In his continuing exchange with Clayton Cramer, Jon Rowe has written a very interesting post on the timeless and universal nature of the principles found in the Declaration of Independence. As usual, I find myself in almost complete agreement with his views, though I'm probably more apt to oppose what he calls "public proclamations of a generic non-denominational God". But like him, I am a strong supporter of school vouchers, a position that tends to get me into trouble with my fellow humanists and civil libertarians. I was even once told, at a state level American Humanist Association meeting, that I can't be a "real humanist" because I support school vouchers (I found it quite amusing that the gentleman who told me that would act so much like the fundamentalists he no doubt considered absurd). Rowe writes:
I believe in objective truth and operate in the tradition of the Enlightenmentor the tradition of objective notions of Reasonwhich has its origins in Ancient Greece, had its heyday in the Enlightenment and is exemplified in the modern era by folks like Ayn Rand. I know she was an atheist. And most of our founders werent (I dont think any were avowed atheists). But the belief primacy of Mans Reason over Biblical Revelation, I would argue, was dominant among the most influential framers. They believed in God and were heavily influenced by the Deistic-Unitarian philosophy which holds that the existence of God is ascertainable by Mans Reason, that He created us with unalienable rights (this is not a Christian doctrineeven though many Christians adopted this idea).
As a deist myself, I couldn't have said it any better.
A) Anybody that cites Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher influence does not help their credibility with me. There are many things to be said about Rand, and a limited subset of them are even nice, but she was neither the first, nor the more eloquent, nor the latest, voice for the parts of her philosophy that are worthwhile. And others have said the same things without the baggage.
B) Vouchers. I'd rather just skip this argument at this time, since I don't think it's as interesting as...
C) ' I ... have no problem with public proclamations of a generic non-denominational God' is a pretty serious example of limited worldview even within its own language. There is _no_such_thing_ as 'a generic non-denominational God'. By uttering those worlds, you have already exlcuded the tenets of over half the world's population's religion on monotheistic-centric grounds. In what way can an intellectually serious arguemtn be constructed that this sort of pablum invocation is acceptable?
I'd be interested in your view on school vouchers Ed; both pro or con.
"There is _no_such_thing_ as 'a generic non-denominational God'. By uttering those worlds, you have already exlcuded the tenets of over half the world's population's religion on monotheistic-centric grounds. In what way can an intellectually serious arguemtn be constructed that this sort of pablum invocation is acceptable?"
Of course there is: "Nature's God" is the God that made it into our founding documents. It's God as He is ascertainable by Man's Reason unaided by Biblical Revelation.
I take the argument seriously that no God should ever be mentioned because it violates the rights of conscience of atheists, and non-monotheists, but a "generic God," (not the Christian God) made its way into founding documents like the Declaration and the VA Statute on Religious liberty. I'd be hard pressed to say that they are unconstitutional.
As far as an intellectually serious argument being constructed, it was Jefferson who thought that the notion that rights come from a Generic God, as opposed to the Christian God, was a way to best give the message that the rights of conscience belong to everyone -- Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, and Infidels -- not just Christians, as Justice Story argues.
A) Anybody that cites Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher influence does not help their credibility with me. There are many things to be said about Rand, and a limited subset of them are even nice, but she was neither the first, nor the more eloquent, nor the latest, voice for the parts of her philosophy that are worthwhile. And others have said the same things without the baggage.
I'm not much of an Ayn Rand fan either, but put it into context. Jon was discussing philosophies that relied upon the primacy of reason and Rand is certainly in that group, and has been enormously influential regardless of whether others said the same thing.
C) ' I ... have no problem with public proclamations of a generic non-denominational God' is a pretty serious example of limited worldview even within its own language. There is _no_such_thing_ as 'a generic non-denominational God'. By uttering those worlds, you have already exlcuded the tenets of over half the world's population's religion on monotheistic-centric grounds. In what way can an intellectually serious arguemtn be constructed that this sort of pablum invocation is acceptable?
I'll let Jon defend his own views on that, as he is more than capable of doing. As I indicated, I'm more inclined to disallow such proclamations, but I certainly do not think that there is no "intellectually serious argument" to be made for such statements, if for no other reason than that that is precisely the position taken by many, perhaps most, of the men who wrote the first amendment. We have to keep in mind that the wording of the constitution and the amendments to it were not words from an oracle, they were the often disputed result of compromise and hard work. There were several views on the matter among the founders. Jefferson and Madison, whose views are nearest to mine, were on one end of the spectrum, while folks like Patrick Henry were on the other end. In the middle was a sizable group that included Washington and Adams who were opposed to official establishments but favored general proclamations of days of thanksgiving, days of prayer, etc, as long as they were not coercive and participation was voluntary. They would likely both have seen such invocations as helping build a sense of community and upholding the public morale.
Now, I would argue that times have changed considerably. We are obviously a much more diverse nation today than we were in 1789 and today such proclamations are as likely to pull us apart as bring us together. And I would argue that Madison's view has been borne out by two centuries of experience. But let's not pretend that the middle position on such matters is not "intellectually serious" and that it can be easily dismissed out of hand as you seem to want to do. As a matter of constitutional law, it's not nearly as simple as you might like to think.
DS wrote:
I'd be interested in your view on school vouchers Ed; both pro or con.
I'm very much in favor of them. I think that public schools, in general, do a lousy job of educating and I think that parents should be allowed to withdraw both their children and the tax money they pay for their schooling and send both where they think their child will receive the best education. There are simply far too many bright and capable kids being wasted in mediocre schools that don't challenge them, or worse in war zone schools where being a high achiever is potentially dangerous.
