In “Politics & Theology” (Political Quarterly, April, 1930) Bertrand Russell writes:
The curious thing is that, while the existence of Roman Catholics is considered a sufficient reason for spending public money on educational propaganda designed to increase their numbers, the existence of Communists and the existence of freethinkers is not considered any ground for spending public money upon schools designed to instill their opinions into the young: that is to say, minorities are only to receive public money for education when they are theologically reactionary. I may be unusually dense, but I have hitherto failed to see why this principle is just.
Russell’s situation in England was obviously not the same as contemporary America, but he makes an interesting point nonetheless: religious groups expect to be privileged by the government in ways that are denied to other groups. People who are adamant that religious schools should be funded by the state would never imagine that communists or freethinkers should be treated the same way.
Some minor progress has been made in that typical voucher schemes are designed to ostensibly fund any qualified school, even though most schools that benefit are religious schools. This isn’t surprising since religious organizations have more schools than any other group in society.
Because vouchers are supposed to be handed out in a neutral manner, though, it means that more than just the favored religious groups will get funding — but this can result in a bit of cognitive dissonance for some religious believers because they really don’t want to see atheists, Satanists, or other suspicious groups from benefiting. Time will tell whether they will put up with this in order to get money themselves or if they will put principle ahead of funding.
Read More:
Dear me, are they really making any headway with that argument? What about separation of church and state?
Schools are for teaching the scientific beliefs of the state, churches are for god.
To be honest, I think religious schools should receive no sponsoring at all, they should be classed as homeschools. No matter how good their academia is, they are deficient in a lot of subjects by including religious bias in them.
Any fees spent on them should be fully taxed like any corporation too, same with all churches.
I have been in a catholic School all of my life, besides my current enrollment at a university, and the only subject that included any religious bias in it was my religion class. I don’t think AP calculus, english, world history and government, biology, and various arts and classics classes can do the job at all of including religious bias. Plus, Christian teachers know that after high school and into college, things are a bit different from our previous years. If you would, please don’t make a statement in which you have never actually experienced yourself.
Yet you don’t identify a single statement above that is incorrect in any way.
Nobody ever makes the argument this guy is talking about.
It’s not that funding secular schools is wrong only because nobody is funding religious ones. The federal government shouldn’t be funding little indoctrination centers…period. I’m seeing more and more of this tactic from leftist special interests; race baiters, anti-tea party, the atheists etc.
Since you can’t debate the opposition’s actual argument, misquote and misrepresent it, then tear down the false argument. I mean, how many people out there still think Obama opposition is only form white people?
Why shouldn’t public schools exist?
Except exactly that argument is what is referenced above.
For the most part, it is – only a couple of percent of blacks who voted didn’t vote for him. Relatively small percentages of other non-white groups voted or someone other than Obama.
I look at this on a purely practical basis. Religious schools take a load off the public schools by educating a certain percentage of children. Those parents however pay taxes to run the public schools. It seems fair to me they should get some of it back. However that is on the condition religious schools teach according to curriculums set by the state. However I would certainly withhold support from schools refusing to teach evolution and promoting creationism. That is the position in New Zealand. That doesn’t stop them teaching their religion provided it is additional to their standard curriculum.
By that reasoning, people who hire private security firms should get back some taxes.
The problem with such reasoning is that taxes aren’t fees – you don’t pay taxes simply to get schooling or police for your own kids, but for society as a whole because you benefit when there is a certain minimum level of schooling and safety for society as a whole. Whether you avail yourself of those services directly or not is irrelevant.
You don’t get a rebate on your taxes simply because you didn’t personally call the police or fire department.
Though I am an atheist I still see this issue in practical terms. If all the religious schools shut down tomorrow especially Catholic schools the government would have to find a lot of extra money for education. It is cheaper to support those schools with some tax money than to assume the burden of educating all those extra children.
The principle could be applied in other areas where it is warranted. Our local bus service is unprofitable so funding comes from a mixture of fares and local government subsidy i.e. from taxes.
So… the government should send money now to the parents?
It’s even cheaper to not support the schools and let the parents do it on their own, which is just how it works with all other public services now.
And is it really cheaper or better in the long run to fund and encourage religious indoctrination with tax revenue?
Why is it ever warranted to reimburse people who choose not to use public service and opt instead for a private substitute – even though they continue to benefit from the fact that others are using the public service?
Hardly a relevant analogy since neither schools nor public roads are profitable either. Profit is irrelevant. The purpose of public transportation isn’t profit, but to serve a variety of public needs. Easier movement is incredibly beneficial for commerce and quality of life – just compare cities with great public transportation to those with little or not public transportation. I’ve lived in both types of city and there’s just no comparison when it comes to which is better in terms of shopping, entertainment, and just enjoyment of life.
And people who choose to drive rather than use the bus benefit from the fact that there are fewer cars on the road due to others using the bus.
The government wouldn’t give money to parents. It would go directly to the schools. I understand here our government is paying the salaries or subsidising the salaries of secular teachers. The Catholic Church has so much trouble recruiting religious members that they are reliant on secular teachers. Incidentally in spite of that we have a more secular society than the US.
Has no bearing on the point of my question: If there’s a financial problem with religious schools sending kids to public schools, why create the same problem by sending money to religious schools? That’s just incoherent.
Besides, religious schools won’t shut down due to a lack of funding. They existed for a long time without public financing and I don’t see them admitting that they need the government to survive.