Re: Pluralism and Coercion

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

Visionaries

Yet another round of my thoughts.  Hope you enjoy, as some of you have
already indicated.  Thanks for the thoughts.  I must say again I so
immensely enjoy this conversation.  It keeps me thinking in the summer
state of "dumb".  ;o)

Where to start?

Doug Jones said:

"I've always been perplexed about mixing these sorts of assertions about
pluralism and tolerance in with discussions about public schools. We can't
really pretend anymore that these things mix. A levy, for example, now
involves coercing people who don't share your ideology to fund it. Genuine
pluralists -- people sincerely concerned about tolerance -- wouldn't dream
of forcing opponents to pay for a worldview they don't share."

I have always been perplexed when real efforts to include everyone (all
members of humanity) in an effort to provide an education (among many
other things) that those who would exclude based on whatever reason, be it
race, gender, religious orientation, sexual orientation, whatever, are
forever trying to "turn the tables" when they realize not everyone can be
dominated.  So now I'm being intolerant and persecuting a group because I
don't passively let them exclude me?  I can't speak on the purpose of the
levy (as I haven't seen it directly, nor was I an author) but I can tell
you the for me personally, I am not trying to get you to pay for a
worldview you don't share, but to pay for an education for our children
where as many worldviews as are willing can have a say, a voice, as are
possible.  Intolerance of intolerance is positive.

Doug Jones wrote:

"Imagine if local secularists were forced by levy to fund the private
religious schools. Moscow would immediately show up in national headlines,
the ACLU would descend, and news stories would drip with words like
"intolerance," "crusade," and "inquisition."

This is because in private religious schools, one worldview dominates at
the exclusion of others.  The purpose of public education (to contribute
to Ms. Melina's desire for discussion on this topic) is to (or should be)
educate the entirety of the public about all things, views, and opinions
as something to be considered.  So basically I agree with Doug, that a
Christian shouldn't be forced to pay for a Muslim-dominated education of
his/her child, nor should a Muslim pay for a Christian-dominated
education.  But I don't have a problem requiring the Muslim and the
Christian to pay for (in part) an education where each child learns about
the other ways of living that aren't his/her own and seeing that as valid,
not in the context of right or wrong.  Clearly help the child determine
what is right and wrong is a job for a parent and the ultimate dicission
is the child's.  This is how pluralism helps with tolerance.

Yours

Daniel