A long winded response to Douglas, etal.

["John Danahy" <JDANAHY@turbonet.com>]

I thoroughly enjoyed the recent school board race.  This community has
always prided itself on tolerance and diversity.  This past election was
about one candidate's religious affiliation and who signed his petition.
With so many serious issues facing the district, why concentrate on the
trivial issue of religious affiliation?  Was it because the candidate was
not of a politically correct religion?  Cynically speaking, this lack of
tolerance made for a humorous race.  And yet, such lack of tolerance is not
one sided.

     Douglas has been waiting for someone to step up and defend his concept
of Modernity as a public school "religion".  Any such defense cannot succeed
because the assertions that support such a belief are based on a false
premises.  Douglas asserts that those who are educated in the public schools
are forced to accept Modernity as their core beliefs with Catholicism,
Islam, Judaism, etc. as individual condiments overlaying these "core
beliefs".  This particularly narrow point of view then assumes that we
cannot accept/reject individual facets of public education or those who
profess to such core beliefs.  To accept Douglas' points is to accept that
parents have no place in educating their children, that children and parents
have no free will, and to deny, in Douglas' own words, the infinite capacity
of children to learn.  A very "intolerant" view of those who have been in
public schools.

     It is, perhaps, intolerance that provokes intolerance in a never ending
circle.  To hold to a very narrow view of public education is sure to
provoke the fear/aggressive reaction of those who do not share this view
which in turn helps support the narrow view.  Within the words of Douglas
and others is a long history of intolerance.  From the many "crusades" to
liberate the "holy land" through five hundred years of bloodshed in northern
Ireland, many have died in the name of God!  Even today, between Israeli and
Palestinian, or between Muslim and Hindu, intolerance is practiced in the
name of God.  What next?  Shall our granddaughters strap dynamite to
themselves and wander the streets of Moscow looking for the "enemy"?  During
the next school board race, should we ask what church a candidate belongs to
or how the candidate thinks the district should balance its books?

     For it is balancing the books that started this discussion.  Yes, 3000
yes votes forced all of us to lower our standard of living.  Yes we were
coerced into paying more property taxes.  Why should we have to?  Are we
paying for a public education?  No we are not!  Stripped down to its lowest
point, we are paying for universal access to education.  That is what is
important and what has helped make this country so great.  The current form
is the public school district.  How much longer will this current form last?
Not much!  It is already facing its own demise.  Yet, no matter what form it
takes, we must protect universal access to education.  Privatizing education
will not provide universal access.  Some sort of voucher system may
eventually replace the current system, but devising this is not easy.
Vouchers paid to schools, public or private, will not work.  The very laws
that prohibit spending tax dollars on religious schools allow for religious
schools in the first place.  Parents increasingly want choices for their
children, and eventually we will have choices made available to all, not
just those who can afford them.

     Choices for all, or universal access, is what is important.  Consider
the 1.1 million dollar increase in local property taxes.  Children in home
schools, private schools, charter schools, attending public or private
universities for high school credit, will not benefit from this tax
increase.  When the population of such students reaches a critical mass,
then the district's refrain of "Give us more tax money or we will make your
children suffer!" will no longer succeed.  There wasn't anything positive
about the last levy vote!  It wasn't forward going, or a reaction to good
things happening in the district.  It wasn't because the district was
successful. Yet,still it passed, this time.  If people truly object to being
coerced, then change the laws of the state.  Elect those who will put an end
to coercion.  But don't put an end to universal access.

John Danahy
jdanahy@turbonet.com