RE: Government Schools, Modernity, & Beauty

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

What is interesting is that the quotes at the bottom from Debi Smith and Jerry Schutz disputing the assumption of atheism/agnosticism in the public schools are faithful, almost creedal expressions of the tenets of Modernity (again, for those not familiar with their faith of Modernity check, for example, the secular site: http://www.mac.edu/academ/ideas/ideas400.postmodern.html).

 

They both assume that the individual mind is the ultimate standard of knowledge, and they are being true to their fathers in the faith -- Descartes, Locke, Kant, etc. Their very statements show that they have embraced not neutrality but Modernity. And that’s fine. People can believe what they like. But let’s drop all this language about separation of religion and state.

 

The question, then, isn’t whether to fund a particular religion/faith/philosophy but which one? I just want Modernists to be honest and have the courage of their convictions. Stop the hypocrisy. Learn the tenets of your religion. Stop pretending that educational neutrality is possible. Say out loud: yes, we embrace Modernity everywhere as our faith, and we want the public schools to teach our faith, and we are going to force other religions to fund it.

 

But please note that when Bob Hoffman and others raise the “tough-that’s-the-system-go-to-jail” examples (highways, etc.) about fairness in taxation, they’re really missing the point. The point is not about tax fairness but rather about a contradiction in Modernist politics, namely, on the one hand, Modernists claim to oppose the state funding religious expressions (e.g., nativity scenes in public places are no-nos), yet on the other they want to force other faiths to fund public school Modernity. (And similarly, the point isn’t about teaching creation in the classroom. Asking Modernists to teach creation is like asking the Taliban to teach freedom of speech; both lack the requisite subtlety).

 

It is this sort of Modernist insincerity, while professing tolerance, that is forcing more and more people out of Modernity into other worldviews. But the first step toward recovery is recognizing the tenets of Modernity. Once we get to that point then we can compare worldviews and ask, most centrally, which best preserves truth, goodness, and beauty -- the heart of any local community. Beauty and the arts are especially central to living the good life as a local community. But Modernity is guaranteed to kill beauty, ugliness, and the arts. In a sense, we are funding public schools in order to kill artistic expression in Moscow. So if we don’t want our welcome signs – “The Heart of the Arts” – to become a laughing point, then we must give up on Modernity in Moscow’s long term vision. It doesn’t have the worldview framework necessary to support the arts (its successes have only come from smuggling in aspects of Christian Trinitarianism). As even many secularists have observed, Modernity is ugly, petty, and narrow. That’s a woefully inadequate framework for the arts.

 

Doug Jones

 

 

 

Debi Smith wrote:

 

>My children attended public schools, yet they are definitely not athiests. Due to the teaching we provided in our home (multi- religious and >tolerant), the now functional adults raised in my home have very strong spiritual beliefs of their own choosing. Public school helped them >understand that, as citizens of the USA, people have the freedom to choose a belief system.

 

Jerry Schutz wrote:

 

> As a product of the MSD281, I can say that I and many of my classmates have

> not become Atheists because of our education in MSD.  My personal feeling is

> whatever religion one chooses to learn and adhere to should be taught by the

> family not the school.