All OOC:
Grays Harbor wrote:Alsace and Lorraine United wrote:It provides options and doesn’t bar religion in any way
OK, lets see what the draft says:
[legitimate critic of author's intent without disputing his claim]
Still not seeing how this is anything but something based upon your own preconceived notions, misrepresentations, and prejudices.
I could say the same thing about your argument's basis, however legitimate it is.
Ensuring that secular institutions aren't influenced by religion is pretty much a given and while the source you cited is decidedly pertinent, it is still formulated in the context of a widely multicultural nation which has arguably majorly evolved past the stage of religious fundamentalism. (i.e. : people care less about religious education, especially in american urban areas,
that is what I gathered from this article and undoubtedly an argument in favor of the proposal)
One can correctly deduce that the access to comfortable religious education is an incentive for conversion, and in a way that is less pejorative than in the current wording, I admit. One can also deduce that one's lack of religious beliefs implies that they have no positive interest in religious education, prompting the need for a secular alternative.
What really gripes me in your argument is that it doesn't prove that A&LU is wrong when saying that his proposal doesn't bar religious options and provides viable alternatives, which shows that you only want to counter his purported intolerance with your own.
As he already said : "The bill is not about religion be taught in school, it is about religious institutions being the only option in some states"
What I advise you to do, Alsace Lorraine, is to refine your intent in the light of what Grays has said (be less harsh to religion, you're not fighting it, you're fighting the shortcomings of the education system) and just write better (easier said than done, be brave and concentrate on your syntax)
Quick PS :
Here in Belgium, state-funded education coexists with religious education pretty much seamlessly, with a partly common curriculum and basic guidelines. Basically, the religious foundations of religious education institutions are widely ignored by parents, their children and the concerned teachers of non-religious courses (with religious courses being mostly axed on the moral teachings you can extract from religion), especially in high education (catholic universities are pretty much catholic only by name and basic values). I was put in a state-funded school because my father is staunchly anticlerical and many Belgian parents think the same or the exact opposite, but the great majority just doesn't care anymore.
Your proposal clearly intends to provide such a possibility and I applaud that.
However, such a matter has never reached the federal level in Belgium (it is at best a regional prerogative and at worst a local one) and I really advise you not to go further than establishing the obligation to provide secular education alternatives because you might leave the international scope very easily if you haven't already done so. (Even if I'm like Wally and would love you to crack down on nations that force children to go through a religious curriculum.)
Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:59 pm