I vacillate a little bit on the deeper question of whether there should be public schools at all. On the one hand, I tend to agree with John Stuart Mill, HL Mencken and others who argue that government-controlled education is a recipe for mediocrity and indoctrination in the views that most benefit the government. I don't trust our government to behave in the best interests of anyone but those who own it in any other context, why should I believe it acts for any other purpose in education? On the other hand, I'm not sure, at this late date, that we could effectively transition out of public schools and into any other type of system without widespread social dislocation.
Ed said: I think that public schools, in general, do a lousy job of educating and I think that parents should be allowed to withdraw both their children and the tax money they pay for their schooling and send both where they think their child will receive the best education. There are simply far too many bright and capable kids being wasted in mediocre schools that don't challenge them, or worse in war zone schools where being a high achiever is potentially dangerous.
I understand your view there. Admittedly I don't know a great deal about this issue.
I've had limited K-12 public teaching experience and only one stint in a private school.
But one problem I have witnessed is that public schools can't get rid of serious problem students like private schools can. I'm talking about the kind of student who disrupts the class and undermines respect, or is maybe even dangerous.
You get a few of those in one classroom and most of the instructors time is spent dealing with those disruptions and trying to catch the rest of the students up on their lesson objectives in between them. I found this to be the case anyway, especially in classes I taught and which are 'unpopular', such as science/math.
In public schools those students have to really go over the top before they're expelled and students are quite adept at riding that thin line for the entire term. You send the to the office and they're right back a few minutes later. You send them again and they're right back the next day. You send them for the Nth time and they do some detention, have a P/T conference (hopefully) and they're right back in your classroom the next week.
In private schools this is not the case.
We do a pretty good job in grades K-6 and start losing sizable chunks of students in math and science in middle school and especially in high school.
I'd be able to consider a compromise in the voucher program which allowed tax deductions for private school tuition up thru grade 6 or something along those lines.
In this rare instance I must disagree with you, Ed. We need public schools. Public schools are the only things preventing a further stratification of education in our country. With only private schools, our society would be further fragmented. Some kids would get a "Wal-Mart" education, while others would get the "(insert retailer of expensive, high-quality merchandise here; as a public school teacher, I am not familiar with any ;-) )" education. Public education has served our nation better than we have served it. Look at what we have achieved since public education became the norm!
Besides, the taxes that vouchers would siphon off do not belong to the parents of students; they are paid by everyone, even those with no children. Vouchers are analogous to someone who doesn't use the roads asking for a tax rebate to buy gas for his ultralite aircraft. Sorry, Buddy! You may not use the roads, but you benefit from their use by others. Likewise, the maintenance of public schools ensures an education opportunity for nearly everyone. Even in the worst schools, the educational opportunity is usually there for the taking. Sadly, many opt not to take it for myriad reasons that might be discussed in a post more directly related to public education.
I agree with Rob that " Public schools are the only things preventing a further stratification of education in our country." The poorer parents would have to find a school entirely covered by the voucher. Those with the means would kick in something more to get their kids into a better private school. But economic stratification is the least of the problems.
Looking at the consequences of vouchers here in our rural East Tenn community, I see how our Baptist Church would leap at the opportunity to expand it's K-3 school program to all 12 grades. Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterians or others who wouldn't want their children indoctrinated with the literal interpretation of the Bible philosophy would get together to form their own school. Members of the AME Church would be disinclined to send their kids to these Church schools with their all white congregations and prejudicial attitudes and would start up a school for their own children instead. Catholics would bus their kids to their parochial school in Dayton. Who knows what the couple who own the Chinese restaurant in town would do, or Hindus, Moslems and others with few other families who share their religious beliefs. Home schooling, perhaps? Small differences in beliefs can lead to large problems, especially where children are concerned. New schools which teach the "right" beliefs would continue to split off from the rest increasing this fragmentation.
No, Ed, vouchers which could go to religious schools would send the concept of e pluribus unum straight to the dumpster. Our Rhea County schools are now the gathering place for children from all religious, socioeconomic, racial and ethnic backgrounds where they learn to accommodate one another for the most part. I surely wouldn't want to change that with vouchers.
In this rare instance I must disagree with you, Ed. We need public schools. Public schools are the only things preventing a further stratification of education in our country. With only private schools, our society would be further fragmented. Some kids would get a "Wal-Mart" education, while others would get the "(insert retailer of expensive, high-quality merchandise here; as a public school teacher, I am not familiar with any ;-) )" education.
But that is already the case, is it not? The kids in the inner cities already get a Walmart education, while the kids in the suburbs get a Nordstrom's education. And as it stands now, the vast majority of kids have no choice in the matter at all. A bright and talented kid in a lousy urban school just doesn't have the same educational opportunity as even the mediocre students in a wealthy suburban school, and there's nothing he can do about it under the current system unless his parents can afford to send him to a private school, which most can't do. Vouchers would at least help rectify that for the best and the brightest, and that is frankly my biggest concern.
My second concern is that even the suburban Nordstrom's education is seriously weakened, to the point that even the top students can't measure up against the top students of a generation or two ago, or against the second tier students for that matter. Even in the better public schools, the overwhelming ethos is mediocrity, not excellence. Would vouchers fix that? Probaly not. But it at least allows the students who are capable of more get a more challenging education based upon their ability and not their parents' ability to pay for it.