Imagine a state setting up plumbing service centers providing plumbing services to the public. Subsidized by state tax revenues, these centers offer their services at a third of their actual cost. How will private plumbers stay in business? This is roughly the position of private colleges and universities in the U.S. The position of private K-12 schools is even worse (their competitors offer plumbing for free).

LonChainey, in the early Middle Ages, when European governments had little to do with education, Irish monks who had preserved learning began to spread it (along with the Gospel) on the Continent. When Charlegmagne wished to extend basic education in his kingdom, he summoned the English monk Alcuin of York to oversee the project, and he worked with the monasteries to set up schools. When the first universities began forming around 1200 AD in England, France, and Italy, they sprang out the interest of the students and teachers, not out of government initiative. The U.S. in its first decades had an active and successful system of private and home education including charitable schools for the poor. Only after 1800 did government-run schools begin to spring up, and only after 1850 did states begin to enact compulsory education laws.

Historically individuals and the Church have seen value in education and have acted to acted to provide its benefits for themselves and others. The modern notion that only the state can provide adequate education and that apart from state compulsion men will wallow in ignorance is a myth.

Indeed as I investigate this history, I see increasing reasons to believe that nations began taking over schooling in the 1800's as a means of social control, a way of training their populace to be subservient and useful to the state's interests. J. Gresham Machen, that learned defender of orthodox Christianity, understood this to be the effect of modern government-run schooling in 1923. Go to http://www.biblebelievers.com/machen/machen_introduction.html and search on the phrase "Freedom of thought" to see his striking commentary on the matter.

I'm not averse to school choice, provided that there is a national minimum standard at which all students must be able to function. I can provide a link to some reviews of homeschool curricula where the reviews, written by parents are written with the sort of language/syntax/grammar errors used by the very ignorant. While I'm not wild about tax money (paid by all) being used to educate some in a bigoted manner, that's happening currently too.

There is a national standard test that any student (public, private, or home schooled) can take. It's called the SAT. And without getting into the politics of that test, you're going to find that there are strong and weak SAT performers from all educational backgrounds. For earlier grades, there are plenty of state and national standard exams that any kid can take.

I'm not saying that it should be compulsory, but if you're looking for a voluntary, qualitative way of measuring someone's level of education, the means are already out there.

Personally, I am with fed-lib in principle, but to me it seems more likely that the court will strip funding from this school only. Which would of course create an un-level playing field. But then again, thats what homos are all about.

Chilli - a failure to educate all children, regardless of ability to pay, will result in a lot worse than a few stuffed-up toilets. Is the current system perfect? No way. But leaving it solely to 'monks' and busy parents would be a lot worse.

It may not be a myth that people would wallow in ignorance but for state intervention. I spent many years reviewing customer complaints for an Atlanta-based mutual fund company. The misspellings, the curses (some misspelled also), the letters written in pencil or crayon would astound you. And that's WITH public education. Imagine Ma and Pa Kettle trying to 'book-larn' little Becky Sue while working two jobs to put food on the table.

I assume from your reference to 'homos' being 'all about an un-level playing field' that you might be practicing Chesterton's definition. Let us know when you perfect it.

The question is whether Kentucky's funding of Cumberlands is Constitutional. The answer will depend on whether the institution is funded through a law that is neutral with respect to religion.

If the law provides funding for secular subjects only and it does so for all private institutions of higher learning without discriminating in favor of sectarian schools, then Kentucky wins. Where the funds flow or end up, and what secular funds may be freed for sectarian activities through government funding of secular activities are all irrelevant.

Under Lemon, such a law would have a secular purpose (promoting higher education in secular subjects), a primary effect of neither advancing nor inhibiting religion (because the primary effect advances secular interests, not religious ones), and would not entangle the state with religion since this hasn't been shown and is never presumed by the courts.

Any preference for sectarian over non-sectarian education in the law, or in the purpose of its enactment, will of course give the courts an easy time of throwing out the law.

Anything can happen if the courts apply the O'Connor totality of the circumstances tests of endorsement and outsiderness, and the courts have every authority to use them, at least until the Supreme Court clarifies or reverses those holdings, which is likely.

