This thread is dedicated to the structure of education in Dominican Republic. The main purpose is to talk about the structural failure of the system and why increasing the budget would actually make it worse.

This ideas came from a face to face talk between 3 friends of mine who happen to know a lot about the problem. The best part of it was that all 3 came from different points of view.

Man 1 : who agreed the problem was monetary!

Man 2 : that said the problem was cultural!

Man 3 : Who said the solution was getting closer to "our catholic foundation" who also supports the 4% propaganda!

Me : Who is against the 4% in the present structure and don't believe "catholic foundation" is the solution and neither believe is a cultural problem!

I understand my point of view of all 4 must be the most controversial to understand and at 1 point my view were closer to man 1 and 2 but after some research into the topic my views changed to simply not support neither the 4% for the current structure of the education system in DR. I will give my reason and hope to hear yours!

More money more problems :

Being against the budget increase in DR education system seems the awkward at first since I support "Quality education" not any education. The current structure in DR where the catholic church mandates everything from how the budget is divided to which text book end up in the classroom is the essential reason why putting more money means making the problem bigger.

Our Culture: a nightmare or virtue:

People who atribute the problem of education as being a "cultural problem" fail at knowing what culture is. In fact most people who think the problem is cultural also think that corruption, crimes and many other bad behaviors are part of us as Dominicans. In my opinion they are by-product that followed by an environment where they can survive. no human behavior survives on it's own without a place to be.

Our culture in my opinion is one of our biggest virtue we Dominicans possess because at it's worst today, we still optimistic about the future which probably puzzles some people I come in contact with sometimes. Our music, food and arts is unique.

The Catholic enslavement of Dominican Republic:

Most who know me here know my opinion of religion and is they provide nothing that a secular person couldn't do on it's own. While I'm totally against institutionalized religion I respect peoples desire to believe in a god, who ever it may be of them all.

In DR the catholic religion has become a nightmare on everything from decision making at the senate to the education system being the the worst money can buy.

When you have dictators like Leonidas Trujillo saying : "Our concordat with the catholic church in the most generous (money) of all countries" you have to feel scary. In fact I have read it and indeed is even more scary on paper than most people think. The church have taken over the education of DR turning it into a catholic church's playground for indoctrination.

The catholic church has changed the mentality of law making into a childish game where we don't value reason & research to determined what makes it into our rule of law.

Forcing all Dominicans to pay for churches construction, maintenance and giving a salary to priest with tax money and most church crimes(rape) being above the law is simply something we have to get away from.

Nicolas de Jesus (Maybe by mistake) said : "The catholic church has such a strong hold of the education system that NOT EVEN the state combined with the private sector can compete with"

So these are my opinions I hope to hear yours!

Hi Belly, thank you for the forum.
I agree with everything you said, except where you say you "respect peoples desire to believe in a god, who ever it may be of them all."
I don't.
Respect is not a given, it needs to be earned. We do not "respect" stupidity in anything else. Why make and exception with religion? Belief in a god or gods is just plain stupid, and deserves derision. If someone says they believe Elvis is still alive and working at the local 7-11, would you say "oh, I respect that"?
As for the Concordat, is that not part of Dominican Law? It needs to be repealed, however I think most Dominicans are not even aware of its existence.
Regardless, you are not allowed to criticize someone's religious faith. Why not? Because you're not!

By the way, it's Charles Darwin's birthday Sunday 12 February. I was going to start a forum on it, when I came across this one.
Did you celebrate 25th December, the birth of that wonderful savior, who change this world for the better, forever? (Isaak Newton 25 December 1642)

While you may have a right not to respect some one else's opinion or idea, you do not and should not and NEVER have the right to be DISRESPECTFUL.

Please consider the following, by Doug Adams. It may seem trivial, but it actually gets to the crux of the matter. The Catholic Church has such power because to criticize it, is to criticize people's religious faith. However until we break this taboo, we will never get anywhere.

"Now, the invention of the scientific method and science is, I'm sure we'll all agree, the most powerful intellectual idea, the most powerful framework for thinking and investigating and understanding and challenging the world around us that there is, and that it rests on the premise that any idea is there to be attacked and if it withstands the attack then it lives to fight another day and if it doesn't withstand the attack then down it goes. Religion doesn't seem to work like that; it has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy or whatever. That's an idea we're so familiar with, whether we subscribe to it or not, that it's kind of odd to think what it actually means, because really what it means is 'Here is an idea or a notion that you're not allowed to say anything bad about; you're just not. Why not? — because you're not!' If somebody votes for a party that you don't agree with, you're free to argue about it as much as you like; everybody will have an argument but nobody feels aggrieved by it. If somebody thinks taxes should go up or down you are free to have an argument about it, but on the other hand if somebody says 'I mustn't move a light switch on a Saturday', you say, 'Fine, I respect that'.

The odd thing is, even as I am saying that I am thinking 'Is there an Orthodox Jew here who is going to be offended by the fact that I just said that?' but I wouldn't have thought 'Maybe there's somebody from the left wing or somebody from the right wing or somebody who subscribes to this view or the other in economics' when I was making the other points. I just think 'Fine, we have different opinions'. But, the moment I say something that has something to do with somebody's (I'm going to stick my neck out here and say irrational) beliefs, then we all become terribly protective and terribly defensive and say 'No, we don't attack that; that's an irrational belief but no, we respect it'.

