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.
Way to go Cato.
Cato hates anything that smacks of the slightest degree of being a 'moral' battle anyway.
"You can't legislate morality", pops out of these guys like a parrot in a cage.
If you read their report (linked to in the WND article), it seems more favorable to the Darwinists' opposition.
Cato lost tremendous amounts of credibility when they denied that such a thing as a monopoly could only exist with government backing, that otherwise monopolies could never develop, or would self-destruct.
And therefore, that no efforts should be made to prevent the development of monopolies, and that oligopolies were far better than a multiplicity of providers or suppliers.
The trouble was, that they tried to implement this philosophy into public policy through the Federal Communications Commission, and their chairman, Michael Powell.
The end result has been far worse than what we had in the media. We may thank the Cato Institute for Clear Channel Communications destroying radio through monopolizing it in many markets. We may also thank them for the oligopoly of major media corporations merging to form super-media: TV, movies, music and video production, publishing of books and magazines, etc.
And only Cato can justify any of it by saying that it is better than what was, and shall become even better when it all implodes.
Oh phooey on social and economic experimentation.
In that case, they must be wrong about everything, which I guess would make the wrong about this too:
"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."
Short term monopolies can exist but they sew the seeds for their destruction long term.
Debeers in the diamond industry is one of the few worldwide monopolies. Even there Debeers has been recently losing some control.
What Cato seems to advocate strikes me as only delaying the problem until students leave academia, at which point it gets even worse.
Suppose we shatter the education monolith into a cafeteria of botique specialty classes. Students enrolled in Pentecostal Biology 110 would not be allowed to take Baptist Geometry 105 or any other courses outside their religious track. Upon graduation, we would have a class of matriculates whose knowledge of history, science, and the arts is different for each track, conflicting, contradicting, but causing no problems because, since they were never in classes together, they never knew what the other guy believed.
Everyone wins. Parents are happy, students feel educated. The problem starts when the young adults go into the workplace and find themselves arguing constantly with everyone around them over everything, each believing what they were taught, seeing others as ill-informed.
IOW, what Cato would do is massively inflate the cost of schooling while delaying the struggle for ideas that will happen sooner or later.
Better, I'd think, to form a common worldview while young than have to start from scratch as an adult confronted with an unwelcome reality.
School choice ping
Creationists: We can't prove our beliefs, so call it science, then legislate it! ; )
It'll be interesting to see who does and doesn't weigh in on this one.
Bump for later reading
[Darwinists: We can't defend our faith, so call it science, and then legislate it!]
They've already legislated it, making it a crime to teach anythign but the faith- we can't have the government forcing moral religion, but we sure can make it legislative law to force secular religion
Design in nature? Must be natural and can't have a designer other than good old mother nature- so we beleive, so we shall teach- by way of legislated law. Proof mother nature is responsible for the design? Bah- don't need proof- just a good healthy dose of faith. But don't you dare call it a religion- it's science by golly!
And get ready for the next government legislated religion of choice 'global warming' shoved down our throats in schools as well.
What exactly is "secular religion"?
For most, that 'unwelcome reality' will come when they stand at the Great White Throne in judgement. There cannot be a common world view, and attempts to create one can only be deemed theocratic.
Humanism. That's what secular means, as in "Novus Ordo Seclorem" Freemasonry for those that don't even know that they are masons ;o)
A good sign. Free markets need a moral center of some strength.
The Brights, for one sect. Humanists for another.
Can anybody tell me where the 3rd human on earth came from?..
But that isn't happening anyway, and where attempts are made to do that, the system drops to the lowest common denominator and mediocrity reigns.
There's a huge variety of public, private, Christian, Catholic, and other schools now and your doomsday scenario isn't happening.
Thanks for the ping!
Adam and Eve?
...His question seemed easy... almost too easy. : )
Sorry, #26 is a tad scrambled. It's late. Time for bed.
I want the Norse creation story taught in schools.
And we need to teach astrology as a science.
And phrenology and dousing and psychics and satanism must have equal time.
Well, we've already got the nonsense you believe taught there, so might as well add the others.
Glad to hear that.. Evolving from a pool of chemicals seems bizaar to me..
Main Entry: 1sec·u·lar
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&r
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French seculer, from Late Latin saecularis, from saeculum the present world, from Latin, generation, age, century, world; akin to Welsh hoedl lifetime
1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical
2 : not bound by monastic vows or rules; specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
3 a : occurring once in an age or a century b : existing or continuing through ages or centuries c : of or relating to a long term of indefinite
Nothing there about Humanism, Brights, or Masons. Secular religion appears to be some kind of Orwellian doublespeak.
Watch it!
That's real close to MONOPOLY and we KNOW that THEY are bad for General BullMoose!
I want the Hyborean age included in my kid's history classes, and more studies on the impact of Conan the Barbarian on modern European culture.
It's from the latin word for humanity.
That doesn't explain the apparent contradiction in terms, based on the definition of "secular".
The contradiction is in your perception.
Religion, at it's root is 'secular,' since it comes from the mind of man rather than from God. Religion is man's attempt to squirm away from, or modify God's laws.
Somehow I doubt that find contradiction in the idea of "non-religious religion" is a problem with my perception.
Enjoy your self-imposed confusion.
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"?
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.