From another point of view, Kentucky need not fund any sectarian institution, as current jurisprudence is that government may, but need not, accomodate religion. Of course if government funds private institutions of secular learning, it should on a non-discrimination principle fund the same function in secular schools, but magically we still have a democracy with respect to that decision.

Private institutions that receive public funding for religiously neutral purposes pursuant to a religiously neutral law that contains no other conditions have not surrendered the right to free association under the first amendment, and therefore can enforce any code of conduct that they please, with or without a contract. If the code of conduct is also part of the contract between the student and the school, then there is another Constitutional basis for the student's expulsion.

If the law is not unconstitutional, then how is the court to sympathize with a man that has such contempt for the rules as to be proud of breaking them, even ones he agreed to obey.

Lon is it possible that they current state of the public's ability to read and write is directly related to the government being involved in the education system?

I would image that most of the clients who scribbled in crayon either flunked out of a public school or received a "certificate of completion" from a public school thus negating your assertion that public school is the best method of education. All good students will learn despite the educational obstacles because they have a thirst for knowledge and have an inner desire to excel.

This whole argument proves a point which I have made here on regular occasions; the objection to faith in the public sector is not about the concern for education, bigotry, or equal treatment – it is about eliminating Christianity completely from being a public influence. If you were honest, Lon, you would admit Christianity's positive influence in history in the area of education. That positive influence still exists today concerning the standards taught in Christian oriented schools. There they teach such dangerous things as self-control, service, dedication to learning, expectations of honesty, loyalty, hard work, sacrificial efforts, and recognition of accountability.

Whereas the public schools seem good at teaching kids political mantras, tolerance of every behavior, sexual mechanics, pseudo science, and pop culture.

Government schools are not going to get better by throwing more of the money deferred from Christian institutions; competition is the best form of correction in our country.

Research Grants also are not given to schools to help run their institution financially. They are given to conduct research. It's a quid pro quo relationship.

The same lawsuit could have brought against the University of Michigan for employing Juan Cole (I believe that's his name), the virulent anti-Israel Middle Eastern Studies professor who may be leaving for Yale shortly. I'm sure his classes were certainly bigoted against Israel, if not Jews in general. Bigotry, or more accurately discrimination, can go both ways, and there's probably bigots on both sides teaching in our public colleges.

Plus, it's not as if all of Kentucky's schools are religious-affiliated. This student, and others who whose views staunchly contradict the principles of Cumberlands, could have just as easily gone to University of Kentucky, and watched some great basketball games.

Joe #11: Here's a thought. All the conservatives should file a class action lawsuit against Berkley for not allowing the military to recuit on their campus along with Yale, Harvard and all the loonie lefty schools that are pro terrorist, pro communist etc. All there Federal Educational subsidies should be immediately suspended.

They are private schools and do not have to let outsiders advertise on thier campus if they don't want to. Public schools, by law, must allow army recruiters on campus.

There is a big difference between let people come in to your school and solicit students when the kids are there to get an education and kicking sudents out for being gay. It's as bigoted as kicking someone out for being black or Jewish. There is no difference.

Personally, I am with fed-lib in principle, but to me it seems more likely that the court will strip funding from this school only. Which would of course create an un-level playing field. But then again, thats what homos are all about.

DR you are so disgusting, instead of calling them "homos" why don't you say what you're really thinking?. How do gay people want an unlevel playing field? Spell that one out to me. Because as it stands, gay people can't get marriage benefits and they can get fired from jobs for being gay. If you could get fired from a job for being Christian, you would go ballistic and fight against the injustice of it.

Opponents to the word 'day' meaning "a twenty-four hour period" in Genesis 1, will obviously conclude that the simplest and most straightforward meaning of the phrase "church, sectarian or denominational school" does indeed include "institutions of higher learning", except, of course, for those institutions which have eliminated any vestige of their Christian heritage.

