i support the trend unraveling in this post[that all austr-alian children be educated in the public school system,where all religions are taught[including ab-origonal]...that kids formost know of the specific god of love before being indoctrinated in the specfic god of vbengence that seeks divisive sects based on one messenger or other..that private schools funded by govt funding is an athima...not a penny more should go to these divisive education systems..[it should be compulsory that public education fill in the formative years..[of primary school],with base facts of science/religion/language that forms a common base understanding of the mateship we call austra-alian ..that form a common wealth in the common wealth of the people that in-form's all equally into the aussie version of the basics,...that make us one nation,that from the common basics we then collectivly from then on are achieving our individual obligations but all knowing it is underpinned by a sure communal base..they may chose to go into the private institutions,or the so called higher institutions[or a trade]..but the private selectivism of the various religious seggregationist schools must not get a penny of govt funds,..it is clear that some elites schoiols are very adept at getting the cash flow from govt[and others are mind programing children into an elitism that is hurting the union of states we collectivly inhabit as australians first

UOG

If I have deciphered your post correctly, I think I agree with you that:

1. There should be no segregation of children into different religious schools.
2. Religious schools should not be funded by our taxes.
3. That comparative religion be taught as a subject, so that children have an understanding of all religions and can make up their own minds.
4. That religious schools divide the community and increase intolerance towards different people.

Dear davidf,

Thank you for your response.

Having conversed with you before in other forums what you have stated here was expected. However I felt it needed to be reiterated to allow me to make my point in the proper setting.

You said,

“I am a Jew and do not favour government subsidy of private schools whether they be Jewish, Muslim, Christian or anything else. If we want to have a society where we do not look on the other with suspicion we should not segregate school children by race, religion or other criteria unrelated to the development of their potential as individuals.”

Again I agree with the sentiment however I do have problems with the reality. This is my dilemma.

“The majority of Australian Jews have incomes well above the national average--$61,400 compared to $39,000 per annum”
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-34105173_ITM

(It should be noted in the same article “more than 27 per cent of Jewish households live on less than $32,000 per annum”). Now I don’t have comparable figures for Australian Muslims but I would venture to say their average income would be below $39,000 dollars.

So as an egalitarian Australian (hopefully there are a few of us still around) I am having difficulty with the notion that we can agree that “we should not segregate school children by race, religion or other criteria” but accept it when it happens in the private sector without regard to the capacity of a particular ethnic/religious group to finance their particular brand of segregation. It is a notion you appear to support when you wrote “France gives no state subsidies to Catholic schools so your example is not relevant.”

Cont…

Cont…

You also said “If parents want to send their children to such schools it should be their right. However, they or their religious community should pay for it” but isn’t it a role of government to correct some of these imbalances for more just outcomes?

So, while I want to bite my tongue when saying it, if we accept a right for religious/ethnic communities to send their children to what they deem to be appropriate schools, perhaps there is place for government support where needed particularly for the most disadvantaged. The alternative is to require all children to attend government schools.

I realise I have argued this rather clumsily but for me this has been a case of, on reflection, potentially modifying a view similar to your own that I had held for a long time.

Dear csteele,

I agree that the state should make up some inequities due to income disparity. However, I think all disparities either cannot be compensated for or should not be compensated for. One disparity is that of health care. However, the disparity in health care cannot be ended by money alone. It is partially a matter of culture. Some groups are uncomfortable about having their women either work as doctors or examined by male doctors. I had a Chinese friend, a well-educated man with a PhD in engineering. When I told him I had two daughters-in-law who were doctors he was shocked. "You mean their husbands actually allow them to examine men?" I don't know how prevalent that attitude is among the Chinese community, but it certainly is an obstacle toward getting health care. Should it be the role of government to examine how prevalent that attitude is in Chinese males and take steps to change it so Chinese women have more of a chance to both give and receive health care? However, I think it should be government's role to try to eliminate disparities in health care to a degree that it is reasonably possible.

I feel our disagreement may be one of degree and not kind. People with lots of money can go on fancier vacations than people with less money. You possibly would agree that it should not be government's role to see that all Australians who would like to spend an occasional weekend in Paris have the opportunity to do so.

In the area of education I have had a Jewish education. However, I grew up in the United States and went to US public schools. My Jewish education was obtained after school hours and not subsidised by public funds. It has also been furthered by my reading and voluntary participation in institutions devoted to that purpose as an adult. We disagree as did my father and his younger brother. My uncle wanted to establish a Jewish day school in Syracuse, NY, and my father opposed him as he was against segregating children by religion.

continued

continued

I do not think that the sole reason for religious schools is to maintain the faith or culture of the group setting them up. Segregation of children from other children of different ethnic backgrounds lessens the possibility of intermarriage, continues patterns of social dominance and promotes other social goals having nothing to do with education. After the US Supreme Court's decision to eliminate racial segregation in US public schools many private religious schools were set up mainly in the southeastern United States. Their purpose was not to preserve their religion. Blacks in the same region mostly had the same religion. The purpose of these schools was to preserve the social isolation in a society where it was no longer legal to segregate public facilities.

The US Supreme Court in its ruling declared that the previous doctrine of "separate but equal" educational facilities would no longer be valid because separate facilities could not be equal. Black children were harmed by insulation from the white social power structure in going to separate schools from the children of those who made decisions for the community. Being cut off from a part of their community and not getting a chance to know black people in other but a subservient relationship harmed white children.

Actually, I would prefer to see all children go to public schools. However, I also am wary of the power of the state that could force such an outcome. I agree that there is an inequity due to wealth in that groups with greater income can send their children to non-public schools. However, there is also an inequity in the existence of non-public schools. In Australia graduates of non-public schools have a better chance of getting a university education. Subsidies of non-public schools as is in effect in Australia increases that inequity.

My opinion is that there is an inequity in having a private school system, and there is an inequity in eliminating the private school system. Eliminating subsidies to private schools and applying that money to the public school system lessen the unfairness.