It's rather like, if you think back in terms of animal evolution, an animal that's grown an incredible carapace around it, such as a tortoise—that's a great survival strategy because nothing can get through it; or maybe like a poisonous fish that nothing will come close to, which therefore thrives by keeping away any challenges to what it is it is. In the case of an idea, if we think 'Here is an idea that is protected by holiness or sanctity', what does it mean? Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Labour party or the Conservative party, Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the Universe began, about who created the Universe, no, that's holy? What does that mean? Why do we ring-fence that for any other reason other than that we've just got used to doing so? There's no other reason at all, it's just one of those things that crept into being and once that loop gets going it's very, very powerful. So, we are used to not challenging religious ideas but it's very interesting how much of a furore Richard creates when he does it! Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other, except that we have agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

What do you mean by being "disrespectful"?

Hello everyone,

I believe it is generally very challenging to give opinions that are accurate when one is oblivious of a country's reality, laws, social structure, etc.

I'm not even sure where to start. I'd be delighted to clarify the historical, social and legal facts.

Let me just say at this point that the Dominican Republic was born a Cristian Catholic Nation. I could provide extensive documentation to that statement. The writings of the country's forefathers (Mainly JP Duarte), the Trinitarian Oath and all of our constitutions clearly show it.

I personally find not only disturbing but frustrating to hear those who don't believe speak of the "Stupidity" of those who believe. It is interesting to note that most of history's brilliant minds were believers. It is also interesting to note that believers have forever been involved in knowledge and science.

I respect the right of someone to be an atheist, but do I also have to stand them thinking I'm stupid because I believe something different? really?

Those who gloat on their atheistic beliefs are usually very unaware of the serious problems that such stand presents from the philosophic, rational and scientific standpoints.

Are you really unaware of the fact that there is so much "filling" in atheistic science stands (versus scientific stands that don't necessarily reject the existence of a God) that "science" ends up being as dogmatic as dogma itself?

Personally I prefer to dogmatically believe in God than to dogmatically believe in science just because it makes me sound "smart". In reality science is not supposed to be dogmatic, so it makes no sense to say that "man came from monkey" when that statement rests on a supposed "lost link" of which there has been no proof ever. (Besides those fabricated by "scientists" who were later proved to be fraud)

I'm not sure I'm interested in continuing this debate as it is so widely set, it would take forever to discuss one subject at a time, and if we just do it like this, all at a time, it would take forever +10.

I'd just like to point out that there many people who believe who would prefer not to be considered stupid. Maybe it's just me being proud and maybe it's wrong on my part, but I'm generally not inclined to accept being called stupid. After having worked hard for three degrees and written hundreds of articles on theology, politics and social issues it is hard to swallow.

Kind regards,

Roy

I think we both are saying the same thing. I respect people's desire to believe in a god or many because I whole heartily support freedom of speech, but it doesn't mean I couldn't make fun of it if I want and I they should respect my desire to make fun of it under the freedom of speech foundation.

You bet I will be celebrating Charles Darwin birthday!

Is this a rhetorical question or are you truly oblivious to its meaning?

ArturoFeliz



Yes JP Duarte was indeed catholic but we must remember that he was NOT the only one who won the independence war in 1844. Just because that was the view in 1844 doesn't by any means in 2010 10 million people have to be forced to have the same belief. The attitude of "my way or the highway" doesn't go with the "representative democracy" DR is today.

I'll leave you with the first article of the constitution in 1844.

CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA DE LA REPÚBLICA DOMINICANA

TÍTULO I
DE LA NACIÓN

Art. 1º. - Los Dominicanos se constituyen en nación libre, independiente y soberana, bajo un gobierno esencialmente civil, republicano, popular, representativo, electivo y responsable.




So the essential question is. - Do you call them brilliant minds because they believe in god or because what they have accomplish in their life time using scientific methods of finding facts?



I said I respect you or who ever decides to believe in a god or many if you choose too but DON'T demand I cannot make fun of your believe because in essence you are not respecting my opinion to criticize your point of view or beliefs. Just like I can make fun of people who believe in the John Frum cult.



I would love for you to provide information of an atheist scientist who says "there is no god". Even Richard Dawkins up to this day in his book "The god dilution" says it clearly that "there "almost" certainly there is no god" but that is different than saying "there is no god". Any scientist that claims "there is no god" just simply is not using scientific methods to come to that conclusion.



If we were to fill everything we couldn't understand with a passage from the bible or which ever holy book you guide your self by then today we would still have people believing the sun rotates around the earth.

Why should the bible of your choice be the default whenever we cannot understand something?

Not understanding something is not evidence the existence of a god or supernatural being.



I respect your opinion to choose to fill you gaps with a "god or supernatural being". I just don't think you or whoever have the choice to force others to believe in your god like the catholic church is doing in Dominican Republic.



Nobody is calling you "stupid" for believing in god and please stop making your self the victim. Just like you are expressing your opinion on the so call "fabricated scientific fact", everybody has their own opinion and we shouldn't be disrespectful when a different point of view is expressed. Just like you many people work hard for their degree, including my self and many others in this forum who hold a different opinion than yours. A degree doesn't make my or your point more valuable, only facts can do that.


Best regards!