I don't just admit it, jdr, I celebrate it. For example, it's because of Christianity's influence on American Education after Brown v. Board that publicly sanctioned racism is no longer tolerated except in certain backwaters. (Too bad the decent Christians had to bring the bigoted ones to court, but, hey, the good guys finally won.) The advances in art and literature encouraged by early Christian educators still have a haunting power and influence our culture. I could go on and on. Christianity's relationship with science, women, and intellectual freedom is bit more sketchy, but it would be dishonest of me to say that progress has not been made.

That positive influence still exists today concerning the standards taught in Christian oriented schools. It still does in the public ones, too, in the form of non-discrimination policies, for example.

Which brings us back to gay folks. These handful of "Christian" schools don't want them, nor do they deserve them. It's a win-win if the gays stay out: the school keeps its' ideology intact, and the gay person takes his or her talents, skills, tuition revenue, and future professional reputation elsewhere - thereby leaving the offending institution significantly poorer by being absent. But tax money paid by gays shouldn't then have to fund them.

Key information here: "I spent many years reviewing customer complaints for an Atlanta-based mutual fund company. The misspellings, the curses (some misspelled also), the letters written in pencil or crayon would astound you. And that's WITH public education."

BB, 44, that's not key information. It's 'out of context information'; please comment on the entire post, or at least explain why it's 'key' on its own.

vastly amused that Chilli and others suggest a return to a period of time when public education did not exist. At the very least, public education provides an important public service in keeping children occupied and off the street. When pensioners complain how they shouldn't pay proeprty taxes to fund schools since they have no children to benefit, a gentle reminder that without public schools many of my student would be learning how to perfect the B&E is enough to convince even the most ardent opponent of the value of public schools.

"I can provide a link to some reviews of homeschool curricula where the reviews, written by parents are written with the sort of language/syntax/grammar errors used by the very ignorant."

Are all homeschooling parents ignorant? No, no more than public schooling parents are. But in public school, they don't suggest the feasibility of 'taking a year or two off and making it up later', unless the child has a learning disability that needs treatment elsewhere. And the public school teachers themselve are capable of stringing together a sentence that doesn't sound like it would be uttered by Gomer Pyle.

I happen to believe that lots of homeschooled kids benefit from the one-on-one attention, the intensive learning, and the lack of having to commute to classes. They are deprived of seeing other people from different races, religions and other backgrounds in a classroom setting, but with a little effort on the part of the homeschooling parent, that can - and should - be addressed. What I take exception to is the statement that homeschooling is the only solution for everyone. It's not appropriate for every family or every child. A wise and perceptive parent will be able to evaluate their child and determine if public, private, or homeschool is the way to go - and should consider all three options.

What we were discussing, I believe, was the inefficacy of public education. Naturally, there are parents who teach their children at home, yet whose command of the language is just as bad as that of certain English teachers my children had when they were in school. I should add that there are many ways around that problem for home schoolers. You mention Switched-On Schoolhouse (no doubt because I said on another thread that I've used it). That program and the company that created it provide loads of assistance to parents who need it, and that is just one example.

In any case, it isn't terribly enlightening to point to individual examples in either group; one must consult statistics, and there it is clear that home schooling has turned out superior students.

All that is only tangentially related to whether the government ought to be involved in education. I think schools -- and not merely home schools -- could be run much more effectively without the bureaucracy. Plus, the bureaucracy's values wouldn't be forced on people who disagree with them. We would have to see whether private enterprise and private charities could take care of the need for scholarships for poor children. But almost anything would better serve them than the outmoded and maddening system we have now.

51 Re: paragraph 1 - no, you were asserting that society would benefit if many schools closed. I was challenging that, and even invited you to the resultant Hootenanny to herald the end of civilization if that were to happen. You never articulated how or why you believe that your statement is true. And I had no idea you used S-O-S - it happens to be very popular, and comes up first on the search engine I used.

"The bureacracy's values". . . aye, there's the rub, and the point of the original post. Throwing public funding at educational institutions that discriminate in violation of state law is likewise, a singularly poor idea.

I'm not really interested in arguing with you about home schooling or in trying to prove its success to you. The statistics are easy to find. It has been discussed so much and for such a long time now that the discussion has become boring. Take that as a victory in this debate if you want to; I don't care.

