Sorry for being out of action so long, circumstances in life have seemed to conspire against me as of late. Give me a moment to re-read and re-ponder the ideas in your last post....
I think your point in the later half is very insightful and it serves a great purpose in sharpening and refining our discussion. In response to my point that Christ is not a universally acknowledged moral basis you succinctly say, "So?". You go on to point out that not everybody agrees that racism is wrong but that our public education system does it's best to teach that it is wrong, regardless of the values of the students, parents and teachers.
This raises a very interesting question: do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools? I don't know history well enough to cite good sources but I know that the busing program in the South (busing black students into schools in white neighborhoods for the purpose of integration) was met with fierce opposition at times from white parents. Did they have the right to that view? Did they have the right to act on that view and demand and advocate for this view in the public forum?
To more clearly connect this with the discussion at hand I think I'm just going to have to reiterate the question at the end of my first post: how do we figure out which values to teach in our public schools given a plurality of opinions on this subject? Moreover, how do we navigate our way through this process knowing that there are more than a few opinions that are diametrically opposed?
Implicit in this question is the value of the individual, a common view of many Americans. This liberty or freedom is one of the founding principles of this nation is probably one of the few things that most Americans perceive as one of the great strengths of this nation. A non-trivial number of the first persons to come to this land were making the pilgrimage to escape governments that would not allow for plurality of views when it came to religious beliefs. Many came for other reasons (economics being a common motivating factor) but it was called "The New World" for a reason: it was a new land full of potential and possibility. And when things got rough, this diverse group of people from nearly part of Europe formed a union that stood the trials of gaining independence from the motherland and continues to this day trying to form itself and it's identity.
The short reminder of history is meant only to make this point: this nation has, since its inception, been forced to deal with the problems of plurality of views in the public forum. Right or wrong, Biblical or otherwise, this IS the current situation of our nation. If you suggest, Dan, that we need to remove this freedom of opinion from our national values then you are suggesting that we fundamentally redefine our identity. Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle.
The big question then becomes exactly the same one I have mentioned above: how do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole; how do we make that transition from a plurality of views to a nation of a singular view?
I think your point in the later half is very insightful and it serves a great purpose in sharpening and refining our discussion. In response to my point that Christ is not a universally acknowledged moral basis you succinctly say, "So?". You go on to point out that not everybody agrees that racism is wrong but that our public education system does it's best to teach that it is wrong, regardless of the values of the students, parents and teachers.
This raises a very interesting question: do people who believe that racism is not wrong have the right to demand that their anti-racism value not be taught in the public schools? I don't know history well enough to cite good sources but I know that the busing program in the South (busing black students into schools in white neighborhoods for the purpose of integration) was met with fierce opposition at times from white parents. Did they have the right to that view? Did they have the right to act on that view and demand and advocate for this view in the public forum?
To more clearly connect this with the discussion at hand I think I'm just going to have to reiterate the question at the end of my first post: how do we figure out which values to teach in our public schools given a plurality of opinions on this subject? Moreover, how do we navigate our way through this process knowing that there are more than a few opinions that are diametrically opposed?
Implicit in this question is the value of the individual, a common view of many Americans. This liberty or freedom is one of the founding principles of this nation is probably one of the few things that most Americans perceive as one of the great strengths of this nation. A non-trivial number of the first persons to come to this land were making the pilgrimage to escape governments that would not allow for plurality of views when it came to religious beliefs. Many came for other reasons (economics being a common motivating factor) but it was called "The New World" for a reason: it was a new land full of potential and possibility. And when things got rough, this diverse group of people from nearly part of Europe formed a union that stood the trials of gaining independence from the motherland and continues to this day trying to form itself and it's identity.
The short reminder of history is meant only to make this point: this nation has, since its inception, been forced to deal with the problems of plurality of views in the public forum. Right or wrong, Biblical or otherwise, this IS the current situation of our nation. If you suggest, Dan, that we need to remove this freedom of opinion from our national values then you are suggesting that we fundamentally redefine our identity. Again, if this is a moral imperative then it is something that we need to demand be done but it will be a hard fought and difficult battle.
The big question then becomes exactly the same one I have mentioned above: how do we determine which views are to be held by the populous as a whole; how do we make that transition from a plurality of views to a nation of a singular view?
posted by Trevor Hardy at 1:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home