Theological Attack On Public Schools

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Visionaries:

I have received feedback from Doug Jones and others that certain theological 
discussions on vision2020 are not appropriate for the editorial restrictions 
it is thought should apply to this list.
Some have also implied vision2020 should be more of a community bulletin 
board than a online discussion group with detailed debates.

The Vision2020 home page contains the following wording:  "...to encourage 
more PUBLIC information and DEBATE about the future of Moscow and Latah 
County."  This statement contradicts the notion vision2020 should be 
restricted solely to the function of a community bulletin board.

Concerning the claim that theological debates are not appropriate for "nuts 
and bolts" discussions of Moscow's future, consider the impact on funding 
for Moscow's public education of certain religious groups in Moscow (via 
their votes), who have vocally stated their opposition to funding public 
schools, or what they sometimes term "government schools."  And also 
consider that the raison d'etre of this effort to withdraw financial support 
for the public schools is quite clearly asserted, by Doug Jones and Doug 
Wilson and others following their logic, to be some of the very theological 
ideas discussed on vision2020 that some want off the list.  I find it 
humorous that Doug Jones asserts that some of the theological debates he 
employs to undermine "agnostic" public education, are some of the very same 
debates he appears to define as not relevant for discussion on vision2020.

Trying to remove theology from discussion of Moscow's future is like saying 
we are going to discuss how to build and operate a gas engine by learning 
how to bolt and unbolt various parts, but not mention that the engine is 
powered by the potentially dangerous explosions of gasoline in a gaseous 
form.  Theology is the "gas" that powers the engine of certain church groups 
in Moscow that advocate the viewpoint that "education is inherently 
religious," that they "do not want religion taught in the government 
schools," which very simply leads us to the conclusion they advocate the 
dismantling of the public school system that constitutionally follows the 
separation of church and state.

I therefore conclude that debate on these theological issues is HIGHLY 
relevant to "...debate about the future of Moscow..." if you care about the 
shape of public education in Moscow's future.  No doubt many will object to 
the content or redundancies involved in such a debate, but Democratic public 
discussion is almost never neat, concise and efficient, or always friendly.

It has been suggested that vision2020 could split into a "community bulletin 
board" list and a "dialog or debate" list.  Sounds reasonable, but for now 
the vision2020 home page uses the phrase "...debate about the future of 
Moscow..." to suggest appropriate content, a phrase I take seriously to mean 
DEBATE, not dumbed down "sound bites" like what passes for discussion in the 
corporate video death ray news on CNN and FOX, etc.

Ted

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. 
http://www.hotmail.com