I think we should abandon public education for the reasons you adverted to in post #32. It is failing too many students. We can do better. You can Google "Alliance for the Separation of School & State" if you are interested. You say,"Throwing public funding at educational institutions that discriminate in violation of state law is likewise, a singularly poor idea." Without signing on to your notions of discrimination or what is properly the role of state law, I agree with you.

LonChainey, in speaking about plumbing I evidently failed to make my point clear. Your position appears to be that Christian universities should be free to operate according to their convictions but that they should be barred from receiving support from state tax revenues. In a vacuum I might agree with you. The trouble is that the states and nation, by levying substantial taxes, reduce parents' ability to send their children to the university of their choice. Simultaneously the states and nation use those taxes to operate universities that are philosophically and religiously acceptable to the state. Those universities, being well funded, have outstanding facilites, yet they can offer degree programs to students for only about one-third of their actual cost. These universities compete with the Christian universities for students, whose families' finances have been reduced by taxes.

This complicates the issue. It is one thing to say the state should not fund religious universities. It is quite another for the state to use its power of taxation to diminish or eliminate religious universities whose views differ from those of the state.

On the other hand, a religious student can attend any school without restriction. Conversely, a gay student cannot attend a religious university, apparently. His or her gayness is grounds for expulsion, regardless of the fact that the taxes paid by his or her parents go towards the funding of the school. And here we have the lawsuit. Rendering unto Caesar what is Caesar's means that if the religious school takes the public's cash, it has to play by the rules, which allow for equal opportunity for the entire public. We've seen it vis-a-vis military recruiters being allowed on campuses that take federal funding, even though the military discriminates against gay people. This is merely the logical outgrowth of that.

Lon, I don't think it's as asymmetrical as you portray it. I'm pretty sure a Christian student could have convictions or engage in actions, based on his or her Christian beliefs, that would prevent him from enrolling within the rules at some schools, at least.

For example, one can easily imagine a Christian student who refused to live in a co-ed living situation, insisted on speaking out Christian convictions in violation of speech codes, etc.

BTW, I'm not saying Christianity necessarily requires these things. However, there are Christians who hold these views, so those people are prevented from attending some universities on those bases. It's not really true that Christians are free to attend any and all universities without prejudice to their beliefs or behaviors, but others are prevented from attending Christian schools because of their beliefs or behaviors.

It's not really true that Christians are free to attend any and all universities without prejudice to their beliefs or behaviors, but others are prevented from attending Christian schools because of their beliefs or behaviors.

It is true that Christian students might find some aspects of public university life objectionable, but they are not required to participate in them. Co-ed dorms? Join a frat or live off-campus. Don't want to drink or shake your booty at a mixer? Go bowling instead. Want to yell about these things? Go for it, though as you point out, it is not a requirement of Christianity to do so. Most speech codes will protect it; though fellow students can be unkind, the student will not be told 'you can't freely exercise your Christianity here', unless doing so treads on the rights of others, such as parading about screaming "God hates f@gs!".

When it comes to the gay student, he or she can't check his or her gayness at the door. I suppose they could avoid romantic relationships, but asking a college student to do that is a bit much. Requiring it is even more so. They are told that they can't be who they are, even when by doing so they are not treading on the rights of their fellow students.

pentamom is quite right. As I recall, at Yale a few years back, orthodox Jewish students objected to co-ed dorms and were told that cohabitation was part of the "Yale experience," so that their desire to live off campus couldn't be accommodated. I don't remember how that controversy was resolved, but finding a campus environment friendly to their views is a recurring challenge for religious students. The solution isn't to view all colleges as governmental entities, importing all the laws that apply to governmental action, but to allow private schools to be private again, while eliminating the unfair competition from public institutions outlined by Chilly in post #57.

No, you're not required to "yell about" things. But there have been situations in which people have been charged with violations because of something "asked and answered." If a gay person can attend a school so long as he remains closeted, but not if he is open, that's roughly equal to a Christian being allowed to attend a school if he keeps quiet about his beliefs but not if he expresses them.

