Re: vision2020-digest Ted Moffet

[Eric Engerbretson <votive@earthlink.net>]

Title: Re: vision2020-digest Ted Moffet

on 8/27/02 3:25 PM, Ted wrote:

> > 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

You rock, Ted.

Amen.

Eric E.