Home > Education > Clarity on the cluster

Clarity on the cluster

May 12, 2005

Like most public issues, the evolution/creationism issue is really a cluster of issues that get all cross-linked in discussion so it’s nearly impossible to make progress.  In this case there are layers of scientific, constitutional, pedagogical, philosophical, and religious issues and most discussions bounce around among them.

Here’s one neatly defined philosophical issue from the cluster: “Fairness,” which is a code-word for “Me too!  It’s not fair to give evidence-based science more respect in the classroom than you give our religious myth!”  It’s amazing how far the creationists (and creation-in-drag “Intelligent Design” proponents) have gotten with this whiny tirade, and here’s a delightful answer to it:

“Conservative Christians are demanding that creationism be taught with evolution out of fairness.  I’m all for fairness.  I’ll be happy to let them teach creationism in my science classroom, as soon as they let me teach evolution in their church.”

Marc Bonem, Arlington Heights
Chicago Tribune 11 May ‘05

Categories: Education
  1. May 12, 2005 at 08:30 | #1

    Is Mister Bonem taxed to pay the minister’s salary?

  2. May 12, 2005 at 08:35 | #2

    Is Mister Monem taxed to pay the minister’s salary?

    You bet he is.  (Tax-exemption = tax-supported subsidy)  That doesn’t mean the minister’s agenda belongs in the classroom, though, any more than the church is obligated to teach biology.

  3. May 12, 2005 at 14:22 | #3

    Tax-exemption = tax-supported subsidy

    It seems like we should elect a committee of citizens to distribute this largess. Local church board elections—I wonder why we don’t have those?

    But we do have school board elections. The board members decide what’s taught in the schools. If they don’t do what the voters want, the voters elect someone else. In the long run people won’t pay a government employee to teach their kids something they don’t want their kids taught.

    We decide what’s taught in government schools because we’re all taxed to pay for them. Our government only works with the consent of the governed. If you have local control of schools, this is the local control you have.

  4. May 12, 2005 at 18:40 | #4

    It seems like we should elect a committee of citizens to distribute this largess.

    The largesse is already distributed in the tax-supported services and the stable society that everyone except them pays for.  That’s the sneaky thing about <strike>subsidies</strike> tax exemptions.

    In the long run people won’t pay a government employee to teach their kids something they don’t want their kids taught.

    True.  You’ve identified the biggest problem in curriculum decisions.  Schools were founded for the common economic good, but if the (taxpaying) parents want that ol’time religion and think it’s science…  I suppose other countries will be happy to pick up the competitive advantage.

    I think public schools are a slow-motion train wreck and a staggering waste of taxpayers’ money… not because they teach science but because they do such a poor job of it.

    Damned if I know the answer.  But teaching religion is the church’s job.  Public schools would screw that up, too, if you gave them the chance.

  5. WeeDram
    May 12, 2005 at 18:53 | #5

    Any time a church or any of its appointed spokespersons utter one word on behalf of the churc regarding the support of an electoral candidate, their tax-exempt status should be immediately revoked permanently.

    If someone believes their religious beliefs are being violated by the public school curriculum, then they should send their children to a private, church-supported, non-tax-supported school.  End of problem, end of story.

  6. May 12, 2005 at 20:04 | #6

    DOF:
    teaching religion is the church’s job.  Public schools would screw that up, too, if you gave them the chance.

    Here we agree.

    WeeDram:
    End of problem, end of story.

    That leaves out a few steps:

    1) Get a majority to agree with you;

    2) Amend the constitution; Well, this step may be optional if you can get enough judges to agree that “Congress shall make no law” means “Congress shall make no unreasonable laws.”

    3) Use the majority to impose your values.

    4) Years later, watch in horror as people you disagree with sieze control of the governmental machine you’ve built.

    And with that, I think I’ll go enjoy a wee dram myself.

  7. WeeDram
    May 13, 2005 at 05:57 | #7

    Mr. Harrison:  The constitution has nothing to do with revoking tax-exempt status.  That is a function of the IRS, who rules on whether an organization qualifies for tax-exempt status.

    Sorry, I don’t follow the rest of your logic at all vis-a-vis my comments regarding tax-exempt status.

    Also, I repeat that those who are concerned about the content of their children’s education can send their children to a private school.  Seems reasonable to me.

    BTW, using “the majority to impose your values” is exactly what the neo-cons are doing in Congress right now.  There are stratgies to combat this, but the central strategy is not a quick fix.

Comments are closed.