Addendum -- it doesn't take "God hates F@gs" to violate a speech code in many places. The exclusivist claims of the Christian faith with regard to the Lordship of Christ, stated courteously, will do it at some places. Not all, but only some. And again, that's parallel -- openly gay students are effectively barred from only some schools by their inability to follow the rules without constriction of their expression or actions, so to disprove your point about asymmetry, I need only demonstrate that Christians are effectively barred in the same sense from some schools.

So? The public school educators' philosophy dictates that this is not the way to go. But you can only establish that this makes them superior if it is demonstrable from results that "taking a year or two off and making it up later" isn't effective. As BB has pointed out, the evidence that homeschooling in the aggregate is more effective than public schooling tells against the notion that public school philosophical assumptions about certain inputs leading to certain outcomes aren't the only ones that work.

This doesn't establish that homeschooling is the best for every child or effectively done by every parent, or that every variant philosophy practiced by every homeschooler is a wise one. I'm just challenging what appears to be your assumption that the public school philosophy that dictates that time lost is time lost for ever is by default the correct one, when the evidence indicates that homeschooled kids educated according to different philosophies can and do excel.

I would point out that public schools must take all students - learning disabled, ESL, behaviorally malasjusted - which will pull the scores down, on average.

I have seen homeschooled students and their self-discipline and concentration levels are generally very high. They do, however, tend to freak out when exposed to new environments, cultures and philosophies, unless their parents have attempted to address this via field trips and on family vacations. Like public education, it isn't perfect, nor is it for everyone, and I still think that BB's assertion that society would benefit from the closure of many schools is not accurate.

As for Christians being constrained from attending public colleges, Christians choose Christianity. Unless you feel that Christian colleges are inferior academically, those who wish a Christian-fostering environment have a wide array of schools to choose from that will offer them that.

Gay people don't make themselves gay. They can supress it, hide it, and not act on it if they choose. I think they should not have to. The general consensus seems to bear this out. And this is the fundamental issue: a publicly funded school that forces them to do so is violating several constitutional principles.

What a twisted world we live in, where it can be argued that a Christian -- who actually does have a Constitutional amendment proptecting the exercise of his faith -- should have to choose between attending a state-funded college and the free exercise of his religion. But a homosexual, who can point to no amendment granting special protection for HIS "status"* should not be required to choose between attending a private college and having sex, because that would "violate several constitutional principles."

Pentamom, your comment, "The exclusivist claims of the Christian faith with regard to the Lordship of Christ, stated courteously, will do it at some places." [i.e., to violate speech codes at some universities], is an eloquent way of expressing that problem.

LonChainey, my second point in post #28 is that I have begun to look at the actual history of education. The evidence I have found thus far suggests that to the degree that education is important in a society, individuals and families have normally found ways to acquire education for themselves, their children, and others. Sometimes they have done this on their own (what we now call homeschooling). Sometimes they have made use of tutors or what we would now call private schools. Often they have done it through or with the assistance of the Church. It appears that judged by the standards of the society these attempts were usually adequate and sometimes extraordinarily successful. There seems to be evidence, for instance, that literacy rates in New England in the early 1800's (prior to compulsory state schooling) were higher than they are today.

Further, the trend of the evidence I am finding is that the entrance of governments into education grew not from an attitude of benevolence toward the children of their nations. Rather it grew out of their conviction that suitably trained children would be easier to govern (more compliant, less capable of independent thought) and more profitable for the economy (more compliant workers and more avid consumers). Sometimes in the U.S. it also grew out of a desire to eliminate the influence of certain immigrant groups (e.g., training Catholic children in state schools there were effectively Protestant). This was not a conspiracy. Rather, it was a natural outgrowth of the philosophies of the age. Nations were looking for a more effective and "humane" way of controlling their citizens, and control of the schools -- and thus of the upbringing of the children -- was the made-to-order solution.

When I first came across these notions (reading "The Underground History of American Education" at www.johntaylorgato.com), I was inclined to dismiss them as paranoid conspiracy theories. I had enough experience with and knowledge of the relevant background, however, to verify some of what that author said. As I continue to look into the matter (not from anti-public-schooling sources but from scholarly sources not involved in this debate), I continue to find these notions supported rather than refuted. I have not found evidence that I consider conclusive, but I am certainly no longer willing to assume that the real motive for government involvement in schooling is altruistic (even though individual teachers may have excellent motives).

