God, Monkeys, and the Christian Right
There's a very interesting article in the Post today about the Christian Right's efforts to bring creationism into public school classrooms. I was amazed at how much money and time is being spent on this. It would seem that there are a few different factions within the effort, as well, pushing for varying degrees of inclusion. Some want the theory of creationism or intelligent design taught as footnote to evolution, while exposing the "flaws" of evolution theory. Others want intelligent design taught alongside evolution, as an equally viable theory. And still others want evolution taken out of classrooms altogether.
Personal views on evolution aside (if that's possible), should this be a debate that takes place on a national level, or is it better addressed by state government or even local school boards? Can--and should--communities decide for themselves how to teach evolution/creationism in their schools? Or is it necessary for the federal government to intervene, to ensure that everyone's right to free speech is protected (on both sides of the issue) and the sanctity of the separation of church and state is preserved?
Personally, I'm conflicted. On one hand, I can see how a local school board might be in the best position to most accurately reflect the values of a community, so maybe it should be a local issue. However, I worry that if this is left up to local (or state) government, the liklihood that the minority view's voice will be lost is greater. So, maybe the federal government needs to act to ensure that one highly-motivated and well-funded group doesn't crowd out or suppress the views of another.
posted by ze roberto @ 3/14/2005 06:54:00 AM
7 comments
7 Comments:
A. Barton Hinkle writes:
"Those who favor big government seem to imagine that government will share their values. When confronted with a powerful government that does not share their values (e.g., the Bush administration), they complain about some people "imposing their views" on the rest of us -- evidently never stopping to consider that they wish to do the same. Limited government, which allows everyone to cleave to his own values, is more harmonious with the inalienable right of each person to the pursuit of happiness enshrined by the Founders."
More of Hinkle's wise words can be read HERE.
The point Hinkle is making (and that I agree with) is this:
1. The Bush Administration *is* imposing its views and upsetting folks who disagree.
2. These upset folks should remember that when they support changes that increase the scope and strength of government.
3. "Limited government allows everyone to cleave to his own values."
As it relates to faith in the classroom, to all those who advance prayer and bible study in public schools I say that trusting the public ed system to teach your child about faith is a mistake and another irresponsible abdication of parenting encouraged by public education in general.
It's possible a federal law will mandate some sort of joint educational model for creationism and evolution in public schools. The creationism bit will be based on Christianity. So how would that possibly stand up to judicial challenge based on the grounds that it violates the principle of separation of Church and State? Even if it's decided by a local governing authority, as long as the school receives public (federal) funds, it's subject to the separation principle, correct?
I suppose that there is room in a science class for discussion of "intelligent design" theories as described by scientists, but not as they are described by priests, pastors, rabbis, imams, or chiefs - those descriptions belong in religion and anthropology classes.
Myriad religions & cultures have a creation story - it is by no means solely a Christian concept.
I don't think any of the serious "intelligent design" theories specifically endorse Judeo-Christian God, and as long as that continued I suppose including their explanation would not tread in the separation arena.
Do any of us here believe that the "intelligent design" theories proferred for inclusion in public schools' curricula wouldn't be based on Judeo-Christian principles?
I hate to get into a debate over semantics, but I think it might be helpful to separate the ideas of "big government" vs. "intrusive government." For example, it is traditionally said that your liberal Democrats are for "big government" when they push for increases in welfare programs, federal assistance to the poor, extending social security benefits, etc. And, typically, your conservative Republican is for less federal involvement, states' rights, scaled back versions of these welfare programs, etc. Those are two philosophies of government that have been around since our country's inception. What I see the Bush administration proposing, however, is something new--an "instrusive" form of government that attempts to regulate/dictate/legislate areas of private life previously held sacrosanct. So, I disagree with Mr. Hinkle when he says that those who pushed for "big government" when the Democrats were in office are just mad now because the Republicans are doing the same thing. I believe you can't compare the two. For me, it's the difference between "big" and "instrusive" government, and it's what scares me the most about our current leadership.
Couldn't agree more, Harris. This is exactly what I wish I could have successfully articulated to the unwashed masses. Wait, I sound like a Republican.
Post a Comment
<< Home