Larison smacks down the useful liberal myth of the dread Christianist, lying in wait to turn America into a theocracy:
If they existed, Christianists would be interesting people. They would have to believe at one and the same time that they must make God’s will into the law of the land and enforce Christian doctrine throughout society and be convinced that the best instrument for this goal was the utterly secular, Mammon-serving Republican Party. They would have to be completely fanatical and at the same time completely indifferent that their chosen vehicle of political power was basically hostile to everything they sought to achieve (which is one of the reasons why, despite decades of trying, they have achieved next to nothing). They would have to be able to turn their fanaticism on and off with a readily available switch, which makes them rather less worrisome as the founders of the future theocratic nightmare to come.
Larison goes on to say that for quite a few people, it's okay to be Christian, as long as you stay in the closet and never try to put your faith into action in the public square. To which I can only add that the sort of person who believes this does not intend for liberal Christians like Jim Wallis to be quiet. (And neither, let me say, do I: all of us, especially we on the religious right, need their witness). I don't at all mind people opposing what conservative Christians stand for regarding politics and public policy. What is risible when it's not galling is the idea that religious convictions that lead to policy preferences associated with conservatives are somehow crypto-Falangist.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Aaron and Franklin, I don't have any problem with neutrality or silence; but I'm surprised that you haven't heard from parents of children who were told in school that "of course" God didn't make the world, because science knows how the world was made, and we know God didn't make people, because science can prove that people evolved, etc. I've heard these stories all too often to brush them aside as uncommon, but would be happy to learn that they really did represent a few isolated incidences of teachers stepping out of bounds.
Erin, we are all in the same place with this. We hear of something, and we react to it.
I suggest that it happens more often than I'd care to think about, and less often than your concerns lead you to think. That it happens at all is a sign of our times, and with respect I prefer it to a state law that requires Bible study by every student, and a prayer to Jesus every morning. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_142/
I believe that the larger issue is our (as a society) penchant for equating loudness with veracity or its being deserving of respect. My outrage is that each statement like "They've banned prayer in our schools!", while hyperbolic, could be taken after a grain of salt as valid, but it is invariably followed by "And they are teaching our children to become atheists!" or some such, which is an outright lie. Those who start with that first statement ignore the inherent coercion they are promoting (what, pray tell, should be done with Jews, for example); when they finish with the second statement, they are doing the loudness thing, and even reasoned rebuttals get shouted down as, at best, suppression of religion.
To be honest, Franklin, this is why I see public education as ultimately doomed to extinction. Education will either be religious or secular; it will never be truly "neutral."
I don't understand why [praying that politicians will govern according to God's will] means that they want a theocracy. I pray every day for Bush and the nation's leaders, as I will for the next president, and the one after that. I pray that they govern in accordance with God's will. Isn't that what someone who believes in God would do?
Sorry, I didn't make my point clearly. Of course that's what someone who believes in God would do. And no, politicians governing according to God's will is not the same as a theocracy... not quite the same, at least. I would argue, though, that if something becomes illegal because God disapproves of it (and therefore lawmakers vote to disallow it because they are trying to govern according to God's will), that's a step down the road towards theocracy. In many predominantly-Islamic countries, it's illegal for women to walk around without their face covered, because many people in those countries believe that God wants it that way. In the US, gay couples are not allowed to marry, because many people believe God wants it that way. No, it's not a full-fledged theocracy, but to those of us who don't believe in the Christian God, it's still dangerously irrational.
A fascinting observation, Erin, and one with which I heartily agree.
To bring this tangent back to the main topic: what do we do with public ed in the meantime? Do we let it fail, and give the religionists their chance? Return to the first millenium model of only churches being able to provide education to the masses? Let those with the money dictate the directions of education?
I can envision one compromise model would likely leave many dissatisfied, but still meet the original mandate for public education. Pare down all public schools to work and life skills training. No math beyond algebra. No science beyond the basics (it's snarky, I know: we wouldn't want little Johnnie to think he will float to the ground because he doesn't know how gravity works). No rote memorization of history, just cover the highlights. If people want "enrichment" for their children, let them pay private (and religious) schools for it, or clamor for community institutions like the community college, but at the secondary level.
Set the expectation: public school will do this, and no more. It will not permit any outside interests, religion, politics, social activism, even sports. Spend the money for the greatest number of children, and spend no more than that. Parents will know from pre-K on that they will not have any religious competition in the schools, period. They will also have time in the day (with such a truncated offering, three or four hours per day would be plenty) to impose their personal desires on their children's education, whether it be in a church (as only happens now with after-school programs) or a synagogue (which already happens with many Hebrew schools). The difference: they will not have a central, governmentally built and maintained structure to look to for these things.
Schools could be physically much smaller. No more athletic fields, or natatoriums, or gymnasiums, or even libraries. They would be much less expensive to maintain, and much easier to expand or contract with changing demographics. And, cynically, we'd no longer be forcing talented people with a passion for teaching to take lower pay to fulfill their passion, because they'd no longer be needed. Some of them will be hired by private schools, and for better pay one would think, but in the end the whole cycle of education will have to change, and in large part because it has heaped upon it the ever-growing unreasonable expectations of parents, and especially of religiously devout parents.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.