My best judgment is that if you want to have the best education possible for your populace, you should give parents complete freedom in deciding how to educate their children and you should avoid limiting their options by excessive taxation. In particular the state should not tax the populace in order to run schools. Some parents will do badly, but for most parents there are few motivations as strong as that of love for their children. I believe this view is not merely wishful thinking but has reasonable historical support.

..should have to choose between attending a state-funded college and the free exercise of his religion. Textbook straw man argument. Besides, BB, I thought you left due to boredom. Whether or not you are actually bored, it seems to be making you lazy.

But a homosexual, who can point to no amendment granting special protection for HIS "status"* should not be required to choose between attending a private college and having sex, because that would "violate several constitutional principles." Straw man # 2 - the college in question took the kid's tax money, and that of every other gay person in the state. The guy also wasn't expelled for 'having sex', he was expelled for having a boyfriend. And he has a name, this person whom you believe is supposed to fund your religious beliefs: it's Jason Johnson.

I didn't say I was leaving. I just said I didn't feel like debating you about the merits of home-schooling, which in my opinion aren't really debatable anymore.

"Straw man # 2 - the college in question took the kid's tax money, and that of every other gay person in the state. The guy also wasn't expelled for 'having sex', he was expelled for having a boyfriend."

I was responding to your remark about "acting on it," as in: "They can supress it, hide it, and not act on it if they choose. I think they should not have to. The general consensus seems to bear this out. And this is the fundamental issue: a publicly funded school that forces them to do so is violating several constitutional principles."

I don't believe you have addressed my point at all, which is that it is bizarre to claim that the First Amendment doesn't protect the Christian, because he doesn't have to go to a state-supported school, yet argue at the same time that some unknown provisions of the Constitutional ("several" of them) do prevent a private school that accepts public funds from disallowing homosexual acts.

My daughter has been looking into several universities (public and private) this year to decide where she will apply next Fall. She has been compelled to dismiss several when she realized that their "honor code", through very broad anti-discrimination clauses, would consider it an expellable offence to (for example) oppose the candidacy of a Muslim/atheist/agnostic student running for president of the Christian student group because of their religious beliefs!! BB has not raised a straw man argument as you try to assert.

Please also note, that the response of most Christians to such policy is not to push the issue and force a court case as others seem so intent on doing. Most of us feel that policy should be shaped through the legislative and executative branches of government, not the judiciary.

You, yourself, also commit the logical fallacy of poisoning the well in reference to the study of the performance of homeschooled children (#65). Would you care to refute the study itself instead of taking irrelevant swipes at some of its sponsors?

A very interesting finding in the study, btw, was that the general correlation between parental education level and student standardized test scores (found in both private and public schooled populations) was not present in the homeschool population. Thus, those reviewers you deride (most of whom, like myself, were the products of public education) are likely producing much better results than would be expected if they had handed their children over to the state for education.

Which is a choice of behavior, just like any specific action or speech (or unwillingness to cooperate with a situation based on conviction) by a Christian is a choice of behavior. To say that it is a volitional act is not to deny that there may be strong psychological compulsions toward it, or to equate the strength of psychological factors in one situation and another. But it is still volitional. Symmetry, not asymmetry.

"Unless you feel that Christian colleges are inferior academically, those who wish a Christian-fostering environment have a wide array of schools to choose from that will offer them that."

And unless you feel that gay-friendly private or public colleges are inferior academically, those who wish an enviroment permissive of that have a wide area of schools to choose from.

So I just don't think that your notion that all schools are open to Christians without constraint but some things of equivalent value are closed to gays holds out. As far as I know, a gay person could attend any Christian college on the planet while denying essential aspects of what he considers to be his integrity, identity and happiness. And that's what attendance at some colleges would entail for some Christians. (Imagine a pacifist Mennonite at VMI.) There are colleges which some people with some religious convictions could not attend without going through a repression and deceit equal to what a gay person would have to go through in order to attend Bob Jones.

This is cache, read story here