Posted on 01/24/2007 3:02:32 PM PST by Tim Long
Evolution battles caused by politically powerful Cato Institute says solution is simple: Allow choice
A new study is blaming the monolithic public school system being used in the United States for the estimated 150 major battles over the course of the last year over religion, evolutionary theory, slogans on T-shirts, the "gay" agenda and other points of contention.
"All across the country, public schools threw Americans' fundamental values into conflict during the 2005-2006 school year – whether over intelligent design, dress codes, controversial school books, or sundry other divisive topics," said the study by Neal McCluskey, policy analyst with the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom.
"This was not an aberration. American history is littered with an endless series of such conflicts, and the problem has only grown worse as public school systems have become more centralized and the nation more diverse," he said. "These conflicts are not only inescapable under our monolithic system of official schools, they are actually caused by it.
(Story continues below)
"Different cultural, ethnic, and religious groups have no choice but to enter the political melee if they want to see their values taught and desires met by the public schools," he said.
The study, titled, "Why We Fight: How Public Schools Cause Social Conflict," also offered a solution:
"So is American education doomed to eternal acrimony? Thankfully, it doesn't have to be. If public education were driven by free parental choice, it could escape the Balkanizing battles that plague our current system, because individual parents could choose schools that comport with their values, and there would be no need to fight over public schools for which all must pay, but only the most politically powerful can control."
The study notes that many Americans believe public schools are the "gentle flame beneath the Great American Melting Pot," and that through them, differing cultures, religions and life choices can meld into a cohesive society.
However, the truth is anything but that, the report said. "Public schooling forces everyone to pay for a single official system that does not – and indeed cannot – reflect the public's diverse and often conflicting views. The inevitable result of this system … is endless social discord over what is taught," the study noted.
"Indeed, rather than bringing people together, public school often forces people of disparate backgrounds and beliefs into political combat. This paper tracks almost 150 such incidents in the 2005-2006 school year alone. Whether over the teaching of evolution, the content of library books, religious expression in the schools, or several other common points of contention, conflict was constant in American public education last year," McCluskey said.
"To end the fighting caused by state-run schooling, we should transform our system from one in which the government establishes and controls schools, to one in which individual parents are empowered to select schools that share their moral values and education goals for children," he said.
In other words, attach the money that now is being allocated by state and local taxing districts to the students, instead of the schools. Schools then could compete for the students, teaching a reflection of the values those students' families hold dear, he said during an online forum on the report.
"Public school does not overcome diversity and somehow make people into one," he said. "It forces diverse people to fight for their values."
The institute, which rejects descriptions for itself such as "conservative" or "liberal," says it pursues the "principles of the American Revolution – individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law."
"The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called 'libertarianism' or 'market liberalism.' It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism."
Its study found over the last year only one state – Wyoming – did not have "divisive, values-laden school warfare." Eighteen states had wrestling matches over "intelligent design." In Dover, Pa., the dispute over a plan to have students read a statement that evolution is a theory ended up in federal court. It was not uncommon for townspeople to refuse to speak with those on the other side of the dispute, the report noted.
It found that freedom of expression battles raged, especially over the issue of illegal immigration, and a student in California was penalized for having an American flag in her pocket.
Book-banning fights erupted in eight states, and racial issues hit a boiling point when a black state senator in Nebraska tried to create a school district where blacks would be the majority in population and in control.
Thirteen states battled with themselves over sex education, and another eight had issues with teaching homosexuality. In Massachusetts, one parent objected when a school superintendent allowed second-graders to be taught a book about two "gay" princes kissing and marrying. "They're trying to indoctrinate our children," said parent Robin Wirthlin.
"Imposing government-run schooling on every American – the opposite of freedom and choice – has been the cause of constant social and political conflict, while enabling people to select schools that reflect their own values, use the curricula they desire, and so on, is essential to defusing social conflict," the report found.
McCluskey previously taught high school English and worked at the Center for Education Reform, where he studied subjects ranging from cyber charter schools to class size.
What's with the funny outfits?
Rather than employ a semantic atrocity like "secular religion", why not use a perfectly good word that fits the idea you're trying to convey and that everyone understands the meaning of, like "heresy"?
Why? To make people like you get bogged down in non issues- you BOTH knew what I was refering to- I explained it well enough- yet amazingly, this seems to have become an issue more important than who poisoned litvenko?
