that’s why I am a music teacher.
Joanna,
You have hit on an excellent point. We are, as a nation, are in the midst of an identity crisis. I simply don’t think it is possible to have a single education system that works for all people without a common culture. In fact, I believe that much of the push for more federal control of public schools is in fact a push to establish a common culture. That culture does have a religion too–Secular Humanism.
“That culture does have a religion too–Secular Humanism.”
No, ‘Secular Humanism’ is not a religion. You x-tian fundamentalist types like to state that but stating it doesn’t make it true. Please show me the fundamental agreed upon documents of this supposed religion, what you call a religion, of ‘Secular Humanism’.
But first, we might have to agree upon what constitutes a religion and/or religious beliefs.
Keep believing in your thousands of years old Mid Eastern mythologies. That is your right. But keep that nonsense out of the public schools.