As Running wolf said- it seems to be a favorite tactic of folks to quibble about a gnat while choking on a camel. The point was that folks in ID don't even believe that God is the creator or originator of the Design- The accusation was that I.D was a 'religious endeavor' and therefore not true science- and you know very well that my point was that if folks who study the evidences don't even belief God created the design that it is a SECULAR view as to what caused the design we see in nature. Discovery.org clearly explains they don't study design to propose that God is the originator- they simply study and record and examine the design itself.
But do keep glomming onto a non issue as htough it would be the end of the world because a minor mistake were made- it's tittilating to watch.
I'm a Rush fan. "Words mean things". People who use words that don't mean anything are hiding something.
either that or they didn't explain precisely enough and made tiny errors- I type fast, I try to get my thoughts on paper as precisely as possible- sometimes it doesn't come out so well- but the basic meanings are there- yes, words are important, so aren't intended meanings as well- and the quibblings I've seen are over the precisions of the owrds when the meanings shoulkd have been understood and obviously-
Effort and good intentions are more important than getting the right answer placemarker.
WWBMMD?
(What Would Bran Mak Morn Do?
The meaning of "secular religion" is far from obvious. The meaning of "heresy" is quite obvious. What is idea are you trying to convey that is inconsistent with the meaning of the word "heresy"?
Tactic- you KNOW that I meant folks who practice some sort of religion but do NOT think God Created the design- what you are attempting to do is avoid this obviousness- play dumb, and zero in on issues that are so minute that by themselves they are nothing, BUT if enough of them are gathered together, you'll create a negative image of me or others in the minds of your jury. These are games that are played lesser forums as I pointed out- by folks who either can't or won't focuss on the meat of the subject and instead get into intense quibblings over non issues- OBVIOUSLY, anyone that doesn't beleive God created design is NOT practicing the Religion of God as they doubt God's own word. Call them what you like- I'll refere to them as secular religions who may have a mind knowledge of God, but are NOT God's true children- the secular mindset has crept in and overtaken their minds- they can claim to be God's people but they are not, as explained in detail by God's own word clearly enough.
If it makes you happy, so as to avoid two more pages of this little symantics game- I'll reword my original point and state that "People who don't believe God had ANYTHING to do with design work on the panel, AND in the secular science realm and who study STRICT science, yet feel that design is present in nature and believe a force is behind that design- whether that force is nature, or some other they take no position on the matter and instead focus on the design itself and adhere to STRICT science. To assert that ID is the same as Creation science therefore is dishonest and untrue. AND to even assert that Creation science doesn't adhere to STRICT science in their studies is equally dishonest and formed by a bias that allows eovlutionists the luxuries of opinion, but denies Chreation scientists the same luxuries of opinion. It is the OPINION of evolusionsits that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to evolution- it is the OPINION of Creation Scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point ot creation- it is the OPINION of ID scientists that the EVIDENCES that are scientifically discovered point to design- whether that design have a "natural" catylyst or be of a "force" catylyst is not known, but it is the DESIGN that is important in the study as further study of DESIGN may reveal important new evidences."
Are there some in ID movement that have opinions as to what the design means? Sure- does that discredit their scientific studies? ABSOLUTELY NOT- their ultimate goal is to study the design and to discover how that design affects everything.
Now- if you have a problem with my above statement, then address that and drop the symantics
Not at all. What I am attempting to do is de-obfuscate what it is you're actually saying.
When you say "secular religion" is there anything that you attribute to that idea that would not be equally expressed by using the term "heresy"?
Laughable.
buh bye- go play your games elsewhere- the meanings AND lengthy explanations by me have made clear- I'm done- play if you like, but you'll play alone-
More like: "We don't have a particle of physical evidence for our beliefs, so legislate it as it science!"
This is not a game. I'll call 'em like I see 'em and let the chips fall where they will. Your "explanations" will stay behind after you're gone, and speak for themselves.
You claim to be a Rush fan, but apparently you are a selective fan. Rush has spoken at length regarding the religion of secular humanism. It means something to him , but not to his fan, huh?
Your circular babble is a veiled form of adhominem attack; you are attempting to make cott look foolish, and thereby discredit his ideas. It won't work; you are transparent.
I am familiar with "secular humanism". The secular humanists intentionally obfuscate the distinction between "secular humanism" and "theistic humanism" in an attempt to have it both ways. I'm not fooled by or impressed with the tactic, nor am I willing to overlook you and cottshop engaging in the same exercise in sophistry because "they're doing it too".
The sophistry is all yours. You are transparent.
So you say. Like I said, I call 'em like I see 'em and let the chips fall where they will. If that's all you've got, then we're done.
Now matter how much you push the envelope itll still be stationery
Now matter how much you push the envelope itll still be stationery.
How special.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.